11 ms·

Similarly, an ETF inverse of Cathy Wood’s ARK fund has outperformed quite a bit over the last couple years. https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfo

Similarly, an ETF inverse of Cathy Wood’s ARK fund has outperformed quite a bit over the last couple years. https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=2&startYear=2021&firstMonth=12&endYear=2023&lastMonth=2&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=ARKK&allocation1_1=100&allocation1_2=0&symbol2=SARK&allocation2_1=0&allocation2_2=100 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&t...

bryanlarsen 4y ago
You can show really poor or really good results for pretty much any high volatility portfolio by cherry picking your time period.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  Over a multi-year time period? Take I dunno, Bitcoin. As you increase the time window, showing a net loss is less and less possible. I'm not a crypto bull and I think it will tend towards zero someday but this is inarguable using current historicals.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    As you increase the time window, the possibility that the wallet is abandoned, the wallet owner is dead, or the bitcoins get scammed or lost in a exchange collapse quickly reaches 100%.
    - kristopolous 4y ago
      Sure, but similar properties come with almost any store of wealth. Don't take this as advocacy, it's not. There's plenty of strong arguments against crypto without having to resort to such truisms
      - danuker 4y ago
        I agree. While in fiat currencies it may go on to inheritance feeding the market with liquidity, unused Bitcoin does nothing, so demand being equal price would increase.
        kristopolous 4y ago
        I continue to believe crypto operates like a collectibles market; similar to stamps, beanie babies, rare coins, baseball cards, etc. In this model, the "cards" are the actual unit coins and the "players" are the type of coin (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc). So long as there's a vibrant enthusiast community, the assets will hold some value but except for a few mainstays, these things tend to atrophy over time. For instance, yesterday I was helping an 80 year old neighbor clean out her garage. I found some wonderful vintage RadioShack calculators from the late 1970s. They're extremely rare and also, extremely worthless. The supply and price of something can both tend towards zero.
        danuker 4y ago
        I agree with you completely. But you may be overlooking that they're also liquid, popular, benefit from network effects, the supply is algorithmically defined in many cases, and mostly fungible. This should make for more interested communities.
        namaria 4y ago
        This distinction is weird to me. Bitcoin is also created by fiat. If trust in government is lost, there is no governance nor money. If trust in bitcoin is lost, there are no running nodes nor tokens.
        4y ago
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      You moved the goal posts and went from the price of an asset to something entirely different.
      - hgsgm 4y ago
        But survival chance is an important part of the asset. In the trading card / comic case, destruction of most of the asset is a major source of price appreciation. It may be true for Bitcoin/crypto too.
      - temp2022account 4y ago
        Can't buy what nobody owns, and bitcoin does have builtin caps for total amount with no way to recover coins sent to lost wallets. It's a nice clean proof that the price must trend to $0.
      - rwmj 4y ago
        It's a concern for equities - the company might go bankrupt - so why not for bitcoin?
  - epgui 4y ago
    Over almost any scale, yes. It's why people do moving windows.
  - danuker 4y ago
    What makes you think it will tend towards zero?
    - unsupp0rted 4y ago
      Because why wouldn't it? Nobody seems to want or need bitcoin for anything in particular. Even as a store of value, there are better and more established stores of value.
      - danuker 4y ago
        I don't think it would, because all it would take is some people to want to buy it for speculation purposes, and it would have nonzero price. Sure, it's a dead asset producing nothing and having not much use. But it's easier to transfer than stocks or bonds, and does not suffer of unexpected supply inflation.
    - dools 4y ago
      Personally I think it will tend towards zero because it’s price is based entirely on speculation and it has no fundamentals
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - kristopolous 4y ago
      Not to say that all forms of cryptographic currency will, but Bitcoin only serves as a value store. The enthusiasts don't actually pay for things in Bitcoin but instead horde it so it doesn't really serve a society function as much as it services an ideology. The Bitcoin core, the true adherents, are approximately the same percentage of the public that did Liberty Dollars; sovereign citizen types that maintain sprawling websites attacking the Federal Reserve or proffering quack miracle cures. It's a weird sideshow of frauds, scammers, ponzi schemes, multilevel marketing, occult and conspiracy theorists, the kind that listened to Bill Cooper on shortwave ... That's what will eventually be left propping up the value so it's whatever that group can muster. The boom/bust cycle of Bitcoin being approximately 4 years and aligning with presidential elections could be a coincidence... Let's see what 2025 brings. Regardless, someday Bitcoin will be integrated into their paranoid delusions as part of the enemy plot and these last holdouts will abandon it. But that's the long game. I might be talking 25 years here. Or maybe 25 months, who knows?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > you increase the time window, showing a net loss is less and less possible The solution is flow weighting [1]. Fewer dollars went into Bitcoin when it was small than when it was big. (By definition.) So you weight the larger flows more heavily. There is arbitrariness around choosing the delineations. But the basic idea is comparisons across totally-different fund-flow regimes are meaningless for purposes of explaining the present state of the world. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/weightedaverage.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/weightedaverage.asp
