[HN Gopher] ARK's New Space Exploration and Innovation ETF (ARKX...
___________________________________________________________________
ARK's New Space Exploration and Innovation ETF (ARKX) Launches
Tomorrow
Author : vvincendon
Score : 45 points
Date : 2021-03-29 19:23 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ark-funds.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ark-funds.com)
| subsubzero wrote:
| I don't really get alot of these companies for that ETF, I would
| pick:
|
| Virgin Galatic - space tourism, long range terrestrial flights.
| SpaceX - (Private) but a good pick for who takes the vanguard of
| space exploration. Boeing - maker of one of the next gen rockets.
| Planet Labs - (Private) satellite company making micro
| satellites. Lockheed Martin - Lots of exposure to space, rockets,
| unmanned drones etc.
| simonh wrote:
| A lot of SpaceX fans would disagree with having Boeing and
| Lockheed on the list because they see them as old space, locked
| into the failing model of bloated cost plus contracts for
| wasteful expendable rockets that's now doomed.
|
| I'm a SpaceX fan too, but if SpaceX cut costs to orbit by 10x
| or 100x someone is going to need to manufacture all the huge,
| powerful satellites, space stations, Mars habitats, probes and
| resource utilisation gear SpaceX will be launching. That's
| Boeing and Lockheed, they have a crapton of experience making
| commercial and scientific space hardware. They'll make a
| fortune.
| elihu wrote:
| It seems like the main company everyone would be buying if they
| were public is SpaceX. So, that leaves space launch companies
| that are being crushed by SpaceX, and other companies that can
| make other space-related products or otherwise profit from space
| exploration.
|
| My impression is that we're getting really close to being able to
| launch substantial payloads to Mars relatively cheaply, but now
| that it's time to start packing we don't know what to send. There
| should be whole industries gearing up to manufacture space suits,
| rovers, habitats, habitat construction equipment, mining and
| earth-moving (or is the proper term Mars-moving?) equipment,
| giant Mars-suitable solar arrays, equipment to generate methane
| from solar power, water, and C02, and so on. Maybe all that's
| happening behind the scenes in a non-visible way, but still it
| seems like there's an opportunity there.
|
| I couldn't help noticing that ARK's logo looks suspiciously like
| the logo for the Outer Planets Alliance from The Expanse. Too bad
| their ticker isn't BLTALWDA.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Who would be the customers of such industries manufacturing
| stuff for Mars? Is there any significant demand (in the
| economic sense - not expressed opinion, but willingness to pay
| large amounts of money) for that?
|
| As far as I see, none of the governments have expressed intent
| for large scale funding of such payloads to Mars, and there
| seems to be nothing so valuable on Mars that would justify
| investments into habitat construction just to extract some
| resources for commercial purposes. It's not even commercially
| worthwhile to mine stuff in Antarctic and the ocean floor
| (except for oil), and those are much cheaper to access and mine
| than Mars.
|
| The current motivation for going to Mars is not a commercial
| opporunity, it's mostly exploration, because it's there - and
| as such, we're limited by the amount people (individuals as
| well as nations) are willing to spend on that i.e. consume for
| their ideals/desires, not invest with reasonable expectation of
| profit. And that "frivolous spending budget" isn't enough to
| launch whole new industries.
| stcredzero wrote:
| _My impression is that we 're getting really close to being
| able to launch substantial payloads to Mars relatively cheaply,
| but now that it's time to start packing we don't know what to
| send._
|
| We should industrially colonize the Moon. If we can produce
| oxygen, aluminum, titanium, iron, and glass on the Moon, it
| will make a bunch of other space infrastructure a lot cheaper.
| Solar Power satellites would become feasible, and then we
| wouldn't need fusion outside of having The Expanse-level of
| space military tech and other ultra high-spec space vehicle
| needs. And if we did have fusion, He3 would practically be a
| side effect of mining the other materials.
|
| Also, no natives with cultures and lives to ruin.
| PeterisP wrote:
| If the justification investing into space/moon infrastructure
| will make constructing further space/moon infrastructure
| cheaper, then that's a circular argument, it's the "how, not
| why" about the most efficient way to produce some terminal
| goal, but it does not assert how large the benefit of that
| terminal goal is going to be.
|
| For earth needs, it's cheaper and simpler and more efficient
| to mine titanium right here. There's a reasonable argument
| that mining all these things for space needs could be more
| efficient if done "on site", however, what are those space
| needs that will ultimately somehow benefit the people of
| Earth in a way that's more efficient than doing it down here?
|
| If the end goal is to produce power, no matter how you invest
| into space tech, IMHO it's going to be much more efficient to
| build large quantities of solar panels on Earth and place
| them in Sahara desert, than to construct a large-scale solar
| panel industry on the moon to have the same quantity of power
| through satellites. Sure, they'd be cool, but that's not a
| justification.
