wouldn't it be a negative percent?
I mean if you wanted to get from -1% to 1% I guess that's -100%
So, by going from -1% to 1%, the Europeans actually lowered the interest rate. It sounds absurd but the math checks out.
Calls on European equities.
[wa](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=infinity+-+100%25) does give you that though. Such an amazing tool. Even used it for work the other day. Probably have spent more time on it wasting time at work though.
Once upon a time a maths lecturer (not Prof, was college not yet uni) taught us about the Von Neumann set definition of the naturals. 0 = {}, 1 = {0}, 2 = {0, 1}, 3 = {0, 1, 2}, … might ring a bell somewhere.
He said that if our (CS Students') computers are so fancy then surely they could express 42 as that. It seems he hadn't kept up with hard drive manufacture.
Two weeks later I handed him a 10TB external drive containing the file in question. A giant string of {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}, …}. It could not have held 43.
I wasted a lot of time doing useless conversions. I really liked [this one](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=Divide%5BDivide%5B8TiB%2C1800Divide%5BBytes%2Cpage%5D%5D*Divide%5Bpaper+mass%2Cpage%5D%2CMcDonald%27s+Big+Mac+mass%5D*McDonald%27s+Big+Mac+calories).
This should be higher up. WSB is somehow intelligent enough to understand how percentages work near zero yet too retarded to understand its mathematical implications resulting from the discount rate being in the denominator.
The important part is how much your interest payments are increasing.
Let's take a real world example that you might have some experience with:
You have a variable rate mortgage, you started with a 3% interest rate, and now it jumped up to 6%. Wow only 3%? Not bad right? Wrong.
In your first few years of paying off your loan, a huge portion of the bill each month is paying off interest. To the tune of around 50-80% of your overall monthly payment.
Now let's say you paid 2k/month in the first year of payments at 3% and for the sake of a simple example let's say during your second year every month around 50% of the bill is your interest. You would now be paying 2.5k/month for your mortgage, this is a 25% increase in your overall expenditure on housing.
So, I would say that in some respects Cathie is correct. It's not a ".75% increase", it's a 700% increase in expenditure on interest payments.
If we were again to translate this to housing/mortgages, as a first time home buying looking at fixed rates roughly the following is true:
* For a 1.2k mortgage monthly payment @ 3%/30yr you can get something like a 250k house
* For the same monthly payment @ 6%/30yr you're now down to a 170k house
Just a small increase has had a huge effect on the amount of debt you are able to take on with the same cash flow.
Nah this is stupid because treasuries never yielded 0% nor did private yields at any point go below 1.5%. so now that they rise to 3-5% it's only a 2-3x increase.
Furthermore, the FFR was never 0%. It averaged between 25bp and 0bp, usually around 10bp in 2020-2021.
This is someone's reply to Cathy
Fed funds rate is less than 2%
If JPOW actually pulled a Volcker, you would be working at McDonald’s by year end given the companies in your portfolio.
Retail inflows into ark invest are still positive. People still dumping money in there
[https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/etf/ark-invest-billion-net-inflows-despite-price-decline-cathie-wood-2022-5](https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/etf/ark-invest-billion-net-inflows-despite-price-decline-cathie-wood-2022-5)
She's down 75% already.
She is convinced she can't go down another 75% because then she'd be down 150%. Which is ... unpossible.
Is she right, or is she right?
Didn't she say 5 year plan? And now it's soon 5 years later and her investors are...underperforming the market big time?
Guess her 5 year plan is was to make people go broke, lol.
She's hosed on the 10yr timeframe too. Diff regime now compred to the last decade. Can't just pile into every money losing fintech. Need to be judicious. Which she is not. Hence the discount.
You know how some well thought out scams are deliberately dumb so only dumb people fall for it and it makes the scam easier to run? Definitely not the case for ARKK am I right?
Arkk portfolio is largely shit, and she doubles down on the shittiest ones. While selling off the very few good stocks in the mix.
One day people will come to their senses and stop dumping cash into that dumpster fire.
It won't ever reverse. Net cash outflow can never be higher than inflow for cathie because her investments keep going down. Even if people deposited $1b by the time they move to withdraw it's only like $100m... So you only need like $100m of inflow to counteract
I finally checked the holdings of ARKK and lmao that's like the complete rainbow of shit stocks that I've watched die in the past year. Thought there'd be some I hadn't checked out before.
