ER of 0.68% is insane for an ETF.
I suppose it's easy to quote a MER but not look beyond that though.
One of the strongest predictors of a fund's long term performance is the expense ratio. Yes, it's important. Low cost funds have a statistically significant advantage over high cost funds. There are exceptions, but as a rule low cost funds outperform high cost funds over time.
Looking at the holdings in the fund, it doesn't make me think "Autonomous vehicles." It's a tech sector fund that includes a few auto companies like Tesla and Toyota.
ARKQ, 0.75% is even more insane. "I don't want to put in the time required to chose the companies in this race, so I let ARK chose the companies for me and I pay 0.75% for that service. " You just described how every active fund works, and the overwhelming majority of active funds underperform their index counterparts over time.
Let's compare them to the Vanguard Information Tech ETF, VGT, 0.10% ER.
YTD, 1 year, 3 year, 5 year.
DRIV: 17.42, 39.34, NA, NA
ARKQ: 27.13, 39.91, 20.70, 20.32
VGT:
28.79, 55.96, 28.03, 22.29The lower cost, market weighted, index ETF wins across all time frames.
Now VGT doesn't include Tesla. It's considered a consumer discretionary sector stock, and that ETF, VCR, had returns of 26.61 YTD, 40.17 1 year, 17.05 3 year, 19.43 5 year. Very similar returns to the autonomous vehicle ETFs. VGT+VCR would target the same sectors that benefit from autonomous tech, while giving higher returns at lower costs with more diversification.