Resolute Investment Managers, announced on October 29 that is plans to take controlling stake in Cathie Wood's ARK Invest. Resolute Investment Managers took a minority holding in ARK in 2016, with an option to buy a controlling stake in 2021. Now, they seem to be interested in using that option to perform a hostile takeover of Ark Invest. Cathie Wood said it is very ‘disappointed’ by Resolute move to ‘seize control’ of ARK. Wood, the founder, CEO, and CIO of ARK released a statement making it clear that she does not want Resolute as a majority owner of her business.
This is strictly my opinion, so do your own research and make up your own mind.
Become a channel member to get access to members only feed and videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJwKCyEIFHwUOPQQ-4kC1Zw/join
👏👏👏 Big shout out to our growing list of Patreons: Mark Dixon, Daniel Johnson, Stephen Barnes, Sheri Morgan, SC, Survive R, Joel Peterson, Daniel, Rob Goddard, Andrew Wilson, Danny Goff, Chris Houston, Dayyan, Daniel Gordon, Ravi, Francis, Physics Helper, Mathias Eklof, Matthew Agostinho, Error Comb, Dan Marshall, Carl Seghers, Benjamin Allen, Jan Hakkebo, Stanislav Brand, Hanno Offen, AJ Klein, Joe Smith, Paul Wernke, Mitchell Rowton, David Peet, Walter Jackson, Mikhail Korob, Todd Stone, Jon Su, Peter Dong, Jonathan Endersby, Whitlock, Andrew Pergiel, Muk Usmanov, Rogelio Figueroa, Duane Browning, Brad Houghton, C. Nile, Jeff Chandley, Joseph Fratric, Eduardo Neto, Johnny Huang, Carl Cochrane, Christian Bergman, Pit Hostettler, Christopher Moulton, Mgtow96, Santhosh, Kenneth Moore, Darin Mainquist, Jordan Hitch, Victor Vazquez, Favio Rodriguez, Steven Brown, Jose Montilla, Bradley Welch, Ian M Sharp, Jarrett Siler, Jordan Prince, Michael Shtarkman, Christine Hoffmann, Dominic Fagundes, Sarisari Biz, JD, Chris, Ari Shrager, Erik Forbes Johnson, Christopher Walton, Chen Chen, Homero Lara, Samuel Fernandez, Erik Forbes Johnson, Sun Wu, Justin Stephan, Ethan Chua, Sasha M, Who Why, Xavier Castro, Ali Sabet, End. Z Fed, Joors, Soroosh Armandi, Rogelio, Shawn Shahin, Pedro Teixeira, Gabo Furlong, R06U3, Mark Teo, Yahya Almaliki, Jake Volin, Gerald W Steele, S. Gill and Hugh Waller for making this video possible!
For those of you want (and can) support our channel, here is how you can help: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=13016082
If you would like to support the channel by buying merch, you can do that here: https://teespring.com/stores/tom-nash-merch
This is strictly my opinion, so do your own research and make up your own mind.
Become a channel member to get access to members only feed and videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJwKCyEIFHwUOPQQ-4kC1Zw/join
👏👏👏 Big shout out to our growing list of Patreons: Mark Dixon, Daniel Johnson, Stephen Barnes, Sheri Morgan, SC, Survive R, Joel Peterson, Daniel, Rob Goddard, Andrew Wilson, Danny Goff, Chris Houston, Dayyan, Daniel Gordon, Ravi, Francis, Physics Helper, Mathias Eklof, Matthew Agostinho, Error Comb, Dan Marshall, Carl Seghers, Benjamin Allen, Jan Hakkebo, Stanislav Brand, Hanno Offen, AJ Klein, Joe Smith, Paul Wernke, Mitchell Rowton, David Peet, Walter Jackson, Mikhail Korob, Todd Stone, Jon Su, Peter Dong, Jonathan Endersby, Whitlock, Andrew Pergiel, Muk Usmanov, Rogelio Figueroa, Duane Browning, Brad Houghton, C. Nile, Jeff Chandley, Joseph Fratric, Eduardo Neto, Johnny Huang, Carl Cochrane, Christian Bergman, Pit Hostettler, Christopher Moulton, Mgtow96, Santhosh, Kenneth Moore, Darin Mainquist, Jordan Hitch, Victor Vazquez, Favio Rodriguez, Steven Brown, Jose Montilla, Bradley Welch, Ian M Sharp, Jarrett Siler, Jordan Prince, Michael Shtarkman, Christine Hoffmann, Dominic Fagundes, Sarisari Biz, JD, Chris, Ari Shrager, Erik Forbes Johnson, Christopher Walton, Chen Chen, Homero Lara, Samuel Fernandez, Erik Forbes Johnson, Sun Wu, Justin Stephan, Ethan Chua, Sasha M, Who Why, Xavier Castro, Ali Sabet, End. Z Fed, Joors, Soroosh Armandi, Rogelio, Shawn Shahin, Pedro Teixeira, Gabo Furlong, R06U3, Mark Teo, Yahya Almaliki, Jake Volin, Gerald W Steele, S. Gill and Hugh Waller for making this video possible!