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    That's an argument using spherical cows and frictionless pulleys. As you increase the time window for Bitcoin the net loss is less possible only for the rarified and smaller and smaller population that owned (and held) Bitcoin as you go further back in time. For Satoshi Nakamoto there's no net loss in Bitcoin holdings but most people aren't Satoshi Nakamoto.
    - defrost 4y ago
      Sure, but some people are. Just as some people were Nicolas Bourbaki.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's just as long as both of them have existed concurrently...
- __derek__ 4y ago
  > Note: The time period was constrained by the available data for AXS Short Innovation Daily ETF (SARK) [Dec 2021 - Feb 2023]. Including monthly investment doesn't really help, either.[1] [1]: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=2&startYear=2012&firstMonth=12&endYear=2023&lastMonth=2&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=1&annualAdjustment=1000&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=2&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&benchmark=-1&benchmarkSymbol=VTI&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=ARKK&allocation1_1=100&allocation1_2=0&symbol2=SARK&allocation2_1=0&allocation2_2=100 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&t...
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    SARK is the inverse of ARK, it's not necessary for analysis, so remove it. ARK tripled in value from April 2020 to Feb 2021. So you get very different results by picking a start date in 2020 or earlier.
    - __derek__ 4y ago
      You replied to a post above about the inverse ETF, suggesting that that poster was cherry-picking dates. The entire point of the inverse ETF was to take advantage of the ARKK's unrealistic returns in the preceding year. Just for kicks, though, here's ARKK versus VTI and cash since April 2020.[1] [1]: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=2&startYear=2020&firstMonth=4&endYear=2023&lastMonth=2&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=1000&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=2&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&benchmark=-1&benchmarkSymbol=VTI&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=ARKK&allocation1_1=100&symbol2=CASHX&allocation2_1=0&allocation2_2=100 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&t...
- undersuit 4y ago
  And: "Another study found that a blindfolded monkey could beat most stock pickers." Include Michael Reeve's Stock Picking Goldfish too.
- boyka 4y ago
  Try time periods with length at least 20y. Does that statement still hold true?
ckardat123 4y ago
This page shows Jim Cramer's recent stock picks, alongside a backtest of an Inverse Cramer strategy: https://www.quiverquant.com/cramertracker/ https://www.quiverquant.com/cramertracker/ The strategy logic is a bit different than the ETF is being rolled out - this one shorts all the tickers he is talking about the most (whether he is bearish or bullish) and hedges with a long position on the market.
deltree7 4y ago
It is down 25% YTD and 40% from it's peak. Yet another ETF created for gullible meme-driven investors
- nightski 4y ago
  Many growth stocks are/were down on the order of 40%. Nvidia dropped from 315 down to 112. Microsoft went from 340 to 221. Just two examples. I'm not saying ARK is good by any means, personally I'm not a fan of Cathie Wood at all. But context is important as well. That fund is making big future growth bets. No one would go in with 100% of their portfolio on that.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    What you think about Cathie Woods is irrelevant to ARK. It's still heavily TSLA, and all of the highs and lows are basically because ole Musky's car company had rollercoaster valuations.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
flanbiscuit 4y ago
they mention it pretty early on in the article. The same firm created both > An enterprising and clearly meme-savvy fund manager out there, Tuttle Capital Management has actually filed prospectuses for two Cramer-tracking funds: The Inverse Cramer ETF (SJIM) The Long Cramer ETF (LJIM) > In retrospect, I'm not surprised. Tuttle Capital is known for its hilarious yet strangely effective ETF lineup. Case in point, their earlier Short Innovation Daily ETF (SARK) that bet against Cathie Wood and her funds is still up 73% year-to-date.
paulpauper 4y ago
Buying inverse funds is a bad idea. They suffer from exponential decay over long time periods. Consider that the 1x (non-inverse fund) goes up 10% in a day. At the same time the inverse fund, which tracks it, falls 10%. Now consider the following day that the 1x fund falls 9%, to its original price. Consequently, the inverse fund goes back up 9%, but it's about 2% lower than its starting position. So you still lose money even though the original 1x fund is unchanged. The better strategy is to buy puts or short the non-inverse, 1x version.
make3 4y ago
but that's just because tech crashed

bryanlarsen 4y ago

You can show really poor or really good results for pretty much any high volatility portfolio by cherry picking your time period.

