Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck

MarketWatch2021-03-23

Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index. I know that seems hard to ...

网页链接

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

KW1
·2021-03-24
Great insight
回复
点赞
举报
AAZJ
·2021-03-24
ark the lorry liow...
回复
点赞
举报
ValueTrade
·2021-03-24
Going forward is a big question mark when Cathie Wood predicted Tesla stock to reach $3000. Wishful thinking... I doubt.
回复
1
举报
Kevinchai
·2021-03-24
Need both of them..
回复
1
举报
LemonKnight
·2021-03-24
It needs both plus emotion
回复
1
举报
Caipok
·2021-03-24
Skill on selecting speculating and hype stock HAHA
回复
点赞
举报
Saintrade
·2021-03-24
Skill and luck both
回复
点赞
举报
么一下
·2021-03-24
五路口总经理
回复
点赞
举报
4ba6ec5c
·2021-03-23
[财迷]
回复
点赞
举报
ksyksy
·2021-03-23
Nice
回复
点赞
举报
Exette
·2021-03-23
haha
回复
点赞
举报
AS78
·2021-03-23
Who is following Cathy? Please comment, thanks
回复
点赞
举报
股神徒孙
·2021-03-23
Everyone is expert in a bull market. Wait till the bear comes prowling in
回复
1
举报
收起
- AS78:
  Great. U follow her?
  2021-03-23
  回复
  举报
- 股神徒孙:
  I take note of what she buys but i don’t really buy what she buys 😅
  2021-03-23
  回复
  举报
- AS78回复股神徒孙:
  Ok, thanks [开心]
  2021-03-23
  回复
  举报
查看更多 1 条评论
wallstreaks
·2021-03-23
I have named my dotter Cathie in honour of ARK
回复
2
举报
小狮狮
·2021-03-23
Lol
回复
1
举报
EugeneLee
·2021-03-23
In-depth explanation[思考]
回复
1
举报
YsL
·2021-03-23
Haha
回复
2
举报
SYFU
·2021-03-23
Alemak
回复
1
举报
LohYK
·2021-03-23
Well... It all depends on Ur risk appetite.
回复
点赞
举报
小对象
·2021-03-23
Skills pls cuz i have shares on her etf
回复
6
举报
收起
- Vivienrose:
  Same here
  2021-03-23
  回复
  举报