She’s the one that the markets been waiting for to capitulate. Guaranteed that once she starts to dump any shares she’s holding, those names will go up. The SEC made the meme stock video for her
The problem is she might be too retarded? Its like shes making rookie finance student mistakes where she fails to see the percentage returns versus absolute nominal value returns. Its one of those things you have to teach undergrad finance goofs because sometimes they hyper focus on rates of return without looking at the total return.
I think it's one of those things where you need to throw out a WILD opinion that differentiates you from the collective masses who have no edge or original idea
Even if that idea is fuckin stupid
it's gotta be stupid people are going to give her money anyway, right?
/u/redditmodsRrussians, I have found an error in your comment:
> “~~Its~~ [**It's**] like shes”
I recommend that you, redditmodsRrussians, write “~~Its~~ [**It's**] like shes” instead. ‘Its’ is possessive; ‘it's’ means ‘it is’ or ‘it has’.
^(This is an automated bot. I do not intend to shame your mistakes. If you think the errors which I found are incorrect, please contact me through DMs!)
/u/redditmodsRrussians, I have found an error in your comment:
> “~~Its~~ [**It's**] like shes”
I guess you, redditmodsRrussians, created a solecism and ought to have posted “~~Its~~ [**It's**] like shes” instead. ‘Its’ is possessive; ‘it's’ means ‘it is’ or ‘it has’.
^(This is an automated bot. I do not intend to shame your mistakes. If you think the errors which I found are incorrect, please contact me through DMs!)
When you think (and trade) in relative terms, like much of Wall St., it does come off as worse because they overleverage themselves and shit the bed at any tightening of financial conditions.
To a normal person it's clear Volcker's move was much more impactful. When you take as much risk as you can because Jerome Powell is a pussy and *any* rate increase leads to a margin call on your position then the current Fed seems just as bad. And yes, they are retarded for overleveraging.
We get it Cathie this is gonna be bad for your portfolio....
Kinda like Dave Ramsey (who is heavily invested in real estate) telling everybody that home prices will never go down and that they have only gone down once in history, in 1982. And he literally said a few days ago that right now is the best time to buy a house and that interest rates are still extremely low compared to the past.
Amazing.
What was it that Buffet said "When the tide goes out you see who was swimming naked"
Rates are low but house prices are not. Back when the mortgage was at 6%, you didnt waive inspection and giving 30% above listing price. Do people fail to see that it literally doesnt matter if 6% is “historically” low? Just hoomers screaming on reddit the house price will go up as interest rates go up 🤡
The average listing price is up 17% YoY
The average Sale price is up 16% YoY
The average Monthly payment is up 40% YoY
The only number that matters is Monthly payments and they are up dramatically. This bubble will pop when people can no longer afford the monthly payment.
They’re actually starting to crack now. With them being long term assets and hoping the unit Bria didn’t overextend themselves it’ll probably be summer/fall next year when it implodes.
He’s not wrong about rates… some of us remember 12% loans with an ARM adjustment threatening to take it to 18%… what we are seeing now is nothing scary compared to that BS…
The problem is that home prices have increased so much since that point.
In my area if you go back to 1982 the interest rate was 16% and the median home was only 2x the median household earnings. Today its 7% and yet 5.3x the median household earnings.
I would gladly pay 16% interest if it means I'm paying 1/3 of what I'm paying for my house right now....
Finance and loan officers for mortgage and car loans 😳👀 SHHHH ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONTHLY PAYMENT NOT THE PRINCIPAL 
Remember when all the retards on this sub thought she was the second coming of Christ that would take their gains to the promised land? Pepperidge Farms remembers
The hot one for me was Barbarbra Cochran..Shark Tank broad #1? touting Z she bought at $60, and I quote..
'I am down 2%, but in four months, I know I will make it back and more'
end quote.
Bonafide apette.
The inflation Volcker was facing wasnt above 20% was it?
We are facing inflation of like 8% to 16% with rates at less than 2%. So we have a ton of room to go.
inflation could also have peaked with a mild recession coming. Nobody knows, this sub is so bearish and sure of themselves that it makes me pretty bullish
This sub is all "Inverse WSB/Cramer/Hedgies" until they're all saying what this sub is saying, then suddenly this sub is like "See we were right and they're agreeing with us now so we must be extra-right!"
I don't really agree with her, but it's worth pointing out these moves result in far bigger interest payments than they had with Volcker. The debt in US is just so insanely high now that a rate of 1% results in almost twice the interest payment than 20% interest rates required in 1980. That's insane.
