Jump to content

Markets still falling like whoa

Llano Estacado

By Llano Estacado
in Business and Markets

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 15.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Eastwood
Eastwood

That's why I'm out. There is no end game, IMO. This has to be fixed outside of the market and I got too nervous about what that entails for retail investors. They will always be last on the list, if o

Rusty Shackelford
Rusty Shackelford
Eastwood
Eastwood

I'm not a financial advisor. This is not financial advise. I don't work in finance. I do not have a degree in finance. Actually, I have a BA and I'm bad at math past Cal I. I won't apologize for the l

Posted Images

Archer

Archer 474

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

Sold out of my long gold and long oil into into short positions, right before spx tanked and both of those exploded to upside. 
 

So I got that going for me, which is nice. 

I sold a decent chunk of O&G about 9am and immediately bought ITOT and IXUS. Lost about 6% on that trade 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wally Fairway

Wally Fairway 5526

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Russia moves some troops further away from Ukraine, the market decides there is nothing to see here and jumps pre-open 

spacer.png

That is unless Putin is just head faking and fucking with everyone.

I may buy some more puts when the market opens higher ( yeah I know, that will certainly jinx my own portfolio - but you can go there other way)

I posted that in the stonk thread, but wanted to give fair warning in this thread that I'm seriously looking at buying some SPY puts when the market jumps at the bell today.

Wish me luck, I might be crazy but that doesn't mean I'm wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14525

Posted
Posted

Cathie Wood been holding court on CNBC the past hour.

I've never seen such a smart and well researched person be so convinced about so many things that are wrong.  She went on about the haters or something.  Said people are against innovation.  Got called on her fund owning an internet bookie (Draft Kings), Teledoc (meh), and Zoom (Teams will block it out).

I can see why the business media likes her.  She's a great interview and an interesting person.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26437

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Cathie Wood been holding court on CNBC the past hour.

I've never seen such a smart and well researched person be so convinced about so many things that are wrong.  She went on about the haters or something.  Said people are against innovation.  Got called on her fund owning an internet bookie (Draft Kings), Teledoc (meh), and Zoom (Teams will block it out).

I can see why the business media likes her.  She's a great interview and an interesting person.

First, you pump...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23434

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Cathie Wood been holding court on CNBC the past hour.

I've never seen such a smart and well researched person be so convinced about so many things that are wrong.  She went on about the haters or something.  Said people are against innovation.  Got called on her fund owning an internet bookie (Draft Kings), Teledoc (meh), and Zoom (Teams will block it out).

I can see why the business media likes her.  She's a great interview and an interesting person.

Back in the late 90's there were plenty of people like Cathy who were killing it buying internet stocks and were hailed as investing savants. They were on TV constantly and could tell you all the reasons that they were doing so well. Then the dotcom bust hit and they all got wiped out. They were prescient enough to get in early, but they got so used to sniffing their own farts as the champions of the internet, most couldnt sell. Heres part of an article from ~2001. 

Quote

Then again, Morgan Stanley's Mary Meeker was no ordinary analyst. Anointed by Barron's as "Queen of the Net," lovingly profiled by The New Yorker, equated with Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffett as a market mover by the Wall Street Journal, Meeker was the unquestioned diva of the Internet Age. Tech companies begged her to cover them. Morgan Stanley paid her an eye-popping $15 million in 1999. Ordinary investors hounded her for autographs. During the dot-com craze, Mary Meeker was by far the most important voice for the Internet--and the notion that companies without earnings could transform the world and climb to the moon.

That was then. Today Meeker, 41, has become something else entirely: the single most powerful symbol of how Wall Street can lead investors astray. For the past year, as Internet stocks have crumbled and entire companies have vaporized, Meeker has maintained the same upbeat ratings on her companies that characterized her research reports in the glory days. For instance, of the 15 stocks Meeker currently covers, she has a strong buy or an outperform rating on all but two. Among the stocks she has never downgraded are Priceline, Amazon, Yahoo, and FreeMarkets--all of which have declined between 85% and 97% from their peak. For this she has been duly pummeled in the press, accused of cheerleading for Morgan Stanley's investment banking clients.

