That chart understates how much money she's lost and how many people's finances she's hurt in dollar terms as she raised much of her money at the top. I don't hate anyone but she makes a mockery of the idea of investing. Her "thematic" approach is just an innumerate approach that says that an idea is worth investing in as a theme regardless of its price. It makes sense only as a marketing scheme to gather assets from similarly innumerate retail investors with Covid-era stimulus checks that they want to gamble away. It succeeded for a while as a liquidity Ponzi in which she intentionally funneled huge amounts of money into a few overlapping positions. Key to these positions was a focus on unprofitable tech companies. They were mostly worthless and all worth less than they cost but had the virtue of being unfalsifiable for a while. If I say "this costs 5x free cash flow" it has to be true or you can call me out. But if she says, "this has a 100 trillion TAM in a few decades from now and will have 25% of that market (because other people don't like money and won't compete away its advantages?)" then she can become wealthy on management fees before anyone can prove her wrong. Her virtue is that of a 1-900 fortune teller. It is cold reading a credulous audience that wants to believe. They got what they paid for. In a bigger sense, this may have been a victimless crime as ARKK investors were unlikely to ever hang onto their money in any event. If they believe her, they would believe anything. https://bit.ly/3IteTEu
I try not to be someone who partakes in too much schadenfraude, but Chris Bloomstran’s takedowns of ARK’s research are just so enjoyable.
I used to feel a little bad for Wood because some of the hate she gets on Twitter feels particularly vicious, but then you read some of her predictions on Twitter and they’re so unhinged. And the quality of her team’s research doesn’t stand up to any sophisticated scrutiny. But all they do in response is double down! I’ve become much less sympathetic to her over time.
That chart understates how much money she's lost and how many people's finances she's hurt in dollar terms as she raised much of her money at the top. I don't hate anyone but she makes a mockery of the idea of investing. Her "thematic" approach is just an innumerate approach that says that an idea is worth investing in as a theme regardless of its price. It makes sense only as a marketing scheme to gather assets from similarly innumerate retail investors with Covid-era stimulus checks that they want to gamble away. It succeeded for a while as a liquidity Ponzi in which she intentionally funneled huge amounts of money into a few overlapping positions. Key to these positions was a focus on unprofitable tech companies. They were mostly worthless and all worth less than they cost but had the virtue of being unfalsifiable for a while. If I say "this costs 5x free cash flow" it has to be true or you can call me out. But if she says, "this has a 100 trillion TAM in a few decades from now and will have 25% of that market (because other people don't like money and won't compete away its advantages?)" then she can become wealthy on management fees before anyone can prove her wrong. Her virtue is that of a 1-900 fortune teller. It is cold reading a credulous audience that wants to believe. They got what they paid for. In a bigger sense, this may have been a victimless crime as ARKK investors were unlikely to ever hang onto their money in any event. If they believe her, they would believe anything. https://bit.ly/3IteTEu
I try not to be someone who partakes in too much schadenfraude, but Chris Bloomstran’s takedowns of ARK’s research are just so enjoyable.
I used to feel a little bad for Wood because some of the hate she gets on Twitter feels particularly vicious, but then you read some of her predictions on Twitter and they’re so unhinged. And the quality of her team’s research doesn’t stand up to any sophisticated scrutiny. But all they do in response is double down! I’ve become much less sympathetic to her over time.