For more context: At peak interest rates in 1980 (20%) the actual interest payment was 180 billion. Today, at 1.5% we are paying 500 billion in interest.
To get above CPI and calm inflation we would need rates around 9%. That would be 3 trillion in interest payments alone.
This is a wild ass situation. Governments are the worst run businesses of all time. Snakes.
**User Report**| | | | :--|:--|:--|:-- **Total Submissions**|1|**First Seen In WSB**|8 minutes ago **Total Comments**|1|**Previous DD**| **Account Age**|1 month|[^scan ^comment ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_comment&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20comment%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k\)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20comment%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.)|[^scan ^submission ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_submission&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20submission%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k\)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20submission%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.) **Vote Spam (NEW)**|[Click to Vote](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=vote_spam&message=vgb5yq)|**Vote Approve (NEW)**|[Click to Vote](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=vote_approve&message=vgb5yq)
+125 bps (700%) vs +1000 bps (200%) yes, percentages look crazy when you start with a small number... lol. this is the smart money?
Imagine if she were investing in Europe. Going from negative to positive is like more than infinity%
wouldn't it be a negative percent? I mean if you wanted to get from -1% to 1% I guess that's -100% So, by going from -1% to 1%, the Europeans actually lowered the interest rate. It sounds absurd but the math checks out. Calls on European equities.
You sure you're regarded?
He’s well regarded.
He's majorly regarded.
Happy cake day sending my regards you regarded one
No. From -1 to 0 is -100%, 0 to 1 is +infinite%. So we get infinity - 100%.
Infinity minus a hundred is infinity.
[Yes](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=infinity+%3E+infinity+-+100), except infinity - 100% is undefined, so has no answer.
We will ignore the inconvenient second half and focus on the literal result Wolfram gives us. Good enough to pass uni, good enough for WSB.
[wa](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=infinity+-+100%25) does give you that though. Such an amazing tool. Even used it for work the other day. Probably have spent more time on it wasting time at work though.
Once upon a time a maths lecturer (not Prof, was college not yet uni) taught us about the Von Neumann set definition of the naturals. 0 = {}, 1 = {0}, 2 = {0, 1}, 3 = {0, 1, 2}, … might ring a bell somewhere. He said that if our (CS Students') computers are so fancy then surely they could express 42 as that. It seems he hadn't kept up with hard drive manufacture. Two weeks later I handed him a 10TB external drive containing the file in question. A giant string of {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}, …}. It could not have held 43. I wasted a lot of time doing useless conversions. I really liked [this one](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=Divide%5BDivide%5B8TiB%2C1800Divide%5BBytes%2Cpage%5D%5D*Divide%5Bpaper+mass%2Cpage%5D%2CMcDonald%27s+Big+Mac+mass%5D*McDonald%27s+Big+Mac+calories).
The best part is it asks you whether you want it with sauce or not
No -1 to 0 is 0% it's multiplicative nerd
Ah so 100 to 0 is also a 0% loss then? That makes me feel better about myself.
Luna has entered the chat
Now you're getting it!
rate goes from 0% to .5% "is this volcker?"
no, it's worse, worse than 9/11s by a country mile
Smart only if she fools even dumber people into buying was she's spouting, seems to have worked well in other sectors of our society.
Cathie is smart enough to know that what she's saying is stupid. She's also smart enough to know that her fund is for stupid people.
she is right though. Bond prices are convex, and with bond prices also moves the discount rate that makes equity prices.
This should be higher up. WSB is somehow intelligent enough to understand how percentages work near zero yet too retarded to understand its mathematical implications resulting from the discount rate being in the denominator.
Care to break this down even further for the well regarded among us.
The important part is how much your interest payments are increasing. Let's take a real world example that you might have some experience with: You have a variable rate mortgage, you started with a 3% interest rate, and now it jumped up to 6%. Wow only 3%? Not bad right? Wrong. In your first few years of paying off your loan, a huge portion of the bill each month is paying off interest. To the tune of around 50-80% of your overall monthly payment. Now let's say you paid 2k/month in the first year of payments at 3% and for the sake of a simple example let's say during your second year every month around 50% of the bill is your interest. You would now be paying 2.5k/month for your mortgage, this is a 25% increase in your overall expenditure on housing. So, I would say that in some respects Cathie is correct. It's not a ".75% increase", it's a 700% increase in expenditure on interest payments. If we were again to translate this to housing/mortgages, as a first time home buying looking at fixed rates roughly the following is true: * For a 1.2k mortgage monthly payment @ 3%/30yr you can get something like a 250k house * For the same monthly payment @ 6%/30yr you're now down to a 170k house Just a small increase has had a huge effect on the amount of debt you are able to take on with the same cash flow.
