checkAd

ARK Invest: ARKK etc "active" ETF's: die "Disruptors"-Blase am US-Markt (Seite 15)

eröffnet am 16.12.20 13:08:27 von
neuester Beitrag 10.06.21 19:08:33 von

Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben


  • 1
  • 15
  • 17

Begriffe und/oder Benutzer

 

Fragen

 Ja Nein
Avatar
31.12.20 01:20:32
Beitrag Nr. 23 ()
Hmm sieht wirklich nach einer Bestätigung des Abwärtstrends aus.....

Aber was weiß man schon>>>siehe Börsenjahr 2020

Ich würde aber den Wahnsinn noch nicht ganz abschrieben, denn die Stimulus check`s werden demnächst den Amerikaner erreichen, könnte in Crypto und den Börsen-Hype fließen, was einer Fortsetzung bedeuten könnte...
Gewiss nach: "Unterschätze nie die Macht dummer Leute, die einer Meinung sind"
ARK Innovation | 127,10 $
Avatar
31.12.20 00:27:06
Beitrag Nr. 22 ()
:D



ARK's Innovation ETF Posts $137 Million Outflow On Tuesday, Its Largest On Record
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/arks-innovation-etf-posts-…
ARK Innovation | 127,10 $
Avatar
29.12.20 20:54:10
Beitrag Nr. 21 ()
Danke faultcode für alle deine Posts!

Du bist einer der noch wenigen die die Sachen nicht emotional sehen, sondern pragmatisch, bin gespannt wie all das Enden wird mit der Euphorie...
ARK Innovation | 123,78 $
Avatar
29.12.20 20:50:18
Beitrag Nr. 20 ()
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 66.227.865 von faultcode am 29.12.20 17:35:11
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/arkk-starting-sink-innovat…
ARK Innovation | 123,78 $
3 Antworten
Avatar
29.12.20 17:35:11
Beitrag Nr. 19 ()
es ist nicht zu übersehen:

• in der vermeintlich ruhigen Zeit "zwischen den Jahren" laden (einige) Hedgies (in den USA) bei einigen Blubber-Blasen-Werten ab:




aber wie zuvor wird es (mMn) erst bei Verteidigung der SMA50-Trendlinie interessant.

nebenbei: der ETF notiert heute Ex-Date: https://screener.fidelity.com/ftgw/etf/goto/snapshot/distrib…

sagenhafte $2.0443 an Dividende gab es:

ARK Innovation | 123,32 $
4 Antworten
Avatar
29.12.20 17:22:56
Beitrag Nr. 18 ()
ARK Innovation | 124,00 $
Avatar
29.12.20 17:20:49
Beitrag Nr. 17 ()
ARK Innovation | 124,30 $
Avatar
26.12.20 21:36:46
Beitrag Nr. 16 ()
zurück zu ARK:

• auch hier beobachtet jemand die Geldzuflüsse und Positions-Veränderungen bei ARK (hedgemind.com ist aber eine Shill-Seite):

@HedgeMind
https://twitter.com/HedgeMind/status/1342608031113068544



=> TSLA mag sie nicht mehr so anscheinend


Manche Replies sind auch interessant, z.B.: she = Cathie Wood/ARK:

In a recent interview with bloomberg, she referred to allocating to FAANG as a cash equivalent. The allocation to aapl and googl may be that belief in action.

=> das beobachtet man auch bei wirklich großen Instis, wie z.B Notenbanken oder Staatsfonds. Die halten immer weniger U.S. Treasuries und fingen seit der Krise 2008/9 an, ihre U.S. dollar-Bestände (aus den Export-Überschüssen in die USA z.B.) zunehmend in FAANG- und "Big 5"-Aktien anzulegen:



~Juli 2020


Die Staatsschulden der USA landen dafür zunehmend bei der FED (blau) in Tendenz (wie auch bei der EZB, BoJ etc.):


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=jwG3&utm_campaign=myfre…
ARK Innovation | 133,03 $
Avatar
26.12.20 21:01:20
Beitrag Nr. 15 ()
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 66.198.076 von faultcode am 26.12.20 20:20:01(1c): Ära der Dot-com bubble: Munder Capital Management und InfoSpace (damals INSP an der Nasdaq):

• heutzutage ist halt sowas immer/viel mit Social media garniert, ungleich globaler und damit irgendwie vielfach größer

Es gibt ja dabei immer gewisse Ähnlichkeiten, hier z.B. die Symbiose zwischen einem Mode-Fonds und einer heißen Aktie:

• damals eben der Munder NetNet Fund und InfoSpace

• und heute ARK Invest und Tesla?



https://www.financetrendsletter.com/2014/04/round-trip-stock…

der Original-Artikel mit animiertem Chart wie oben in der Seattle Times wurde wohl gelöscht, wie auch die Übersichtsseite. Man kann Teile der Serie "Dot-con job" von 2005 aber noch hier lesen mit weiteren Links:
https://special.seattletimes.com/o/html/businesstechnology/2… (*)

aus dem Chart:

Publicly, founder Naveen Jain was claiming InfoSpace would become a monopoly in an emerging wireless Internet business, making it the world's first trillion-dollar company.


ansonsten:


http://getsplithistory.com/INSP


(*) Dot-con job: How InfoSpace took its investors for a ride
Originally published March 6, 2005 at 12:00 am Updated May 4, 2010 at 9:22 am
Five years ago this week, at the height of the dot-com stock frenzy, a young Bellevue company called InfoSpace was worth more than Boeing...
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/dot-con-job-how-infosp…
...
• InfoSpace officials misled Wall Street and the public about how their company was doing, concealing that revenues were falling far short of expectations.

