4 ms·

NNDM is an example. Hasn't seen any growth despite having a marketable product over their entire 8 year timeframe. Worth ~2B right now despite only making ~3.4M

by Rury 6y ago

NNDM is an example. Hasn't seen any growth despite having a marketable product over their entire 8 year timeframe. Worth ~2B right now despite only making ~3.4M in revenue per year and losing ~50M per year. All thanks, to becoming apart of ARKK.

superdimwit 6y ago
ARKK is far from passive
- Rury 6y ago
  Sure it is. The money you put into it is placed for you. That's passive. The fund itself may algorithmically place it in various things, but that's outside your control. Conversely, look at super undervalued companies like JKS and CSIQ. JKS is the largest and fastest growing solar company in the world BTW. Yet these companies sit mostly under foreign market ETFs which have never been very popular, and hence why they largely remain undervalued.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - fighterpilot 6y ago
    That's not the definition of passive investing, what you're talking about is the distinction between agency trading and proprietary trading. ARKK are active investors because they're using discretion to pick specific investments. They say so themselves: "ARKK is an actively managed ETF"
fighterpilot 6y ago
NNDM has nothing to do with passive investors. It's bid up by retail hype.
- Rury 6y ago
  Nope, recent prices are largely correlated to ARK activity. Price decreases have largely been due to the 11! offerings NNDM has recently made, to tap ARK investors money. https://cathiesark.com/ark-combined-holdings-of-nndm https://cathiesark.com/ark-combined-holdings-of-nndm
  - fighterpilot 6y ago
    NNDM is heavily retail driven, it's been a fan favorite for a year. Their institutional ownership is only 10%[1]. It's similar to IBIO, NKLA, etc, where there's some attention from funds but retail hype on social media is driving it up. ARKK has been buying NNDM, yes, but: - they're not passive. they're active. - they only own 5% of the stock. almost any public stock will have at least 5% owned by some fund, so it's not notable and doesn't disprove the notion that it's retail driven. - ARKK are known to pile into retail frenzy stocks, so that correlation is going to exist often. [1] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/institutional-holdings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/instituti...
    - Rury 6y ago
      Institutional Ownership % doesn't mean squat as far as trading activity goes. You and I could trade 1 share back and forth a billion times a day, and it wouldn't have any impact on institutional ownership %. The vast majority of trade activity recently is from ARK. You can see this by looking at the link I showed and compare the strong correlation in rising stock prices and ARK buying. Alternatively any retail investors that jumped in, likely did so from news of ARK buying.
      - fighterpilot 6y ago
        > Institutional Ownership % doesn't mean squat as far as trading activity goes. You and I could trade 1 share back and forth a billion times, and it wouldn't have any impact on institutional ownership %. We're talking about pricing/valuation, not trading volume. Institutional ownership does convey relevant information in regards to valuation, because it tells you who bought and didn't later sell, and therefore who contributed net buy flow over the last year. Trades that get closed (i.e., trades that contribute to volume but not ownership) don't have permanent price impact in expectation, and are therefore not useful for answering the question of "why is this stock so high for no good reason?". > The vast majority of trade activity recently is from ARK. You can see this by looking at the link I showed and compare how their "WEIGHT IN PROTFOLIO %' dropped despite their "SHARES HELD" has remained constant. I don't get this logic. If portfolio % drops but shares held remained constant, that means they largely stopped trading NNDM and increased the size of their other (non-NNDM) holdings. Also, that link shows they traded only a few million in volume in March in NNDM, but total NNDM volume over that month was in the hundreds of millions. So they only traded 1-2% of total volume. > Dilution reduces Institutional Ownership %, as well as individuals ownership % Why do you say this? If they do an at-the-market offerring and sell it on-market primarily to retail bids, the retail ownership % will increase proportionally.
nradov 6y ago
NNMD is a weak example. Out of the top 10 mutual fund holders only FNCMX is a passive index fund. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NNDM/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NNDM/ And FNCMX is relatively small with only $11B in assets. So if you want us to take your argument seriously you'll have to provide a better example.
- Rury 6y ago
  >Out of the top 10 mutual fund holders only FNCMX is a passive index fund Uh... KOMP is the 3rd largest holder of NNDM and a passive fund. But regardless, whether these are passive/active is besides the point. Which is that most investment activity nowadays happen through vehicles that act as a basket of equities, and because of this, some of this money ends up flowing into bad equities given the vast majority of them don't trade on any sound fundamentals. I mean ARK surely doesn't, despite being actively managed.