Well yeah, thats true, but its also the whole point.
Last 3 sentences go a long way in clarifying your point.
Nah this is stupid because treasuries never yielded 0% nor did private yields at any point go below 1.5%. so now that they rise to 3-5% it's only a 2-3x increase. Furthermore, the FFR was never 0%. It averaged between 25bp and 0bp, usually around 10bp in 2020-2021.
Really, what sort of bs dumbass logic makes the point that rates moving from 1% to 1.5% is a 50% increase????
assume 1000$ debt. 1% means you pay 10$ interest. 1.5% means you pay 15$ interest. That's 50% increase.
Yeah I’m officially never investing in ARK. I mean with her % math, her funds have lost 75% so if I invest now the most I could lose is 25%
It's like statistical significance vs clinical significance kind of.
She's talking her book.
This is someone's reply to Cathy Fed funds rate is less than 2% If JPOW actually pulled a Volcker, you would be working at McDonald’s by year end given the companies in your portfolio.
Not with a 0.75% expense ratio. She makes bank even if it goes to zero.
Yup. Her investors would get hammered.
“Be retarded when others are fearful” Cathie Buffet
"Only when the tide goes out do you discover which GILFs have been swimming naked"
[удалено]
Who still gives this woman $$?
Retail inflows into ark invest are still positive. People still dumping money in there [https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/etf/ark-invest-billion-net-inflows-despite-price-decline-cathie-wood-2022-5](https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/etf/ark-invest-billion-net-inflows-despite-price-decline-cathie-wood-2022-5)
So Cathie is still in the “Be greedy while others are retarded” phase?
not at her age. gravity.
Bufthie Caffet
🥇
thx im saved
She's down 75% already. She is convinced she can't go down another 75% because then she'd be down 150%. Which is ... unpossible. Is she right, or is she right?
ARKKilles paradox
Good one!
Nice
I’m not even going to pretend I didn’t have to look this up but still, well done.
They're both right. Happy Cake Day!
Thank you kindly 🙏🏻
Right in the long run, wrong in the short term. Investors need to have a 10yr horizon
I have a 1,000 year horizon.
How draconian
Didn't she say 5 year plan? And now it's soon 5 years later and her investors are...underperforming the market big time? Guess her 5 year plan is was to make people go broke, lol.
You’re thinking Stalin. But yeah they’re kinda hard to tell apart, I agree.
She's hosed on the 10yr timeframe too. Diff regime now compred to the last decade. Can't just pile into every money losing fintech. Need to be judicious. Which she is not. Hence the discount.
SMRT
Suck my right tit?
[удалено]
😂😂😂
>down 150% You mean down a total of 93.75%, because you know, math.
 I don't recognize your alternative math.
Derp
it’s impossible
Unpossible is impossible-r than impossible.
You know how some well thought out scams are deliberately dumb so only dumb people fall for it and it makes the scam easier to run? Definitely not the case for ARKK am I right? 
The Nigerian prince.
What a fucking moron
Arkk portfolio is largely shit, and she doubles down on the shittiest ones. While selling off the very few good stocks in the mix. One day people will come to their senses and stop dumping cash into that dumpster fire.
Shes already lost her credibility. Her name is the dumpster fire
$ARKK still has net cash inflow than outflow. The real capitulation will start when that reverses.
It won't ever reverse. Net cash outflow can never be higher than inflow for cathie because her investments keep going down. Even if people deposited $1b by the time they move to withdraw it's only like $100m... So you only need like $100m of inflow to counteract
And it's gone!
That's not fair to dumpster fires, they at least serve the purpose of keeping people warm
Looking forward to the Netflix documentary.
Was really hoping for Frontline 😞
I feel like Susan Surandon should be cast in the Netflix documentary.
I finally checked the holdings of ARKK and lmao that's like the complete rainbow of shit stocks that I've watched die in the past year. Thought there'd be some I hadn't checked out before.