• Much of InfoSpace’s reported revenue came from “lazy Susan” deals, whereby company officials invested in other firms that turned around and gave back the same money.

• Wall Street analysts, including famed dot-com guru Henry Blodget of Merrill Lynch, privately expressed grave concerns about InfoSpace while at the same time publicly touting its stock. In a private e-mail to colleagues, Blodget asked, “Is this really a world-class company, or just a world-class storyteller?” Soon after, he gave InfoSpace stock his highest rating.

• While investors clamored to buy InfoSpace’s highly touted stock, company insiders were unloading it. Two executives later angled to get around trading restrictions by asking for demotions to sell stock before its value evaporated.

...



Naveen Jain, der Elon Musk von damals? - nur mit tatsächlichem Engineering degree :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naveen_Jain
...
A shareholder filed a lawsuit against InfoSpace and many of its executives, including Jain, in 2001. The shareholder alleged Jain misled shareholders about the company's financials, then profited by selling his own shares at their peak. This led to a series of additional lawsuits[12] and the board dismissed Jain from his CEO position in 2002 in response.[12] Jain was forced out by InfoSpace's board as chairman and CEO in December 2002.[13]

In 2003 Jain was ordered to pay $247 million for violations in "short-swing trading rules", whereby he bought and sold stocks within six months as an employee with insider knowledge. In appeals court the Securities and Exchange Commission submitted a brief taking Jain's side,[3] which led to a settlement for $105 million.[14][15][16][17]

Jain said his stock purchasing was a mistake due to bad advice from his legal and financial advisors.[4] Following the settlement, Jain sued his stock management company and lawyers for alleged negligence in their handling of the case, but lower courts and the Supreme Court dismissed his case.[15][18]

In March 2003, InfoSpace sued Jain and others for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets from InfoSpace to start Intelius and for violating their non-compete agreement. A court found no evidence that Intelius and Infospace competed with one another and the case was dismissed.[19]

In December 2004, an $83 million settlement was reached between InfoSpace and Jain, which would result in dismissal of all the cases, including the one from the shareholder, with prejudice.[12]



=> man sieht:
• auch damals musste niemand (in den USA) für das Verkaufen von Tulpenzwiebeln und dabei mit Verstößen gegen Gesetze ins Gefängnis; man wurde (am besten) Milliardär und zahlte später ein paar Millionen
ARK Innovation | 133,03 $
Avatar
26.12.20 20:20:01
Beitrag Nr. 14 ()
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 66.197.884 von faultcode am 26.12.20 19:38:42(1b): Ära der Dot-com bubble: Munder Capital Management (Bellevue, Washington USA)

2.9.2013
Munder NetNet Fund and other financial failures
https://financialpat.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/munder-netnet-…
...
For my example of a skyrocket I’m going to use one of the darlings of the dot.com boom, the Munder NetNet Fund. The Munder NetNet Fund was created and co-managed by Paul Cook, and was a fund based entirely on internet stocks. Founded in the late 90’s, internet stocks seemed to be on an unspeakable high. No matter what happened, the Munder NetNet fund seemed like a perfect fund. Paul Cook became a household name on the success of the fund, and everyone wanted to get in on it.

But anyone who was really looking could tell that internet stocks were on their way out. The fund was riding a bubble.

But the information about that fact was not as interesting as the fact that the fund had made tons of money. One of its top holdings was Infospace, a Bellevue internet company that was estimated to be worth more than Boeing.

In March of 2000 the fund was worth $10 billion and the Munder NetNet fund managers announced that they would be closing the fund to keep it from getting too large. But they didn’t close it right away, nor did they simply set an asset ceiling like most funds do when they announce a closing.

No, they said they would close it in a month.

Now, for a skyrocket fund this was the worst possible thing that could happen to uninformed investors. See, what keeps a bubble going is the fact that people think it will keep going forever. They think that the longer they stay out of it, the more money they didn’t make, the more money they essentially lost. They get scared that if they don’t get in on it before it is too late they’ll miss out.

So, given that kind of environment, it makes sense that an announcement like this would feed on investors fears and generate a rush of new investors as people tried to get into the fund before it was too late.

The problem? This close precisely coincided with the peak of the internet stock market. All of those people who rushed in because they were afraid to lose money would end up losing it all.

As mundernetnetfund.com states, from April 2000 “to the end of the year, those newly invested billions disappeared as the fund tumbled 54% in value. The next year it would drop another 48%, the next 45%. The Munder NetNet fund lost 90% of its starting value and billions of dollars over the following three years.

Was the closing done on purpose? It’s hard to tell. But what isn’t hard to tell is that the fund was obviously over-hyped. Here was a skyrocket, and anyone with the knowledge to look at it logically knew that it was going to explode.

The trick to recognize with funds like this one is to ask yourself, would I invest in this if everyone wasn’t talking about it? Am I only investing because I’m afraid of not investing? Does this fund seem like it is way too good to be true?

Investing in funds like the Munder NetNet Fund is an aggressive strategy, and is okay in bits. However, such funds should only be about 2-5% of your overall strategy. And under no circumstances should you end up giving all of your portfolio to an aggressive fund (~).

...

(~) siehe auch:
25.8.2013
Report: #1078889 -- Complaint Review: Munder NetNet Fund - Bellevue Washington
https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/munder-netnet-fund/bell…
ARK Innovation | 133,03 $
1 Antwort
  • 1
  • 15
  • 17
 DurchsuchenBeitrag schreiben


ARK Invest: ARKK etc "active" ETF's: die "Disruptors"-Blase am US-Markt