热议股票

7x24

全部

关于我们·老虎社区守则·老虎社区账号管理规范·老虎社区服务协议·老虎社区隐私政策

公司名称：北京至简风宜信息技术有限公司

违法和不良信息投诉：010-5681-3562（工作时间9:30-18:30）

邮箱：service@laohu8.com

营业执照：91110105MA01A4U55R

ICP备：京ICP备18016422号

网安备：京公网安备11010502036490

关注我们

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","id":"1137063642","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","media":"MarketWatch","content":"<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"market_watch","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"ARKF","symbol_name":"ARK Fintech Innovation ETF","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","article_id":"1137063642","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"market_watch","name":"华尔街大事件"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"marketwatch.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"ARKF":"ARK Fintech Innovation ETF","QQQ":"纳指100ETF","ARKK":"ARK Innovation ETF","ARKQ":"ARK Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF","TSLA":"特斯拉"},"translate_title":"评估方舟创新公司的回报是由于凯茜·伍德的技术还是运气","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"ARKF":0.9,"ARKK":0.9,"ARKQ":0.9,"QQQ":0.9,"TSLA":0.9},"content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","kind":null,"is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":null,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":351971334,"gmtCreate":1616558328428,"gmtModify":1634525205951,"author":{"id":"3563714281601583","authorId":"3563714281601583","name":"KW1","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/094e3f8fd8b3de3da976515926ed1403","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Great&nbsp; insight","listText":"Great&nbsp; insight","text":"Great insight","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/351971334","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":351967913,"gmtCreate":1616554654132,"gmtModify":1634525224299,"author":{"id":"3577708378427970","authorId":"3577708378427970","name":"AAZJ","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c21ac0d008fcc2c57672a3faa82d43b4","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"ark the lorry liow...","listText":"ark the lorry liow...","text":"ark the lorry liow...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/351967913","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":351021811,"gmtCreate":1616546977433,"gmtModify":1631890749787,"author":{"id":"3558078089028173","authorId":"3558078089028173","name":"ValueTrade","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/64faf68becc95de8c57184fade98f9f3","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Going forward is a big question mark when Cathie Wood predicted&nbsp;Tesla stock to reach $3000. Wishful thinking... I doubt.&nbsp;","listText":"Going forward is a big question mark when Cathie Wood predicted&nbsp;Tesla stock to reach $3000. Wishful thinking... I doubt.&nbsp;","text":"Going forward is a big question mark when Cathie Wood predicted Tesla stock to reach $3000. Wishful thinking... I doubt.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/351021811","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":351065199,"gmtCreate":1616546651511,"gmtModify":1634525280116,"author":{"id":"3571456023547256","authorId":"3571456023547256","name":"Kevinchai","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/16746d99581b93215feab649ccd02d8d","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Need both of them..","listText":"Need both of them..","text":"Need both of them..","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/351065199","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":351083565,"gmtCreate":1616546017657,"gmtModify":1634525291426,"author":{"id":"3574111546877297","authorId":"3574111546877297","name":"LemonKnight","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3c60de844e096b17f501651688ac4631","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"It needs both&nbsp; plus emotion","listText":"It needs both&nbsp; plus emotion","text":"It needs both plus emotion","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/351083565","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":351017716,"gmtCreate":1616545778835,"gmtModify":1634525293546,"author":{"id":"3572601977225346","authorId":"3572601977225346","name":"Caipok","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/703dc96833e044e2e753c8ba28412c9c","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Skill on selecting speculating and hype stock&nbsp;HAHA","listText":"Skill on selecting speculating and hype stock&nbsp;HAHA","text":"Skill on selecting speculating and hype stock HAHA","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/351017716","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":351037009,"gmtCreate":1616545041101,"gmtModify":1634525302469,"author":{"id":"3577131990335289","authorId":"3577131990335289","name":"Saintrade","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0586ed865bb515fc4dd23fea4fa2590d","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Skill and luck both","listText":"Skill and luck both","text":"Skill and luck both","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/351037009","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353705326,"gmtCreate":1616521240165,"gmtModify":1616521240165,"author":{"id":"3437280010873677","authorId":"3437280010873677","name":"么一下","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1bbdd87a6bf326495d4f04cb4202345a","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"五路口总经理","listText":"五路口总经理","text":"五路口总经理","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353705326","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":353484279,"gmtCreate":1616513288591,"gmtModify":1616513288591,"author":{"id":"3553462730947141","authorId":"3553462730947141","name":"4ba6ec5c","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"[财迷]","listText":"[财迷]","text":"[财迷]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353484279","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":353481371,"gmtCreate":1616512795493,"gmtModify":1634525404897,"author":{"id":"3574295412116709","authorId":"3574295412116709","name":"ksyksy","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353481371","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353489536,"gmtCreate":1616512657625,"gmtModify":1634525405847,"author":{"id":"3576328990446823","authorId":"3576328990446823","name":"Exette","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/47292853c2a8af3e660f428446a66aad","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"haha","listText":"haha","text":"haha","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353489536","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353406685,"gmtCreate":1616510368447,"gmtModify":1634525424900,"author":{"id":"3554958921608603","authorId":"3554958921608603","name":"AS78","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Who