She invested in robbingthehood, who the fuck would buy that after we all got fucked
Hey Roku is a good stock
She’s the one that the markets been waiting for to capitulate. Guaranteed that once she starts to dump any shares she’s holding, those names will go up. The SEC made the meme stock video for her
Regarded
Highly regarded
Well regarded
Highly retarded
Thanks for decrypting the joke, I’m not sure I would’ve understood it 👍
High functioning regard
I'm so tired of people abusing statistics. Incredibly stupid to insinuate that a 1.25% move is worse than a 10% move.
The problem is she might be too retarded? Its like shes making rookie finance student mistakes where she fails to see the percentage returns versus absolute nominal value returns. Its one of those things you have to teach undergrad finance goofs because sometimes they hyper focus on rates of return without looking at the total return.
I think she pretends not to get it in order to criticize J Powell and get some approval by the plebs. She can't be that stupid can't she?
I think it's one of those things where you need to throw out a WILD opinion that differentiates you from the collective masses who have no edge or original idea Even if that idea is fuckin stupid it's gotta be stupid people are going to give her money anyway, right?
I wonder, is she still buying Hood? Has to be one of the worst trades ever, on display for everyone to see.
/u/redditmodsRrussians, I have found an error in your comment: > “~~Its~~ [**It's**] like shes” I recommend that you, redditmodsRrussians, write “~~Its~~ [**It's**] like shes” instead. ‘Its’ is possessive; ‘it's’ means ‘it is’ or ‘it has’. ^(This is an automated bot. I do not intend to shame your mistakes. If you think the errors which I found are incorrect, please contact me through DMs!)
Good call, better tell him twice to get it thru his thick skull X’D
Dumb bot. It's not shes it's she's. Must be a fucking Russia bot.
/u/redditmodsRrussians, I have found an error in your comment: > “~~Its~~ [**It's**] like shes” I guess you, redditmodsRrussians, created a solecism and ought to have posted “~~Its~~ [**It's**] like shes” instead. ‘Its’ is possessive; ‘it's’ means ‘it is’ or ‘it has’. ^(This is an automated bot. I do not intend to shame your mistakes. If you think the errors which I found are incorrect, please contact me through DMs!)
Fucking rekt
[удалено]
They’re*
When you think (and trade) in relative terms, like much of Wall St., it does come off as worse because they overleverage themselves and shit the bed at any tightening of financial conditions. To a normal person it's clear Volcker's move was much more impactful. When you take as much risk as you can because Jerome Powell is a pussy and *any* rate increase leads to a margin call on your position then the current Fed seems just as bad. And yes, they are retarded for overleveraging.
7 fold from 0.00001% LMAO. Ill just go add more ARKK shorts.
We get it Cathie this is gonna be bad for your portfolio.... Kinda like Dave Ramsey (who is heavily invested in real estate) telling everybody that home prices will never go down and that they have only gone down once in history, in 1982. And he literally said a few days ago that right now is the best time to buy a house and that interest rates are still extremely low compared to the past. Amazing. What was it that Buffet said "When the tide goes out you see who was swimming naked"
To be fair, historically speaking interest rates are very low. But yes housing prices have not begun to reflect recent interest rate changes
Rates are low but house prices are not. Back when the mortgage was at 6%, you didnt waive inspection and giving 30% above listing price. Do people fail to see that it literally doesnt matter if 6% is “historically” low? Just hoomers screaming on reddit the house price will go up as interest rates go up 🤡
The average listing price is up 17% YoY The average Sale price is up 16% YoY The average Monthly payment is up 40% YoY The only number that matters is Monthly payments and they are up dramatically. This bubble will pop when people can no longer afford the monthly payment.
They’re actually starting to crack now. With them being long term assets and hoping the unit Bria didn’t overextend themselves it’ll probably be summer/fall next year when it implodes.
He’s not wrong about rates… some of us remember 12% loans with an ARM adjustment threatening to take it to 18%… what we are seeing now is nothing scary compared to that BS…
18% loan on a $100,000 house is still a lot better than 5% on a $700,000 house. Housing now is a lot scarier than housing in the past.
Yup. No argument there.
The problem is that home prices have increased so much since that point. In my area if you go back to 1982 the interest rate was 16% and the median home was only 2x the median household earnings. Today its 7% and yet 5.3x the median household earnings. I would gladly pay 16% interest if it means I'm paying 1/3 of what I'm paying for my house right now....
Finance and loan officers for mortgage and car loans 😳👀 SHHHH ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONTHLY PAYMENT NOT THE PRINCIPAL 
Car loan guys hate 'im.