But Meeker's refusal to downgrade her stocks is only a small piece of a bigger story. This larger story is about how a smart, hard-working analyst became a big part of the world she covered. Meeker came to see herself not merely as an analyst but as a player--a power broker, a dealmaker, a force to be reckoned with. She was a true Internet insider--and other Internet insiders, most of whom were her friends, shared this exalted view of her. "I don't think of Mary as an analyst," says venture capitalist John Doerr. "I think of her as a service provider for investors, entrepreneurs, and management teams." As a result Meeker did things that utterly compromised her as a stock picker.

In responding now to criticism that she let investors down, Meeker refuses to admit--or even see--how compromised she is. She defends herself in part by saying she feels protective toward the phenomenon she helped launch--and especially toward the dozens of companies she helped Morgan Stanley take public: "There is something compelling about...playing an important role in something that will never happen again....I feel a--'stewardship' is a strong word--but I feel a keen sense of responsibility." She adds, "If you take a company public and you are really aggressive on the downside, it can be devastating." Of course, if you're not aggressive on the downside, it can be devastating for investors. But that was never a Meeker priority.

I dont think Meeker ever managed a fund like Woods, but she was very influential, and I see a lot of parallels with Cathy Woods. Woods is a smart person, but she seems incapable of acknowledging that the vast majority of her holdings were massively overvalued. She was smart enough to get in, but not smart enough to see the inevitable, and I think part of the reason is because she is so wrapped up in the idea of being the investing champion of all these transformative companies. Today's markets  haven't  hit a correction remotely similar to what happened with the dotcom boom, but if they do, I guarantee her portfolio will get fucking wrecked more than the indices like S&P. 

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Cathie Wood got caught in a trap. With the inflows, she had no choice but to buy at the top of a growth cycle. She is in survival mode. 

I don't know what obligations/restrictions she has in terms of investing money that comes into her fund, but I would be more impressed if she went to cash, or hedged her bets in a fashion that protected her invester's portfolios better than she did. ARKK is not a hedge fund, so maybe she can only take long positions and must be fully invested. But she has benefitted immensely over the last few years from an investing climate of near zero interest rates (TINA) combined with unlimited QE by the Fed. Its not clear to me that she has a strategy to survive if (when) that  ceases to be the case. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31309

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Back in the late 90's there were plenty of people like Cathy who were killing it buying internet stocks and were hailed as investing savants. They were on TV constantly and could tell you all the reasons that they were doing so well. Then the dotcom bust hit and they all got wiped out. They were prescient enough to get in early, but they got so used to sniffing their own farts as the champions of the internet, most couldnt sell. Heres part of an article from ~2001. 

I dont think Meeker ever managed a fund like Woods, but she was very influential, and I see a lot of parallels with Cathy Woods. Woods is a smart person, but she seems incapable of acknowledging that the vast majority of her holdings were massively overvalued. She was smart enough to get in, but not smart enough to see the inevitable, and I think part of the reason is because she is so wrapped up in the idea of being the investing champion of all these transformative companies. Today's markets  haven't  hit a correction remotely similar to what happened with the dotcom boom, but if they do, I guarantee her portfolio will get fucking wrecked more than the indices like S&P. 

I don't know what obligations/restrictions she has in terms of investing money that comes into her fund, but I would be more impressed if she went to cash, or hedged her bets in a fashion that protected her invester's portfolios better than she did. ARKK is not a hedge fund, so maybe she can only take long positions and must be fully invested. But she has benefitted immensely over the last few years from an investing climate of near zero interest rates (TINA) combined with unlimited QE by the Fed. Its not clear to me that she has a strategy to survive if (when) that  ceases to be the case. 

One of the worst investments I ever made was to buy a tech sector mutual fund during the dotcom era.

I was skeptical of the whole thing, in part because I saw what kind of patents on garbage and nonsense the dotcoms were filing (and sometimes getting granted).

But I finally said fuck it, might as well join em.  And figured I was mitigating risk with a fund instead of trying to buy names.  I lost my ass.  Thankfully in a small portion of my portfolio.  It took years to earn that back.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14525

Posted
Posted

Yeah, Cathie Wood is not new.  A fund manager makes a few big bets, has a blow out year, becomes a celebrity, and never beats the S&P again.  The only thing that makes her different is how transparent she is, the amount of info she gives out, and how accessible she is.  She's a great interview and during the one today, it was obvious she's a true believer and doesn't know how to get out.

