Down goes the Dow

Except that it doesn't seem to be working, and the big tech. which have way smaller returns and way less risk, have been delivering.

My bet is that for every 20 companies Cathy Wood buys, only maybe one will be a success to the levels you site.

I get it - a crapshoot, but the alternative seems to have some distinct advantages.

seattle prattle wrote:

Except that it doesn't seem to be workin

buddy.

that's why they call it "speculative" funds

seattle prattle wrote:

Except that it doesn't seem to be working, and the big tech. which have way smaller returns and way less risk, have been delivering.

My bet is that for every 20 companies Cathy Wood buys, only maybe one will be a success to the levels you site.

I get it - a crapshoot, but the alternative seems to have some distinct advantages.

And that's why we buy SARK. She buys these crap companies that are valued 10x what they're worth, with no regards to every price and randomly sells at a huge loss. For example, last week she sold TWTR at a 52 week low. I think she bought COIN above 400 and sold for a big loss. Sold SPCE for a bit loss right before it exploded last year. Kept buying PLTR in the high 20s and 30s and sold for a loss. Her one big winner, Tesla, used to be 10%+ of the fund but now it's only 8% because she has to sell it to average down on her losers. She used to have solid companies like NVDA and AMD but sold today before they exploded last year. Now there are no semiconductors in her disruptive ETF.

I'm not against the idea but she simply doesn't know how to buy low and sell high.

I’m invested in entire S&P500 vs QQQ or the FAANG. I did bet big on AMZN from 2014-2020 and also in TSLA.

But I’m in broad market now with leveraged funds in equity and bonds.

1. I made concentrated bet and now my fund is quite large for my age. I can diversify more and be okay.

2. I’m not too high on FAANG to continue to outpace the market in the long run. It may for few more years, but I don’t think it’ll be significant over the market and I think the risk is high being too concentrated in these companies. I believe they’re getting bloated. Especially with AMZN, too many negative press. No top tier SDEs want to work there. Many are leaving for better opportunities. I just think it’s too risky to continue to bet big on these companies. Besides, even being in broad S&P500, I think the big tech still make up like 20% so it’s enough exposure.

3. Im out of Cathie Wood type funds. All successful fund managers fail big time. Especially the ones that are risky. There’s been so many that have failed once they become famous for their extraordinary returns. I can do this though as my fund is fairly large now that I don’t have to rely on 100x type returns.

But I’m still planning on beating S&P on regular basis with my leveraged portfolio.

investing noob wrote:And that's why we buy SARK.

.....

I'm not against the idea but she simply doesn't know how to buy low and sell high.

Am I the only one who's amused by this post?

How much of your portfolio are you allocating to SARK? It’s definitely timing the market play with SARK.

It’s probably one of the dumbest fund to hold long term especially with how much ARKK has already fallen.

It’ll be interesting to see if SARK can beat S&P long term. It can definitely beat S&P in short term but I wouldn’t risk much money into it.

Racket is right on this one, it is the same strategy that a bunch of private equity uses when establishing, for example, defi portfolios.

43,876 USD bitcoin. Bitcoin has really revealed itself as a positively-correlated, even somewhat geared. For the time being, I think that it has "matured", and could likely settle in around this level, maybe up to 50k, until a real disruption comes one way or another. I think it is a foreshadowing of price stagnation with institutionalization, but I don't know enough about the ownership distribution to really say anything confidently.

DXY took a dump today.

Maseratl wrote:Bitcoin has really revealed itself as a positively-correlated, even somewhat geared...

Did you leave out the end of this sentence? I can't figure out what you mean.

Here you go Mas - your dream come true.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/turks-pile-into-bitcoin-and-tether-to-escape-plunging-lira-11641982077

It's 17% of my Roth, less than 1% of net worth. It's a fun hedge. I don't plan on keeping it forever. The meme stocks will eventually reverse.

VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:

investing noob wrote:And that's why we buy SARK.

.....

I'm not against the idea but she simply doesn't know how to buy low and sell high.

Am I the only one who's amused by this post?

