> "She's crazy christian". "She took money from Bill Huang". "It's all fed-driven mania". "She's trading like an amateur hodler". "That guy says she doesn't kno

> "She's crazy christian". "She took money from Bill Huang". "It's all fed-driven mania". "She's trading like an amateur hodler". "That guy says she doesn't know what she's doing". "clickbait-like flood of dopamine-inducing buzzwords". You just nailed it. There was no talent, it was just pure survival bias. Out of all the portfolio combinations, someone out there was going to go with purely speculative unprofitable tech. Someone always does. ARK began in 2014 and they were too early. For several years they were mostly flat, offering meager returns. And then again, through sheer statistical probability, that person did it at a time when the Fed went nuts, the President at the time was highly focused on the market, when the new Dot Com bubble was inflating and VCs were desperate to give anyone with an idea and the right buzz words money, and across the ocean, some guy was committing hilarious financial crimes that make Wall Street Bets seem like responsible investing. In fact Bill Huang blowing up marked the peak of speculative tech's valuation. And it's happening again - but this time in energy and commodities, except those fund managers have all been humbled by the absolute knackering that has been the last decade. They don't go out there and talk about how WTI crude is going to trade at $500 and their projections for 50% GDP (before inflation of course). They generally just talk their book in the appropriate channels, and err on the side of cautious optimism instead of outrageous projections. Their models are also infinitely better than anything ARK has ever put out. In summary: "there are no gurus, only market cycles".