kristopolous 4y ago
Over a multi-year time period? Take I dunno, Bitcoin. As you increase the time window, showing a net loss is less and less possible. I'm not a crypto bull and I think it will tend towards zero someday but this is inarguable using current historicals.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  As you increase the time window, the possibility that the wallet is abandoned, the wallet owner is dead, or the bitcoins get scammed or lost in a exchange collapse quickly reaches 100%.
  - kristopolous 4y ago
    Sure, but similar properties come with almost any store of wealth. Don't take this as advocacy, it's not. There's plenty of strong arguments against crypto without having to resort to such truisms
    - danuker 4y ago
      I agree. While in fiat currencies it may go on to inheritance feeding the market with liquidity, unused Bitcoin does nothing, so demand being equal price would increase.
      - kristopolous 4y ago
        I continue to believe crypto operates like a collectibles market; similar to stamps, beanie babies, rare coins, baseball cards, etc. In this model, the "cards" are the actual unit coins and the "players" are the type of coin (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc). So long as there's a vibrant enthusiast community, the assets will hold some value but except for a few mainstays, these things tend to atrophy over time. For instance, yesterday I was helping an 80 year old neighbor clean out her garage. I found some wonderful vintage RadioShack calculators from the late 1970s. They're extremely rare and also, extremely worthless. The supply and price of something can both tend towards zero.
        danuker 4y ago
        I agree with you completely. But you may be overlooking that they're also liquid, popular, benefit from network effects, the supply is algorithmically defined in many cases, and mostly fungible. This should make for more interested communities.
      - namaria 4y ago
        This distinction is weird to me. Bitcoin is also created by fiat. If trust in government is lost, there is no governance nor money. If trust in bitcoin is lost, there are no running nodes nor tokens.
        4y ago
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    You moved the goal posts and went from the price of an asset to something entirely different.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      But survival chance is an important part of the asset. In the trading card / comic case, destruction of most of the asset is a major source of price appreciation. It may be true for Bitcoin/crypto too.
    - temp2022account 4y ago
      Can't buy what nobody owns, and bitcoin does have builtin caps for total amount with no way to recover coins sent to lost wallets. It's a nice clean proof that the price must trend to $0.
    - rwmj 4y ago
      It's a concern for equities - the company might go bankrupt - so why not for bitcoin?
- epgui 4y ago
  Over almost any scale, yes. It's why people do moving windows.
- danuker 4y ago
  What makes you think it will tend towards zero?
  - unsupp0rted 4y ago
    Because why wouldn't it? Nobody seems to want or need bitcoin for anything in particular. Even as a store of value, there are better and more established stores of value.
    - danuker 4y ago
      I don't think it would, because all it would take is some people to want to buy it for speculation purposes, and it would have nonzero price. Sure, it's a dead asset producing nothing and having not much use. But it's easier to transfer than stocks or bonds, and does not suffer of unexpected supply inflation.
  - dools 4y ago
    Personally I think it will tend towards zero because it’s price is based entirely on speculation and it has no fundamentals
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - kristopolous 4y ago
    Not to say that all forms of cryptographic currency will, but Bitcoin only serves as a value store. The enthusiasts don't actually pay for things in Bitcoin but instead horde it so it doesn't really serve a society function as much as it services an ideology. The Bitcoin core, the true adherents, are approximately the same percentage of the public that did Liberty Dollars; sovereign citizen types that maintain sprawling websites attacking the Federal Reserve or proffering quack miracle cures. It's a weird sideshow of frauds, scammers, ponzi schemes, multilevel marketing, occult and conspiracy theorists, the kind that listened to Bill Cooper on shortwave ... That's what will eventually be left propping up the value so it's whatever that group can muster. The boom/bust cycle of Bitcoin being approximately 4 years and aligning with presidential elections could be a coincidence... Let's see what 2025 brings. Regardless, someday Bitcoin will be integrated into their paranoid delusions as part of the enemy plot and these last holdouts will abandon it. But that's the long game. I might be talking 25 years here. Or maybe 25 months, who knows?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > you increase the time window, showing a net loss is less and less possible The solution is flow weighting [1]. Fewer dollars went into Bitcoin when it was small than when it was big. (By definition.) So you weight the larger flows more heavily. There is arbitrariness around choosing the delineations. But the basic idea is comparisons across totally-different fund-flow regimes are meaningless for purposes of explaining the present state of the world. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/weightedaverage.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/weightedaverage.asp
- giantrobot 4y ago
  That's an argument using spherical cows and frictionless pulleys. As you increase the time window for Bitcoin the net loss is less possible only for the rarified and smaller and smaller population that owned (and held) Bitcoin as you go further back in time. For Satoshi Nakamoto there's no net loss in Bitcoin holdings but most people aren't Satoshi Nakamoto.
  - defrost 4y ago
    Sure, but some people are. Just as some people were Nicolas Bourbaki.
BoorishBears 4y ago
I'm pretty sure that's just as long as both of them have existed concurrently...
__derek__ 4y ago
> Note: The time period was constrained by the available data for AXS Short Innovation Daily ETF (SARK) [Dec 2021 - Feb 2023]. Including monthly investment doesn't really help, either.[1] [1]: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=2&startYear=2012&firstMonth=12&endYear=2023&lastMonth=2&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=1&annualAdjustment=1000&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=2&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&benchmark=-1&benchmarkSymbol=VTI&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=ARKK&allocation1_1=100&allocation1_2=0&symbol2=SARK&allocation2_1=0&allocation2_2=100 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&t...
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  SARK is the inverse of ARK, it's not necessary for analysis, so remove it. ARK tripled in value from April 2020 to Feb 2021. So you get very different results by picking a start date in 2020 or earlier.
  - __derek__ 4y ago
    You replied to a post above about the inverse ETF, suggesting that that poster was cherry-picking dates. The entire point of the inverse ETF was to take advantage of the ARKK's unrealistic returns in the preceding year. Just for kicks, though, here's ARKK versus VTI and cash since April 2020.[1] [1]: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=2&startYear=2020&firstMonth=4&endYear=2023&lastMonth=2&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=1000&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=2&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&benchmark=-1&benchmarkSymbol=VTI&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=ARKK&allocation1_1=100&symbol2=CASHX&allocation2_1=0&allocation2_2=100 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&t...
undersuit 4y ago
And: "Another study found that a blindfolded monkey could beat most stock pickers." Include Michael Reeve's Stock Picking Goldfish too.
boyka 4y ago
Try time periods with length at least 20y. Does that statement still hold true?