For those of you want (and can) support our channel, here is how you can help: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=13016082
If you would like to support the channel by buying merch, you can do that here: https://teespring.com/stores/tom-nash-merch
Well this sure didn't age well lmao
SHORTING BNGO AS WE SPEAK THOSE BASTARDS!
Keep the golden goose !!!
don't smash anything my boi is legit
Cathy Wood just said, in a recent Bloomberg interview, that she cannot just leave and start over if they cannot agree on an amicable solution. She has contractual obligations. She's trying to end up with a settlement – hopefully keeping her in the lead.
This damage in the public eye seems to smack of some naivety on behalf of Cathie Woods. If she wanted to open up the distribution function to the whole market it was inevitable that Resolute would signify thir intention to exercise this option. I will be making no investment in Ark until this issue has been resolved
I think it is just a public spat.
😂😂😂
Cathie fears no one, seriously.
Tom is NOT a bullshit guy…like other #1 bullshit guys in MSM
Thanks, I was wondering about this and sold some ARK on the news when I heard it last week.
O
Lol… Taking out Kathy is like taking out Elon from Tesla… Just plain stupid… Also if Elon left Tesla and founded a competitor he would take his network and probably 9 out of 10 of the superstar engineers with him…
You had me at 'don't smash' LOL… I REALLY find it super annoying when YouTubers say 'Smash', 'Demolish', 'Obliterate' or any other bullshit word to replace 'click' that like button. stupid.
I already left. I decided to be happy with my 27% gain
You copied this video what a twat
ARK Invest will be fine so will be your money. Think about it, If Cathie walks, the ETFs will be destroyed. Anyone in right mind would not allow that to happen. So don't sell and ignore the noise. This is just business.
Greed always drive bad decisions…
IT'S THE BEST BACKGROUND OF THE CURRENT WORLD, IT WILL MAKE IT CONTINUE, MY PURPOSE IS TO HAVE YOU IN LONG TERM, IT IS IN THE FACE THAT INNOVATION IS SYNONYM OF GROWTH!
Does Tom Nash sound like a Tom Nash accent? trust a guy with a name like that and a accent like that? he talks about not liking dram but is full of drama. No thanks. Prefer real solid information myself.
Basically Resolute is Cathie Wood's bitch. She wins no matter what. They either back down or she leaves.
Pardon the long response, If you had an expiring call option on a stock that was deep in the money, you would normally be able to sell this option to another party if you didn't have the cash to exercise your option and that other party would likely be in the position to exercise the option instead even after paying you for it. The difference here though is that this option was likely not transferable to another party. There is no way you would be sitting on this gold mine and let it expire worthless, so it does make sense that they would exercise the option. The question then is whether Cathie would want to stick around the company if she isn't in control. So while it isn't transferable, a "settlement" may well mean that she would want to buy out their option for a certain amount of money… not in the sense that she would exercise the option but just to block them from exercising the option. Compromises might take the shape of selling some of the shares at the contracted price but effectively agreeing not to sell enough to lose control. Another question would be whether Cathie could just simply move on and start a brand new company that she has complete control over without having to buy out their option. I don't know what kind of non-compete type contract she may have to prevent her from starting up another firm. I see managers go from one company to another frequently so while it may be aggravating to investors (especially ones that have a lot of capital gains) to sell the ARK products without Cathie at the helm to be able to follow her into an entirely new set of investment choices that may be exactly what they have to do. Call Cathie leaving the "nuclear" option. Some investors simply will not want to give up some of their capital gains to pay taxes even if following here would be best in the long run. Fund flows out of ARK products into a new suite of Cathie products would likely be disruptive to some stocks in the short run. I think at the end of the day she would prefer to be in control as much as possible. It reminds me a bit of the early early Facebook days where Z went through a lot of hoops to gain more and more control of the company from early investors. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure what Cathie has to gain by buying their option out but I would suspect it would be least disruptive to the shareholders (including potentially herself and co-workers) as well as the fact there is a certain amount of value in the ARK name itself as far as branding is concerned but I would totally understand if she would just say that its better to just pass on the settlement idea as just to expensive, let go of the company control and start her own company and gradually (most likely very quickly) grow her funds under management back up. Depending on your tax bracket having to move your investments from the ARK funds to new Cathie funds might be a ~30% tax hit depending on all sorts of conditions (short vs long term holding, tax bracket etc.), one idea although extremely difficult to "prove" to the IRS would be to make mimic investments that were for at least a point in time identical to the Ark fund holdings which in the IRS eyes would not be a constructive sale when you replace Ark with those copy cat funds. Given the turnover in the ARK fund family coordinating this kind of copy situation to let investors sell their Ark funds for "identical" Cathie copy cat funds to avoid cap gains seems like a pipe dream. I'm no accountant nor an IRS agent so take this for a grain of salt. If they had been index funds following