is following Cathy? Please comment, thanks&nbsp;","listText":"Who is following Cathy? Please comment, thanks&nbsp;","text":"Who is following Cathy? Please comment, thanks","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353406685","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353403651,"gmtCreate":1616510253173,"gmtModify":1634525426165,"author":{"id":"3573474804628073","authorId":"3573474804628073","name":"股神徒孙","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ac59f7fc64d3e018af70687bdddf30c2","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Everyone is expert in a bull&nbsp;market. Wait till the bear comes prowling in","listText":"Everyone is expert in a bull&nbsp;market. Wait till the bear comes prowling in","text":"Everyone is expert in a bull market. Wait till the bear comes prowling in","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":4,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353403651","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":3864215,"gmtCreate":1616510383833,"gmtModify":1635750313123,"authorId":3554958921608603,"author":{"id":3554958921608603,"authorId":3554958921608603,"name":"AS78","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":353403651,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Great. U follow her?","text":"Great. U follow her?","html":"Great. U follow her?"},{"id":3864274,"gmtCreate":1616510639554,"gmtModify":1635750309280,"authorId":3573474804628073,"author":{"id":3573474804628073,"authorId":3573474804628073,"name":"股神徒孙","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ac59f7fc64d3e018af70687bdddf30c2","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":353403651,"type":1,"supId":3864215,"prevId":0,"content":"I take note of what she buys but i don’t really buy what she buys 😅","text":"I take note of what she buys but i don’t really buy what she buys 😅","html":"I take note of what she buys but i don’t really buy what she buys 😅"},{"id":3864408,"gmtCreate":1616511404001,"gmtModify":1635750301426,"authorId":3554958921608603,"author":{"id":3554958921608603,"authorId":3554958921608603,"name":"AS78","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":3573474804628073,"repliedAuthor":{"id":3573474804628073,"authorId":3573474804628073,"name":"股神徒孙","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ac59f7fc64d3e018af70687bdddf30c2","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"objectId":353403651,"type":1,"supId":3864215,"prevId":3864274,"content":"Ok, thanks  [开心]","text":"Ok, thanks  [开心]","html":"Ok, thanks  [开心]"},{"id":3869188,"gmtCreate":1616569422709,"gmtModify":1635749987049,"authorId":3573703375513385,"author":{"id":3573703375513385,"authorId":3573703375513385,"name":"JonLucky","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/15afb66e92e4e4d6d1a8e9b7854e9d5e","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":353403651,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"exactly","text":"exactly","html":"exactly"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353400221,"gmtCreate":1616510181963,"gmtModify":1631891768629,"author":{"id":"3560130779771513","authorId":"3560130779771513","name":"wallstreaks","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a0d57618353cd0406b7a1f7ee2445a8","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"I have named my dotter Cathie in honour of ARK&nbsp;","listText":"I have named my dotter Cathie in honour of ARK&nbsp;","text":"I have named my dotter Cathie in honour of ARK","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353400221","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353577238,"gmtCreate":1616510119524,"gmtModify":1634525427691,"author":{"id":"3572937584115952","authorId":"3572937584115952","name":"小狮狮","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0060b8e3c2cee085b02939b78214607a","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Lol","listText":"Lol","text":"Lol","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353577238","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353576164,"gmtCreate":1616509945558,"gmtModify":1634525430219,"author":{"id":"3575253639290859","authorId":"3575253639290859","name":"EugeneLee","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"In-depth explanation[思考]&nbsp;","listText":"In-depth explanation[思考]&nbsp;","text":"In-depth explanation[思考]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353576164","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":353579976,"gmtCreate":1616509822195,"gmtModify":1634525433215,"author":{"id":"3571083769580822","authorId":"3571083769580822","name":"YsL","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f258b1aa573da15fd74641181f7391bf","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Haha","listText":"Haha","text":"Haha","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353579976","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353560432,"gmtCreate":1616508100826,"gmtModify":1634525456684,"author":{"id":"3574550472976902","authorId":"3574550472976902","name":"SYFU","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7e9e3d2d44a5d4d299cb39a2cdbcbae1","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Alemak","listText":"Alemak","text":"Alemak","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353560432","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353588478,"gmtCreate":1616507886394,"gmtModify":1634525458275,"author":{"id":"3568070265339857","authorId":"3568070265339857","name":"LohYK","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d6add0343094f5e965e831fa432314ef","vip":1,"crmLevel":8,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Well... It all depends on Ur risk appetite.&nbsp;","listText":"Well... It all depends on Ur risk appetite.&nbsp;","text":"Well... It all depends on Ur risk appetite.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353588478","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353533204,"gmtCreate":1616507027308,"gmtModify":1634525469460,"author":{"id":"3576849986329523","authorId":"3576849986329523","name":"小对象","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5424e2d146a5f052135f729cd37c68c9","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Skills pls cuz i have shares on her etf&nbsp;","listText":"Skills pls cuz i have shares on her etf&nbsp;","text":"Skills pls cuz i have shares on her etf","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353533204","repostId":1137063642,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137063642","pubTimestamp":1616505836,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137063642?