|
| When/if there's a resource shortage on earth causing some
| minerals to be orders of magnitude more expensive than today,
| _then_ it would be worthwhile, but not yet.
| outworlder wrote:
| > If the justification investing into space/moon
| infrastructure will make constructing further space/moon
| infrastructure cheaper, then that's a circular argument
|
| Not really. If we have mining AND manufacturing
| capabilities outside Earth's gravity well, we can
| manufacture things very cheaply. Either things that require
| microgravity to be made, or things to be used in space. For
| instance, satellites. It would be much cheaper to build and
| launch them from the Moon.
|
| We could manufacture components which require vacuum and or
| microgravity on lunar orbital stations.
|
| > IMHO it's going to be much more efficient to build large
| quantities of solar panels on Earth and place them in
| Sahara desert
|
| How are you planing to send that power to, for instance,
| the United States? Disregarding the massive infrastructure
| requirements, there are serious power losses.
| [deleted]
| iamacyborg wrote:
| My money would be on Planet if they were public.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Where is ARKA, the etf of ark etfs?
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| That's ARKK.
| whatok wrote:
| You have a small taste of that in this with the second largest
| holding PRNT.
|
| https://ark-funds.com/3d-printing-etf
| greatgib wrote:
| I expected a fund focusing on innovative stocks but instead it
| looks like a lot of old school beasts that everyone would like to
| die such as boeing, thales or lockheed...
| consumer451 wrote:
| That was my initial thought as well. But I guess the companies
| in which I'm actually interested are all privately held.
| gopalv wrote:
| Most interesting think about this ETF is that it has possible
| positive exposure to an eventual SpaceX IPO.
|
| When SpaceX does go IPO, I'm sure Ms. Wood will be first in line
| to pick up some to roll into this ETF - so I think of this like a
| SPAC more than as a pure ETF.
| jiofih wrote:
| Eh. More speculation on an already deflating market.
| ra7 wrote:
| Why not just buy GOOGL if you want exposure to only SpaceX? Or
| some Fidelity or Baron's funds that hold SpaceX.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| Does anyone know how those get worked into a mutual funds
| value? I actually have one of those Fidelity SpaceX funds in
| my 401k but I don't understand how it works.
| DevKoala wrote:
| You can already buy a chunk of SpaceX by buying Baron Partner's
| shares.
| repsilat wrote:
| 3% SpaceX, 47% TSLA. Not exactly a pure bet, but I guess you
| could short some of the others?
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/bptrx/holdings/
| gvhst wrote:
| A list of holdings leaves me scratching my head: - JD.com? -
| Netflix? - Meituan? (Chinese Food Delivery) - John Deere?
|
| Either these are some very forward looking plays, or there
| weren't enough public securities to fill a diversified, thematic
| basket.
|
| https://ark-funds.com/wp-content/fundsiteliterature/holdings...
| whoisjuan wrote:
| Someone on Twitter was suggesting that they picked Meituan only
| because it has a delivery robot called Space-Pod. Lol.
|
| Or in other words, they did a Ctrl+F: "space", in the filings
| of publicly traded companies and they built the index with the
| ones that had a match for the word.
|
| Stupid? Yes. Possible? Absolutely.
| btkramer9 wrote:
| As far as John Deere goes I think it has to do with the
| presumed equipment that they could design and send to mars for
| colonization.
|
| There was a conference SpaceX put on a year or two ago with a
| bunch of companies traditionally un-releated to space but would
| be in a good positions to start producing needed goods that
| SpaceX would want to send on the first 100s of Starships.
|
| Perhaps other companies here fit that list
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| I am reading Peter Thiel's book about startups, and he
| discusses the nature of technological monopolies. It says how
| most tech monopolies have common attributes: proprietary
| software, network effects, economies of scale, and a solid
| brand. It looks to me like those companies have all of that.
| gvhst wrote:
| Yes, but tech monopolies != Space Exploration
| MR4D wrote:
| I google'd it just for fun, but I thought you had made a
| really good point....
|
| Sadly, and much to my disbelief, you are incorrect:
|
| MSFT: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/introducing-
| azure-orb...
|
| FB: https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-confirms-its-
| working-on...
|
| GOOGL: https://earthengine.google.com/
|
| AAPL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2019/12/20/
| apple-b...
|
| AMZN: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2020/
| 07/31/a...
|
| If I had more time, I'd run down more companies (Like, who
| even knows what Slack might be planning! )
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| One of the categories targeted is companies that will benefit
| from space-focused enterprises. This includes space companies
| that improve Internet infrastructure.
|
| E.g. if SpaceX is successful with Starlink, it will increase
| the total available market for Netflix and Netflix revenue
| increases. JD and Meituan can access more customers, though it
| is as likely to be via a China-raised LEO fleet. John Deere
| from Internet-connected autonomous combines and more precise
| weather and crop health analysis from space informing them
| where and how to service the crops.
|
| Seems a little weak-linked to me, and the best I could do to
| defend this portfolio is that it's taking a super long view.
| But that is their rationale.
| gvhst wrote:
| How many of Meituan's customers are internet constrained. Not
| many would be my guess...
| justicezyx wrote:
| No, China has a very good coverage of 4g infrastructure.
| Need of satellite is very limited, if any.
|
| Satellite in China is more useful for disaster recovery and
| as independent technology itself.
