Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Cathie Wood Boosts Robinhood Dip Buying With Stock at Record Low

edited January 2022 in Other Investing

“Wood’s firm ARK Investment Management bought nearly 2.44 million Robinhood shares on Friday, the most since its stock market debut in July, according to trading data from Ark compiled by Bloomberg. The buying came on a day when the firm’s stock at one point dropped below $10, before staging a rebound in line with the broader U.S. market. Robinhood still trades 67% below its initial public offering price and ranks among the worst high-profile global stock market debuts during the pandemic, joining the likes of China’s Didi Global Inc. and London’s THG Plc.”



  • edited January 2022
    ALL 42 holdings of Cathie Wood's ARKK are down YTD as of 1/28/22 (M* data).

    It peaked at $159.70 on 2/16/21, closed at $94.59 on 12/31/21, day-high was $97.17 on 1/3/22, and close was $68.91 on 1/28/22 (Stockcharts data).

    Loss from peak -56.85%, YTD loss -27.15%, loss from Jan 3 high -29.08%.
  • What else peaked in February 2021? The EMs. Although ARKK doesn't have any EM stocks, the same speculative fervor that drove the EMs to February 2021 peak also drove ARKK. But then the Nasdaq peaked in early-November and ARKK was crushed again. So, there were 2 selloffs in ARKK, post-February and post-November (still continuing?).,QQQ&id=p81561262402
  • With the Q's down 10+% for the month AND ARKK arguably invested in the most speculative issues within them is anyone really surprised that her fund is being crushed as it is? Do you give her credit for sticking with her investment thesis like you do for Hussman and Grantham who have been wobbly wrong for how long again? Arguably she does stick her views and opinions right out there nearly begging for it but so do many others.

    BTW - her fund pulled in some additional $168 million in January to date.

    Matt Murray, WSJ: "Over the past week, with prices in Cathie Woods’ ARK Innovation ETF back at mid-2020 levels, investors have put about $168 million into the fund, boosting its net assets to $11.8 billion—a noteworthy vote of confidence for a fund that has dropped 27% this month and lost half its value over the past year, as its brand of investing in largely unprofitable, untested firms has fallen out of favor. "
  • edited February 2022
    Is there no fiduciary responsibility to represent an investment offering in as objective a manner as possible - including mention of potential risks?

    I ask after viewing a more than hour-long interview with Wood on CNBC Today. My Lord - she comes across as a carnival barker with an evangelical bent (although she avoided mention of God). I can imagine many vulnerable individuals having been lulled into buying ARKK near its highest valuations.

    What else to say? I’m sure all managers believe in what they’re buying. But I’ve never seen such “zeal” (for lack of a better word) on their part and literally no attention paid to risks. This is certainly not the way TRP depicts their higher octane funds. Yes - The ARKK Prospectus would mention risks - assuming anyone reads it. If you’re inclined to gamble in the first place, maybe not.

    This is not to criticize AARK’s holdings. As I’ve said before, most anything that falls over 50% from peak will experience a rebound. So chances are good here if you can hang on long enough. I hope Gensler will take a look at this overall issue. Couple Robinhood with ARKK and you can do a lot of damage to the unsuspecting retail investor. FWIW - CNBC seemed to be pandering to Wood. A few softball questions. She talked pretty much non-stop. How does an hour-long show like this differ from outright solicitation?

    PS - And BTW - How about a requirement that CNBC (or other media outlet) add a prominent disclaimer somewhere in the interview telling viewers to “Be sure to read the Prospectus before investing or sending money”? No doubt they’ve covered their legal *** with a more generic disclaimer somewhere in their programming.
  • The best questions in that interview are from Josh and the moderator did not give time to answer his second question but kept repeating his own hysterical softball questions for the purpose of increasing outrage / viewership - survivor bias I guess. Too bad that even these financial media (CNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg) seem to operate the way Facebook operates (targeting hysteria, outrage, fear, and other extreme human emotion). Not sure if the world has always been this way because I only started paying attention (consuming media) recently.
  • edited February 2022
    I’m not a trained interviewer. Maybe you are. But a Chris Wallace or Jon Stewart would have drilled down more and not allowed her to talk 90% + of the time. To some extent I think the issue of interviewer quality or effectiveness evades the larger issue of even-handed depiction of the asset being touted, including reward and risk potential.
  • edited February 2022
    The interviewer was the source of the lackluster nature of the episode. I started watching that show only recently and I watch it for the investors / traders / money managers on the show and not for the host. After that interview, I am less certain if she is a right manager for me.
  • disclaimer From @hank above The message at the bottom of the tube that appears & just as fast disappears,with the written word so small one would need a magnify glass to read it ,or is it time to get my eyes checked ?
  • @hank, I'm not certain that those stocks that are held in Wood's ETFs will be ok in the long run...any stock can go to Zero. But she might have one or two early Amazon's in her holdings...