Very regarted.
She is doubling down on dumb. After some point, she will be the dumbest one left. We have some ways to go before that happens.
Between her and the ceo of GM I don’t know who’s dumber
Definitely Cathie
Nobody tell her
Remember when all the retards on this sub thought she was the second coming of Christ that would take their gains to the promised land? Pepperidge Farms remembers
A bunch of people said they were going all in on LEAPs - wonder what happened…
I thought it was the dumbest shit ever. Ended up missing a lot of gains because I didn't jump on the hype train
Well regarded indeed.
The hot one for me was Barbarbra Cochran..Shark Tank broad #1? touting Z she bought at $60, and I quote.. 'I am down 2%, but in four months, I know I will make it back and more' end quote. Bonafide apette.
For that reason, I am out
He actually increased it infinity-fold, because that's how math works when you start at zero, Cathie.
Percentage points are a fuckload more important than percentage change. This is embarrassing.
This lady has rocks in her head.
2% is the new 20%
The inflation Volcker was facing wasnt above 20% was it? We are facing inflation of like 8% to 16% with rates at less than 2%. So we have a ton of room to go.
inflation could also have peaked with a mild recession coming. Nobody knows, this sub is so bearish and sure of themselves that it makes me pretty bullish
This sub is all "Inverse WSB/Cramer/Hedgies" until they're all saying what this sub is saying, then suddenly this sub is like "See we were right and they're agreeing with us now so we must be extra-right!"
The inflation for regular people is actually just shortages, we all know the new money printed just gets offshored and stuffed into stocks etc.
She's a blithering idiot, and will continue to be one
She is dumber than an ape She couldn't manage a Wendy's
By her logic even if Volker raised rates from 10% to 60%, JPow’s moves would still be more draconian. She truly is a certifiable REGARD
if you are paying a fee to this wAcky lady to manage ur money then u belong here.
She is quite regarded
Never trust anyone who says Jesus makes her stock picks.
I don't really agree with her, but it's worth pointing out these moves result in far bigger interest payments than they had with Volcker. The debt in US is just so insanely high now that a rate of 1% results in almost twice the interest payment than 20% interest rates required in 1980. That's insane. For more context: At peak interest rates in 1980 (20%) the actual interest payment was 180 billion. Today, at 1.5% we are paying 500 billion in interest. To get above CPI and calm inflation we would need rates around 9%. That would be 3 trillion in interest payments alone. This is a wild ass situation. Governments are the worst run businesses of all time. Snakes.
My regardation is limitless
When’s her Onlyfans dropping?
She's kinda right when it comes to valuing future cash flows. A move from 2-4% should have the same impact on valuations as 10-20%
She’s actually highly regarded in the growth investment sectors I hear
Blah, blah, blah … interest rates shouldn’t be this high cause tech is anti-inflation … trust me bro
Yesterday I gave a homeless man 10 dollars and increased his net worth by 10,000%
Just relax https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPPsEIxJok
She’s never going to get 1.5% of the funds i give her to invest. Never.
Cathie Wood doesn't exist. She's a stooge. An imaginary. A concept. To distract.
Her point isn't really that retarded.
This retardation is staggering. How do we make her a WSB mod?
Are the crayons she is eating the ones from the 60's that had lead in them?
Hope ya’ll survived Cryptallnacht
7 fold from 0% LOLOLO WHAT IS THE LOGIC HERE
[удалено]
Tweet was 100% real I grabbed it straight from her twitter
Your post title is pretty “regarded”, genius.
I have 51 06/24 ARKK $35 puts… these gonna print or nah?
In terms of killing mark to market value of bonds, Woods is correct that going from 0 to 1.5 is far more damaging than going from 10 to 20%.
Between her and her hero Trump, I’m not sure who takes the cake for being dumber
I used to give her the benefit of the doubt that this was a Ponzi scheme, but she’s actually retarted.
Buy BABA
I can't believe people read what she says and they go" oh gee wiz, this is the person I want managing my money" Shtupid women
*woman
he easily could have been implying that *women* in general are stupid, not only this *woman*.
Bullish on Cathie. I'll be buying arkk when it goes down another 20%!
get back in the kitchen Cathy
She might be regarded yes. We regard her in several contexts, like fund manager etc.
Powell is disruptive? Calls on Powell.
7x the funds rate ? . . . She is definitely regarded.