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 21:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137063642","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as t","content":"<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth</p>\n<p>You could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.</p>\n<p>I know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust&nbsp;(which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.</p>\n<p>At the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>One approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.</p>\n<p>If you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.</p>\n<p>This reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13b81e9f1962e464faeb2d45cdd0e5f9\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.</p>\n<p>The answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.</p>\n<p><b>Luck versus skill</b></p>\n<p>Note carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.</p>\n<p>This goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)</p>\n<p>The answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.</p>\n<p>An example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)</p>\n<p>In the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Jury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nJury out on whether ARK Innovation returns are due to Cathie Wood’s skill or luck\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 21:23 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-jury-is-out-on-whether-ark-innovations-red-hot-returns-are-due-to-cathie-woods-skill-or-luck-11616460092?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1137063642","content_text":"Statistical scrutiny brings this high-flying ETF down to earth\nYou could have performed as well as the high-flying ARK Innovation ETF by investing in the Nasdaq 100 Index.\nI know that seems hard to believe, given the stunning performance chief investment officer Cathie Wood has produced with ARK Innovation— a 229% gain over the past year, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the Invesco QQQ Trust (which is benchmarked to the Nasdaq 100), gained 78%. Since its creation in October 2014, ARK Innovation has produced an annualized gain of 34.6%, versus 20.6% for the QQQ.\nAt the same time, ARK Innovation has been extremely volatile and risky, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the Nasdaq 100 misleading. As measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, ARK Innovation has been 73% more volatile than QQQ. That’s really saying something, since QQQ is itself more volatile than broad market indices such as the S&P 500.\nOne approach statisticians use to create an apples-to-apples comparison is with a metric known as the Sharpe Ratio, invented by William Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel laureate in economics. It is the ratio of a fund’s average returns to the standard deviation of those returns. The Sharpe Ratio of ARK Innovation’s monthly returns since 2014 is almost precisely the same as the QQQ’s.\nIf you’re like some of my clients, your reaction is not to care about the Sharpe Ratio. “You can’t take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank,” you in effect tell me. It’s raw performance that counts, and on that basis there’s no doubt that the ARKK did far better.\nThis reaction is confused, however. In fact you can take the Sharpe Ratio to the bank. If you had been willing to incur the ARK Innovation’s increased volatility, you could have made just as much by leveraging an investment in the QQQ. That is, you would have made just as much by increasing your portfolio allocation to QQQ, or by buying it on sufficient margin. This is illustrated in the chart below:\n\nThe Sharpe Ratio is not the only method that statisticians employ for measuring adviser performance on a level playing field, but other widely used approaches reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the best known, at least in academic circles, is the Fama-French factor model, named for University of Chicago finance professor Eugene Fama (the 2013 Nobel laureate in economics) and Dartmouth College professor Ken French. Their model involves an econometric test to see if a mutual fund’s return is significantly better than a combination of index funds benchmarked to factors such as small-cap, growth, and momentum.\nThe answer for ARK Innovation is “no” — an overweight allocation to a small-cap growth fund would have produced the same overall return since November 2014.\nLuck versus skill\nNote carefully that these statistical tests do not prove that ARK Innovation’s performance is due solely to luck. Instead, those tests tell us that we cannot conclude that its performance was not due to luck. In this case, the double negative is not the same as the positive; this is a subtle, but important, difference.\nThis goes to show just how difficult it is to prove that an investment manager has genuine market-beating ability. If beating an index fund by more than 10 percentage points annualized over a 6-plus-year period is not enough, then what is? (An email to ARK Investment Management requesting comment was not immediately answered.)\nThe answer: Satisfying traditional standards of statistical significance requires beating the market by a larger amount over a much longer period.\nAn example of a fund that does jump over this much-higher hurdle is Renaissance Technologies’ Medallion Fund, a hedge fund that has produced an incredible 39% annualized return over the 33 calendar years through 2020, versus “just” 11% annualized for an index fund. Bradford Cornell, an emeritus finance professor at UCLA, told me in an interview that it is impossible to attribute that fund’s outperformance to mere luck. (Unfortunately, this fund is only available to current and former partners at Renaissance Technologies.)\nIn the meantime, it’s too early to render anything close to a final verdict on ARK Innovation’s stunning performance. Its performance over the next several years may prove to be good enough to eventually satisfy traditional standards of statistical significance. Until then we can’t be sure. This is yet another reason why index funds are the default investment of choice.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":3863868,"gmtCreate":1616508504720,"gmtModify":1635750331212,"authorId":3575585519231161,"author":{"id":3575585519231161,"authorId":3575585519231161,"name":"Vivienrose","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/def4c9c09d2d61a66e1bd9447e42aa29","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":353533204,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Same here","text":"Same here","html":"Same here"}],"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":78,"commentSize":32,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}