Why? ARKK was down like 25% in 2021 when SPY was +27%. Does that look like she buys low and sells high?

1m

USA: -0.1%

US tech: -3.6%

Emerging: +3.0%

Emerging ex-China: +4.7%

Developed ex-USA: +2.7%

Looks like some rebalancing has thrown a lot of early-year money to non-USA markets.

That's a big gap for one month. Big gains in emerging ex-china.

So many people would be caught flat-footed if the US was a dog for a year and overseas rocked and rolled.

More evidence of an omicron slowdown, which von racket and I have been batting back and forth on:

Air travel in the US is getting off to a rocky start in the new year, with TSA reporting just 1.1M passengers went through its security checkpoints yesterday, which is the lowest since April 27. The cause for yesterday's extremely low volumes appears to be two-fold, as brutally cold weather forced the cancellation of many flights, while Omicron continued to also have a huge impact as many airline workers call in sick after testing positive for the variant. Even before the bad weather, however, TSA's numbers show passenger volumes so far in January are well below December and November's averages, due mostly to Omicron absenteeism. (

dan.molinski@wsj.com

)

Hey where's Igy?

Normally I cheer when people step away from the screens but not during a covid wave.

agip wrote:

More evidence of an omicron slowdown, which von racket and I have been batting back and forth on:

Air travel in the US is getting off to a rocky start in the new year, with TSA reporting just 1.1M passengers went through its security checkpoints yesterday, which is the lowest since April 27. The cause for yesterday's extremely low volumes appears to be two-fold, as brutally cold weather forced the cancellation of many flights, while Omicron continued to also have a huge impact as many airline workers call in sick after testing positive for the variant. Even before the bad weather, however, TSA's numbers show passenger volumes so far in January are well below December and November's averages, due mostly to Omicron absenteeism. (

dan.molinski@wsj.com

)

Am I winning or losing?

Prof. Racket wrote:

agip wrote:

More evidence of an omicron slowdown, which von racket and I have been batting back and forth on:

Air travel in the US is getting off to a rocky start in the new year, with TSA reporting just 1.1M passengers went through its security checkpoints yesterday, which is the lowest since April 27. The cause for yesterday's extremely low volumes appears to be two-fold, as brutally cold weather forced the cancellation of many flights, while Omicron continued to also have a huge impact as many airline workers call in sick after testing positive for the variant. Even before the bad weather, however, TSA's numbers show passenger volumes so far in January are well below December and November's averages, due mostly to Omicron absenteeism. (

dan.molinski@wsj.com

)

Am I winning or losing?

oh, you're losing.

You've been poo-pooing the idea that omicron is slowing economic activity

I've been saying that omicron has indeed been keeping people home, probably spending less moolah.

Although omicron is fading fast in the Northeast so this will end pretty quickly.

agip wrote:

Hey where's Igy?

Normally I cheer when people step away from the screens but not during a covid wave.

He was really taking it on the chin there for awhile. Self-inflicted of course. He’ll be back. His ego won’t allow him to say silent.

investing noob wrote:Does that look like she buys low and sells high?

Since it doesn't seem obvious, let me be more explicit about what I found amusing. You're criticizing CW for an inability to buy low and sell high, and 80% of your input in this thread is looking for random, anonymous advice on what to trade, without giving any evidence of having your own ability to buy low and sell high.

Pot.... kettle.... ?

Anyway, I find this amusing. Maybe just me.

Feels like I'm being mean, picking on the kid who eats his boogers in public. ;-) I say that lovingly, imagining that your LRC persona is all just a big put on, so that you couldn't possibly take me seriously, I hope. If any of this lands too close to the truth, I take it all back and apologize, as I really don't mean to offend.

Sounds like you took something he said about 1000x more seriously than you should have.

Not to mention nothing what you said invalidates what he said (although if he himself sucks at trading then it could make him a hypocrite I suppose).

Cathy fell for one of the oldest and meanest tricks in the book - believing in your own bullsh!t. It's entirely self-inflicted which makes it sting worse than others.