an index to a T, the IRS may have smiled at the move from one Index fund to another if both funds were following the same index but these are actively managed funds so I think that idea of a no-tax exchange is too far out there. So would investors cough up the cap gains to follow her, I think most of them would. This might be VERY radical point, but if my understanding is correct, a person in theory is supposed to be able to exchange their ETF shares for the stock inside the ETF (of course for many investors the fractional shares this type of action would create seems very problematic), but what if the ETF structure would allow investors to line up the ETF exchange window whereby the shares received would be directed toward the new Cathie funds, would this make transferring "fractional" shares in aggregate across a bunch of redeemers be somehow viable? Since you are receiving the stock in-kind instead of selling your ETF it seems like this wouldn't trigger a sale event for IRS cap gains purposes (again I would consult a real accountant), anyway my point is could the new Cathie company line up some extraordinary mutiny where buy a sea of ETF shareholders could walk up to the ETF window and effectively redirect(in-kind redemption, in-kind creation) all the shares into the new Cathie line of ETFs and avoid a "constructive" sale – could the new Cathie ETF's receive fractional shares on behalf of an individual investor and be able to "return" a particular number of shares of the ETF in exchange? Does the ETF window allow you to exchange shares of the companies in the ETF for shares of the ETF if granted at the right ratio? I think that may well be how the ETF market was designed. Nobody in practice ever really uses the ETF window very often but If I understand correctly this window helps out when the market value of the ETF gets too far away from its "Net Asset Value" allowing for a form of arbitrage whereby those that do use this window can help narrow this premium or discount by exchanging. To make it much shorter, is there something about the ETF construct that allows for Cathie to setup new ETFs and invite shareholders to use the ETF window to migrate their stock over to her new ETFs (with proper authorization of course). Of course the new ETF would have to be willing to accept the components of the existing ARK ETFs and it seems that it would be likely that at some point they want to close this window so they can make new allocations and given the turnover rate this window might last 1 week tops lol. Frankly, it might really only come to play for Cathie and her employees when they first setup the new ETFs that they have such large investments and total control over the timing that they might do this exact technique to avoid tax consequences but for the average investor it may not be remotely feasible. That said call that the ETF exchange nuclear option in that Cathie can outline her mutiny technique and explain that at the very least a sizable amount of her own money and perhaps some very large institutional investors could use the ETF exchange mechanism and not take such a tax hit while they exchange over to a new family of ETF. Perhaps as much as 50% or more of the money in the ARK ETF funds could be swiftly in-kind transferred into new Cathie ETFs with no tax consequence that that nuclear option is a very powerful tool in negotiations. Does this kind of ETF mutiny require Cathie to be in control of the company when this action takes place? Perhaps not, if this in-kind creation/redemption is part of the ETF "charter". I'm not entirely convinced that an ETF company can turn down an in-kind redemption, On the flip side I do see a fair amount of control over the other side for the in-kind creation as the new family could say you need to have this many shares of this or that company to exchange your shares into shares of the new ETF…the more time the new Cathie ETFs have been managed the more likely their allocations will drift further away from the original ARK funds. Anyway this is all rather sophisticated and i'm sorry for the deep dive into the inner workings of the ETF model but they do differ substantially from the mutual fund market place in many important ways that may provide Cathie ammunition that she would not normally have had in the past.
Like smashed
Thanks for helping to clear things up about this! A lot of people are worried about it. Why would anyone want to screw with a good thing?
you sir are straight forward to the point! love your point of view and honest narrative keep it up smashing the like and subscribing!
Cathie – take your team and begin elsewhere !……..your investors will follow
Tom probably has a crush on Tasha.
Assets and Profitable equities are the strong hold for me. I am able to make a series of 100% profit guaranteed equity trades through the services of a direct funds manager I currently work with. I've also been able to plan my retirement funding far ahead of time. All of these services come fully insured and to be honest, I'm having a swell experience having an expert like Mr. Nigel K. Phineas handle my major stock market and foreign exchange investments. Look him up if you can, at any time (nigelphineas. info). I hope and pray we all reach our target wealth standards, I'm well on my way there.
I like my chickens to lay fruit and my trees to bear eggs.
Here is what needs to happen:
For Resolute to give up Exclusivity, which is good for the future of Ark, they need to move from a "Distributor" to more of a "Partner", with less than 50% of the business (to be negotiated). This way, Cathy can open things up to other Distributors and everyone will make more money going forward.
Your Option #1 will not work, because Resolute will basically be getting nothing for giving up Exclusivity. If they wipe it out of the Agreement and just "keep things as they are", Cathy could go Non-Exclusive the next day and screw Resolute.
Cathie: ARKW
Elon: TSLA
Otherwise, it's a wrap for the epic runs!