    I certainly remember back in the late 90's...had some close friends who worked for a company that at one point had a market cap of ~$9B, 1300 assoc, up 1500% from its IPO., stock price just under $300 share..on paper their options easily worth over a MIL which was real good money back then...they bought the boat, extra land in Austin etc...then a few years later Poof...stock price in single gets sold for ~$300M...options underwater, nada, nix, nothing, zero....

    @Mark, curious, what age range, demographic do you think most holders of Wood's ETF's are? I have no idea but would guess that most are younger as folks like me who saw that movie genre in the mid-late 90's and the early ought's I'm guessing are staying away.

    One thing I am starting to think I might agree with her that there are already signs of economic slow down...this talk of multiple rate way can that happen. The stonk market is going to dive...JP then holds off on more rate hikes....but.but.but, the inflation is out of control... stagflation, more than likely, no?

    I hope it works out for everyone, good luck!

    Baseball Fan
  • A bit in the minority, but I thought the interview was very came away with an understanding of her investment philosophy...letting her "talk her book" so to speak. Mind you, I wouldn't buy her book, but there was appropriate questioning from the half-time group to make sure the audience knew that the market was bludgeoning her picks. She's picking stocks with her eyes on the future.
  • Off 6.44% today. Her fans must be jumping with joy that they can buy some more on the cheap. Doesn’t get much better than this!
  • edited February 2022
    @BF - purely a guess as I have no idea either. I think her funds and the reasons she's given for creating them (i.e. innovators & disrupters) would appeal to a younger audience. I also believe that she appeals to the 'momentum' crowd of investors especially because her holdings and philosophy are totally transparent and open to view on a daily basis. I give her credit for that even if I don't always agree, or should I say understand, her selections.
  • Hi @BaluBalu
    You noted: "(CNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg) seem to operate the way Facebook operates (targeting hysteria, outrage, fear, and other extreme human emotion). Not sure if the world has always been this way because I only started paying attention (consuming media) recently."
    We all have different impressions of presentations by person(s) "x". Tis why so many forms of comedy exist, eh?
    Give yourself at least 120 hours of viewing time per program, at different times of the day, for any of the the programs you mentioned.
    My ongoing preference for cerebral/intellectual commentators and their chosen guest(s) remains with Bloomberg. Too many parts Fox and CNBC are less cerebral presentations relative to the hosts, IMHO. Although both do have some decent thinkers periodically.
    Let me know when you find any of the "hysteria, outrage, fear, and other extreme human emotion" at Bloomberg regarding business reporting.
    Let us know your opinion in another 6 months or a year, your opinion of the various business networks presentations.

    Remain curious,

  • @Baseball_Fan - Thanks for your thoughts. I follow the drift. Bright prospects can sometimes turn into dumpsters. I like the idea behind ARKK. On the other hand I’ve always strived for a low volatility portfolio. Gets back to @Derf’s point in another thread about being able to sleep well at night. Watching Wood for over an hour didn’t sit well. I suppose she has admirers. To each his own. But I’d not be comfortable having her managing my money or anything else.
  • In the interview she indicated that she had been in the money management business in the 80s and 90s.

    @catch 22, Thanks for your note.
  • According to MS, a "respected fund" like MGGPX (which I own) is down 16.47 YTD while ARKW (which I also own) is down 26.34. Over 5 years, MGGPX is up 17.69 while ARKW is up 29.92. There's not much to see here based on past performance; it is what was to be expected. CW bashing is unjustified (at this point). As many have said before me, you are what your record says you are. CW's record has been stellar, and as I've also said before, one should expect extreme volatility in any fund up 157% in any given year.
  • edited February 2022
    wxman123 said:

    CW bashing is unjustified (at this point

    @wxman123 - Kindly point out where you see “bashing” here.

    CNBC advertised this as a 90 minute interview. Absent commercials and moderator’s questions CW was given at least 60 minutes of largely uninterrupted nationally broadcast air time to promote her investing methods / funds.

    My question (posted yesterday) was simply whether more should be done in these types of shows to inform investors that the speaker is presenting “best case” outcomes and that there are also substantial risks associated with those investments.You and I know that. But I don’t think we should assume that the tens of thousands of viewers who happened to watch all do. I’d be just as concerned had David Giroux or Mario Gabelli been allowed to talk for an hour or more promoting their funds without adequate attention being paid to the risks involved.

    Here’s a link to a partial transcript from yesterday’s program. I don’t think CNBC allows free access to previous interviews, but if someone can prove me wrong and link the entire interview it would be appreciated.


