Edit: I looked at their site and it's clear that their business model is just to gather assets to charge fees on. Which is why they've developed strategies like Inverse Cramer, Pelosi Tracker, WallStreetBets -- these strategies don't have any alpha, they're just designed to catch the eye of retail traders.
Also this scumbaggery, from their website:
"$70M+ Assets Committed*"
Then way at the bottom:
"* = "Assets committed" refers to captured user behavior in attempted investments and not to assets being actively managed."
For these more fun ones (WallStreetBets, Nancy Pelosi) - these are specifically requested from our clients and we provide extensive data and recommendations to suggest portfolios to clients based on their situation. You can see for yourself: the WallStreetBets portfolio is down nearly 40%. Nancy Pelosi is flat - we don't hide that at all and instead make it very clear with large font. Our most popular strategy (pulls the most AUM) is the Quantbase Leverage Flagship, a portfolio based on this paper[0] with nearly 100 years of performance history.
Yes we charge a fee on AUM. All robo-advisors do. This aligns incentives: we make (more) money only when you do. We're not for everyone, and even for those we are for we recommend on our front page to limit investment to a fraction of your total portfolio, but the thesis we believe in is solid: you can improve your absolute returns by taking a higher level of risk. We make it easier to do that intelligently, with proper data, and with the proper risk management. Happy to answer any other questions.
[0]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2741701
Edit: added "more" to clarify the AUM fee incentives alignment.
This is absolutely false. You charge a 0.94% management fee. That fee gets paid whether or not customers' portfolios go up.
I imagine following a cat picking random stocks works about as well. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/01/14/169326326/hous...
Jim Cramer, before he was on TV, did well beating the market as a fund manager. So there is a good reason to believe he could. Whether he could televise his strategy to retail investors and funds looking to profit from retail investors and make his viewers money is a different question.
The article mentions (or links somewhere to this info) that there's no longer a Cramer pump, although there definitely was a couple years back
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USKD3vPD6ZA
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/12/20/any-monkey...
that probably doesnt say much though. what happens if its run since ark's inception?
The fund makes its money on fees, not on price appreciation.
That's not what cramer's predictions are though - his predictions are likely not far off from a random flip of the coin. So an inverse is likely to perform just as well (or poorly) as the real prediction!
Is there a case for this as an actual investment or primarily novelty?
Like: window alert usage for "logging", pages rendering the following as text "Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information)."
General session wonkiness.
Lovely console errors: "Uncaught (in promise) SyntaxError: JSON.parse: unexpected character at line 2 column 1 of the JSON data"
Seems neat, though, I don't see why or how I should trust them with bank account access.