She's a good story but her fund is all about innovative growth stocks but when you dig into it, a lot of the companies she owns are neither innovative or growing, let alone making money now.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23434

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Yeah, Cathie Wood is not new.  A fund manager makes a few big bets, has a blow out year, becomes a celebrity, and never beats the S&P again.  The only thing that makes her different is how transparent she is, the amount of info she gives out, and how accessible she is.  She's a great interview and during the one today, it was obvious she's a true believer and doesn't know how to get out.

She's a good story but her fund is all about innovative growth stocks but when you dig into it, a lot of the companies she owns are neither innovative or growing, let alone making money now.

Zoom is a perfect example. Zoom peaked with a market cap of $140 billion and their revenue is now sitting at $4B (TTM). Yes they are profitable, but check out their revenue growth in recent quarters.

image.thumb.png.de14615c5ee72fd1709ae6bf44b9f799.png

For a company that made a slightly better video conferencing tool than Webex or Teams, how much more growth is out there for ZM? Is there still a huge corporate market that needs to acquire the capabilities that Zoom offers or have they kind of topped out?  I would argue they are still significantly over valued at $40 billion, because I don't see a competitive moat. I think the best case for ZM shareholders would be an acquisition (like when CSCO bought Webex), but $40 billion seems like a steep price tag.  

Edited by Blotto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14525

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Zoom is a perfect example. Zoom peaked with a market cap of $140 billion and their revenue is now sitting at $4B (TTM). Yes they are profitable, but check out their revenue growth in recent quarters.

image.thumb.png.de14615c5ee72fd1709ae6bf44b9f799.png

For a company that made a slightly better video conferencing tool than Webex or Teams, how much more growth is out there for ZM? Is there still a huge corporate market that needs to acquire the capabilities that Zoom offers or have they kind of topped out?  I would argue they are still significantly over valued at $40 billion, because I don't see a competitive moat. I think the best case for ZM shareholders would be an acquisition (like when CSCO bought Webex), but $40 billion seems like a steep price tag.  

I can't see the future in Zoom when Microsoft is going to cram Teams down everyone's throat.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23434

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I can't see the future in Zoom when Microsoft is going to cram Teams down everyone's throat.

Microsoft doesnt even have to do it, because the corporate bean counters are the ones doing the cramming. I work for a software company of approx 5000 people. When Covid  started we were using zoom. Now Teams is the corporate standard and most people's Zoom accounts have been terminated. While I probably prefer zoom overall to Teams, I didnt really give a shit. They looked at what was already being spent for office 365 which  aint going anywhere and what they spent for zoom, and zoom was out at the first opportunity. 

Edited by Blotto
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14525

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Microsoft doesnt even have to do it, because the corporate bean counters are the ones doing the cramming. I work for a software company of approx 5000 people. When Covid  started we were using zoom. Now Teams is the corporate standard and most people's Zoom accounts have been terminated. While I probably prefer zoom overall to Teams, I didnt really give a shit. They looked at what was already being spent for office 365 which  aint going anywhere and what they spent for zoom, and zoom was out at the first opportunity. 

This.  I work in corporate land and Zoom was ubiquitous in Spring 2020.  It had some play before that but covid really made it take off.

I only use Zoom with one other company now.  Everyone else is Teams because, as previously stated, Zoom is extra money.  Zoom won't exist in two years.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20428

Posted
Posted (edited)

We transitioned from Webex to Teams last year.  Webex was better but really idmas.  I'll give Zoom credit for marketing though.  Somehow they became synonymous with video conferencing, way beyond their marketshare, at the beginning of covid.

Edited by WBT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23434

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

This.  I work in corporate land and Zoom was ubiquitous in Spring 2020.  It had some play before that but covid really made it take off.

I only use Zoom with one other company now.  Everyone else is Teams because, as previously stated, Zoom is extra money.  Zoom won't exist in two years.

And yet last September when Zoom was around $290...

Quote

Ark’s flagship ARK Innovation ETF snapped up 157,000 Zoom shares valued at about $45.5 million, company records show. The ARK Next Generation Internet ETF also added 37,000 shares worth roughly $11 million. 

And then again in November when Zoom was probably around $200...

Quote

ARK Investment Management, which is already one of the largest shareholder of the video conferencing company, bought about $133 million worth of shares on Tuesday as they closed 15% down to their lowest since June 2020. 

Wonder how much more she will buy once it falls below $100, lulz.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...