by Rury 6y ago

superdimwit 6y ago

ARKK is far from passive

Rury 6y ago
Sure it is. The money you put into it is placed for you. That's passive. The fund itself may algorithmically place it in various things, but that's outside your control. Conversely, look at super undervalued companies like JKS and CSIQ. JKS is the largest and fastest growing solar company in the world BTW. Yet these companies sit mostly under foreign market ETFs which have never been very popular, and hence why they largely remain undervalued.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  That's not the definition of passive investing, what you're talking about is the distinction between agency trading and proprietary trading. ARKK are active investors because they're using discretion to pick specific investments. They say so themselves: "ARKK is an actively managed ETF"

fighterpilot 6y ago

NNDM has nothing to do with passive investors. It's bid up by retail hype.

Rury 6y ago
Nope, recent prices are largely correlated to ARK activity. Price decreases have largely been due to the 11! offerings NNDM has recently made, to tap ARK investors money. https://cathiesark.com/ark-combined-holdings-of-nndm https://cathiesark.com/ark-combined-holdings-of-nndm
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  NNDM is heavily retail driven, it's been a fan favorite for a year. Their institutional ownership is only 10%[1]. It's similar to IBIO, NKLA, etc, where there's some attention from funds but retail hype on social media is driving it up. ARKK has been buying NNDM, yes, but: - they're not passive. they're active. - they only own 5% of the stock. almost any public stock will have at least 5% owned by some fund, so it's not notable and doesn't disprove the notion that it's retail driven. - ARKK are known to pile into retail frenzy stocks, so that correlation is going to exist often. [1] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/institutional-holdings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/instituti...
  - Rury 6y ago
    Institutional Ownership % doesn't mean squat as far as trading activity goes. You and I could trade 1 share back and forth a billion times a day, and it wouldn't have any impact on institutional ownership %. The vast majority of trade activity recently is from ARK. You can see this by looking at the link I showed and compare the strong correlation in rising stock prices and ARK buying. Alternatively any retail investors that jumped in, likely did so from news of ARK buying.
    - fighterpilot 6y ago
      > Institutional Ownership % doesn't mean squat as far as trading activity goes. You and I could trade 1 share back and forth a billion times, and it wouldn't have any impact on institutional ownership %. We're talking about pricing/valuation, not trading volume. Institutional ownership does convey relevant information in regards to valuation, because it tells you who bought and didn't later sell, and therefore who contributed net buy flow over the last year. Trades that get closed (i.e., trades that contribute to volume but not ownership) don't have permanent price impact in expectation, and are therefore not useful for answering the question of "why is this stock so high for no good reason?". > The vast majority of trade activity recently is from ARK. You can see this by looking at the link I showed and compare how their "WEIGHT IN PROTFOLIO %' dropped despite their "SHARES HELD" has remained constant. I don't get this logic. If portfolio % drops but shares held remained constant, that means they largely stopped trading NNDM and increased the size of their other (non-NNDM) holdings. Also, that link shows they traded only a few million in volume in March in NNDM, but total NNDM volume over that month was in the hundreds of millions. So they only traded 1-2% of total volume. > Dilution reduces Institutional Ownership %, as well as individuals ownership % Why do you say this? If they do an at-the-market offerring and sell it on-market primarily to retail bids, the retail ownership % will increase proportionally.

nradov 6y ago

NNMD is a weak example. Out of the top 10 mutual fund holders only FNCMX is a passive index fund. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NNDM/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NNDM/ And FNCMX is relatively small with only $11B in assets. So if you want us to take your argument seriously you'll have to provide a better example.

Rury 6y ago
>Out of the top 10 mutual fund holders only FNCMX is a passive index fund Uh... KOMP is the 3rd largest holder of NNDM and a passive fund. But regardless, whether these are passive/active is besides the point. Which is that most investment activity nowadays happen through vehicles that act as a basket of equities, and because of this, some of this money ends up flowing into bad equities given the vast majority of them don't trade on any sound fundamentals. I mean ARK surely doesn't, despite being actively managed.