    Some of us remember the class with which Louis Rukeyser conducted his Wall Street Week program In the 70s - 90s. Representatives of mutual funds or other financial products were given about 10 minutes one-on-one with Lou. Usually the questions weren’t hard hitting, but on several occasions he did drill down. Another 10 minutes was spent with a panel of four highly qualified investment experts questioning said presenter in a round table setting. The show ran 30 minutes and did not have commercials. To me this is a better way to let them air their product to the public than what transpired at CNBC yesterday.

  • edited February 2022
    @hank who asked "My question (posted yesterday) was simply whether more should be done in these types of shows to inform investors the speaker is presenting “best case” outcomes and that there are also substantial risks associated with those investments."

    I don't watch any of these shows or the likes of Cramer, etc. etc. but do any of them display or proclaim the things you'd like to see? Do any of them have a running billboard at the bottom of the screen stating "Past performance blah, blah, blah........."?

    You also called into question the interviewer allowing the interviewee what seemed to be excessive time to answer the questions being asked. You intimated that it was too, too much. I confess to ignorance about the interview process but it seems to me that allowing the person being interviewed time to talk is the point. I hate it, absolutely hate it when the interviewer constantly interrupts and never lets the interviewee answer the questions. I don't watch debates for the same reason. I allow that it could just be my upbringing.
  • edited February 2022
    Hi @Mark - I’m a dedicated Bloomberg viewer. Bloomberg is more focused on the broad macro-view as it affects investors (interest rates, Fed policies, commodity prices, sectors, company leadership , etc.). To even interview a fund manager during the business day is rare. I’ve never known them to devote more than 10 minutes to one during the trading day when most viewers tune in.

    Bloomberg does present some good 30-minute interviews with investment and business professionals (ie Mary Barra, Jeremy Grantham, Howard Marks). David Rubinstein, a prominent investor in his own right, is one of their interviewers. These shows are usually presented evenings or weekends so as not to interfere with the more prominent daily business news.

    The focus in a Bloomberg interview is much different. They usually present a much more circumspect appraisal of investment climate, trends, events and investing style. If it’s an investment product under discussion, the interviewers bring up both the potential favorable and non-favorable outcomes. Often the interviewee does the same. You don’t get the feeling you’re being “sold” something.

    PS - @Mark - There’s a link to a partial transcript in my earlier post. If you or others are happy with how the interview went, I’m cool with it. AFAIK I’ve received 0 votes here for better disclosure. I’m cool with that too. Not a “CW basher”. Not qualified to comment on her methodology. Have never met or seen her personally.
  • Howdy folks,

    Gonna date myself but . . .

    I don't know this woman nor very much about her. I've seen her quite often on CNBC speaking from position with everyone bowing to her. I haven't had the slightest interest in her offerings.

    She reminds me of some folks we knew back in the 90's. Kevin Landis, Henry Blodget, Dan Niles, etc.

    Just saying,

  • edited February 2022

    I enjoy viewing The David Rubinstein Show.
    The show has interesting guests from various walks of life (business, arts, philanthropy, politics, etc.)
    Mr. Rubinstein's thoughtful interview sessions are insightful.

  • @wxman123 - Kindly point out where you see “bashing” here.

    "My Lord - she comes across as a carnival barker with an evangelical bent (although she avoided mention of God). I can imagine many vulnerable individuals having been lulled into buying ARKK near its highest valuations."
  • edited February 2022
    wxman123 said:

    @wxman123 - Kindly point out where you see “bashing” here.

    "My Lord - she comes across as a carnival barker with an evangelical bent (although she avoided mention of God). I can imagine many vulnerable individuals having been lulled into buying ARKK near its highest valuations."

    +1 Thanks. I guess you’re right. I’ll have no more to say about this CW.

    “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

    There exists of course another (infamous) CW in the world of entertainment.
  • All,

    With all due respect who cares if someone expresses strong opinions here. We calls it like we sees it, no?

    Last I checked there's a little document that makes mention of freedom of speech

    That being said I'd agree there's an unwritten code of decorum and common decency and I'd like to think that's what wax is referring to


    Baseball Fan
  • I have no problem with strong opinions. In fact, CW may well deserve them in time. What bothers me the most for now (as Cramer pointed out) was her utter lack of humility. She will either turn out right ala her Tesla call (she says this is currently the greatest misallocation of capital in history) or she will be more like the PBHG special fund (remember that one fellow old-timers?). "Special" alright. I'm putting my "gambling" money on CW given her still-relevant outperformance, but no more than that.
  • edited February 2022
    Just to chime in, I’d earlier incorrectly denied “bashing” CW and asked @wxman123 to point it out if it had occurred. So, he was kindly responding to me and my earlier false denial. On the larger issue @Baseball_Fan raises.

    Let freedom ring. But also let decorum reign.

    (In defense, my “bash” was intended only to critique her media & communication skills as I perceived them at that moment. But I can understand how that may have appeared an attack on her character or her investment methodology.)
Sign In or Register to comment.