ckardat123 4y ago

This page shows Jim Cramer's recent stock picks, alongside a backtest of an Inverse Cramer strategy: https://www.quiverquant.com/cramertracker/ https://www.quiverquant.com/cramertracker/ The strategy logic is a bit different than the ETF is being rolled out - this one shorts all the tickers he is talking about the most (whether he is bearish or bullish) and hedges with a long position on the market.

deltree7 4y ago

It is down 25% YTD and 40% from it's peak. Yet another ETF created for gullible meme-driven investors

nightski 4y ago
Many growth stocks are/were down on the order of 40%. Nvidia dropped from 315 down to 112. Microsoft went from 340 to 221. Just two examples. I'm not saying ARK is good by any means, personally I'm not a fan of Cathie Wood at all. But context is important as well. That fund is making big future growth bets. No one would go in with 100% of their portfolio on that.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  What you think about Cathie Woods is irrelevant to ARK. It's still heavily TSLA, and all of the highs and lows are basically because ole Musky's car company had rollercoaster valuations.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

flanbiscuit 4y ago

they mention it pretty early on in the article. The same firm created both > An enterprising and clearly meme-savvy fund manager out there, Tuttle Capital Management has actually filed prospectuses for two Cramer-tracking funds: The Inverse Cramer ETF (SJIM) The Long Cramer ETF (LJIM) > In retrospect, I'm not surprised. Tuttle Capital is known for its hilarious yet strangely effective ETF lineup. Case in point, their earlier Short Innovation Daily ETF (SARK) that bet against Cathie Wood and her funds is still up 73% year-to-date.

paulpauper 4y ago

Buying inverse funds is a bad idea. They suffer from exponential decay over long time periods. Consider that the 1x (non-inverse fund) goes up 10% in a day. At the same time the inverse fund, which tracks it, falls 10%. Now consider the following day that the 1x fund falls 9%, to its original price. Consequently, the inverse fund goes back up 9%, but it's about 2% lower than its starting position. So you still lose money even though the original 1x fund is unchanged. The better strategy is to buy puts or short the non-inverse, 1x version.

make3 4y ago

but that's just because tech crashed