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| A strikingly small % of China's land area has 4G service.
| It's focused on the high-population areas, but at best,
| it appears to be 10% of the land area[0]
|
| 900 Million of China's 1.4 Billion citizens have Internet
| access. That leaves 36%, or, 500,000,000 people, more
| than the population of North America, as an untapped
| Internet market.
|
| [0] https://www.nperf.com/en/map/CN/-/14505.China-
| Unicom/signal/...
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/795193/china-
| share-of-mo...
| justicezyx wrote:
| LMAO
|
| Another HN China expert poped up...
|
| The first link you provided is from China Unicom, the 3rd
| player in China, behind China mobile and China telecom,
| whose revenue in 2019 is 7B+, 9B+, 18B+, strikingly %, of
| course...
|
| http://www.xinhuanet.com/tech/2020-10/04/c_1126573258.htm
| The village coverage is 94%+ according Xinhua.
|
| Is Xinhua accurate, of course not. But is it more
| accurate than some random statistic site? Highly
| possible...
|
| Your 2nd link is about share of mobile internet users
| among the all internet users. What's it's relationship to
| your claim?
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| No, not a China expert. Just wondering, like other HNers,
| why ARKX includes these Chinese e-commerce firms and
| trying to find an explanation. If you know of one that
| can pass for logical, I'd be glad to hear it.
|
| As far as my own efforts, from the source cited, (which
| is 'nperf.com' and as far as I can see, not associated
| with any of the 3 services), You can see the coverage
| area of each service by selecting their drop downs. I
| looked at all 3, China Mobile, China Telecom, China
| Unicom. The maps of the three services show very limited
| coverage areas for all 3 services, relative to the land
| area of China. If those maps are inaccurate, perhaps you
| can point me to one that is accurate.
|
| Thanks for your link. It states that the service is
| available in most villages, but that does not mean in and
| of itself that the villagers are using it. The additional
| information of 900 million Internet users vs. 1.4 billion
| citizens suggests they are not all using it. To that
| point, your link indicates you're on target, since the
| satellites don't deliver directly to the brain and
| they'll need a device that would put them on 4G anyway.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Mechanized agriculture already uses GPS; maybe there is other
| satellite-based agritech on the horizon.
| consumer451 wrote:
| I'm not sure exactly what I expected to find in the holdings
| list, but there are some surprises to me in there. John Deere and
| Netflix would be two of them. However, I am a total ETF neophyte.
| Does anyone have any insights as to why companies like this would
| fit this category?
|
| https://ark-funds.com/wp-content/fundsiteliterature/holdings...
| cinntaile wrote:
| John Deere probably does a lot of automation research as well
| as satellite imagery research, both are "skills" necessary for
| space.
|
| Netflix I have no idea, but they're pretty good at shipping
| image and sound data around on all kinds of wonky internet
| connections I guess?
|
| It would be interesting to know how and why they select the
| proportions of individual stocks.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| Regardless of your thoughts on ARK, Cathie Wood, and ETF's in
| general.
|
| This fund is particularly interesting, because it might be one of
| the only chances for non-institutions and non-accredited
| investors to get early exposure to an entirely new avenue of
| resource gathering. Non-planetary mining, etc. Very exciting!
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Why would this get you more exposure vs simply buying the same
| public shares this ETF is made up of?
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| The line of thought is that ARK will get a chance to purchase
| IPO shares of say SpaceX for the ARKX fund at a price that
| your average investor won't have available to them.
| [deleted]
| hahahahe wrote:
| And you work at the Fed? God help us.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Their holdings are interesting. For specific companies, they're
| definitely weighted more heavily towards "OldSpace"
|
| Most of the non-space companies they have have pretty clear
| connections as suppliers (Xilinx, Nvidia, TSM). However some seem
| like a stretch unless I'm missing something. Maybe John Deere is
| planning on creating their own GNSS constellation and adding
| Netflix support to their tractors? I also can't imagine that
| space is a large part of Autodesk's customer base
| ericmay wrote:
| Really was hoping for some direct exposure to SpaceX here but
| that seems to be lacking. Hard pass.
|
| I like ARKG and ARKF and the ARK(Robotics don't remember the
| letter) are of interest. Personally hold ARKG.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-29 23:03 UTC)