Thread by @cppinvest

1/ Don't mean to speak for our boy, but I believe @Keubiko is saying is that ARK really isn't a serious money management shop. Perhaps even that ARK is deliberately playing to retail for obvious reasons (Narrator: No institution would take anyone that owns $WKHS seriously.

2/ You remember the breathless reporting from Bloomberg and others that discussed ARK's astronomical asset growth relative to the other big industry players, the real shops, and you might have rightly wondered, "where is the growth coming from?"

3/ I can tell you where it's not coming from - US-based institutions. Hmmm.

Here's a chart of institutional ownership in popular ETF's. The mainline products are widely owned by US institutions - defined as mostly RIA's and broker/dealer platforms.

h/t @TESLAcharts

4/ This level of institutional ownership is almost a joke.
There is a clear play going on to retail by our heroine. More importantly, whose retail? US? South Korea? China? We have made the point repeatedly that $TSLA's junky shareholder base enables games to be played.

5/ You've all seen that gamma squeeze goofiness. This is similar - and really just another extension of the $GME and $AMC nuttiness, which implies the shareholder base in the ARK funds is, um, I don't know, less than stable?

6/ You would be right to wonder how much of this growth has in fact come from overseas, and you would be right to also wonder about the volatility that could be in store in this holdings list, if/when it unravels.

I for one think her flows only stop when one of the sub-$2bn mkt cap names she loves to own implodes and takes returns down with it. There is a reason that professional small-cap managers close funds and cap exposure. And it isn't a love of benchmarks.