Talk:Cathie Wood

Wood is Cathie's married name. Birth name is Duddy

Bloomberg profile states "Wood said that her parents, who immigrated to the U.S. from Ireland, had always encouraged her to pursue any career she wanted. She used their name in founding the Duddy Innovation Institute at her alma mater". Also refer to the obit of her ex-husband Robert Wood. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree you are right that 'Duddy' is her maiden name but if you look at both the voter records and the announcement for the Duddy Innovation Institute on the Notre Dame Academy website it appears that 'Duddy' was her maiden name but then was later kept as a middle name after marriage. So, it would be both a middle name and a maiden name. I changed my original edit so that 'Duddy' is also indicated as her birth name. BtecBrady (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

I put info in chronological order like every other BLP and clarified, improved grammar. If there is something that doesn't belong, it can be deleted, not revert everything. GloriaJFM (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific please? It can help others looking through your edits if you do them bit by bit instead of putting everything in one edit. If I started from the top, I don't understand why you changed the short description to from "American investment fund manager" to "American investor and businesswoman". -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Presidential election

The source for the statement that she support Trump's reelection campaign does not support the claim. It merely shows that she made statements regarding inflation, regulation, growth, etc, but at no point stated who she supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.250.27 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Well regarded

Just FYI "well regarded" is a euphemism for retarded on reddit. 198.27.188.7 (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Referenced here: https://reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/147pog5/a_young_ambitious_cathie_wood_she_would_later_go/jnwifvf

Insisting on the specific wording "highly regarded" is almost certainly vandalism by r/wallstreetbets users and not a good faith edit. Markthomasvia (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Intro section

Current intro:

Catherine Duddy Wood (born November 26, 1955) is an American investor and founder, CEO and CIO of ARK Invest, an investment management firm. Over the past decade, her flagship ARKK ETF generated less than half of Nasdaq-100's return, and ARK Invest was considered by Morningstar to be the leading wealth destroyer among investment companies. Cathie Wood is a proponent of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and has an allocation of 25% of her net worth in bitcoin as of 2024.

Problems:

1. Another editor holds a differing viewpoint regarding whether the statement "Over the past decade, her flagship ARKK ETF generated less than half of Nasdaq-100's return, and ARK Invest was considered by Morningstar to be the leading wealth destroyer among investment companies" should remain in the introduction section.
2. The inclusion of her Bitcoin advocacy appears to be out of place in the introduction section.

VCDimension (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The intro has issues with NPOV and recentism by only focusing on one period of low performance from 2022 to 2024, as well as misreading the sources it cites. Also, why no mention of several of her ETFs being among the top performing funds from 2014 to 2021?

I’m not very familiar with the reliability of Morningstar and they’ve never been reviewed as a reliable source, but their methodology for determining their largest “wealth destroyers” seems very arbitrary. By another logic, can’t one claim that the Invesco QQQ or SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF are the largest wealth destroyers of the last decade? They both lost far more than $14 billion of shareholder value during the 2020 Covid crash and the 2022 bear market. Obviously, I’m cherry-picked high and low points to support a conclusion I want to arrive at, which isn’t much different than Morningstar’s methodology.

Second, it’s fallacious reasoning to assume a fund being a "wealth destroyer" is indicative of the performance of the fund manager or it even being an underperforming fund, but rather investors poorly timing their entry and exit. A fund could be a "wealth destroyer" even if it's at an all time high. For example, the Fidelity Magellan Fund averaged a yearly 29% ROI during from 1977 to 1990 but most investors actually lost money by buying high and selling low, essentially another "wealth destroyer". For comparison, all of her funds are well in the green from inception to present day. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have made the article more neutral, and have removed the NPOV tag. ReferenceMan (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)