There was more than one round of government hand outs during Trump time. He was disappointed that the last round was less than what he asked the Senate for ($1,200 vs $2,000 per person?).
I think as intelligent beings we need to get away from labels, personalities, and the need for a sense of belonging (or tribal affiliation), and discuss ideas if one were looking for entertainment.
Milton Friedman was a Univ of Chicago faculty from 1944 until the end of his academic career, spanning many decades, and was one of the lead proponents that rejected Keynesianism. He was also an economic adviser to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, a rare distinction not too many economists have. He was also the economic advisor to Barry Goldwater. His market based ideas influenced many governments around the world. As to his Republican party affiliation, he was not a blind squirrel and rejected the party label.

Without analyzing the market cap and liquidity of the stocks Wood was invested in, this asset-size analysis seems incomplete to me. It think the speculative nature of the companies the ETF invests in and their extraordinarily high valuations may have been more to blame. This from a different Zweig article is significant however from a liquidity perspective though:

ARK is already a big owner of some small stocks. At Israeli biotech company Pluristem Therapeutics Inc., with a total stock-market value of $219 million, ARK holds 15.5% of the shares outstanding. That’s three times as much as all other institutional owners combined. At a French biotech, Cellectis S.A. , with a $900 million market value, ARK owns 11.5%—more than the next 11 largest holders combined.
Although those two positions make up barely 0.5% of ARK’s total assets, they reflect the firm’s style.

But I wonder if investors still could've gotten burned pretty badly buying the same stocks in a smaller fund at 2021's speculative peak.

It appeared that international value funds are leading their growth counterparts this year. They trail growth style for over 10 years. Will they persist in the near term?

If you're not a WSJ subscriber Mark's link may not work. If not, try this one:
Link to Article

The original economic impact payments (aka "stimulus checks") were part of the CARES Act that passed Congress by votes of 419-6 in the House and 96 to 0 in the Senate before being signed into law by the Donald.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748/actions
These payments were actually tax refunds. In effect, taxpayers with zero income started with a negative income tax rather than a zero tax. Of course as their income increased, so did their income tax. But the net amount owed was still computed by subtracting out this initial credit.
Negative income tax - an idea introduced by that radical leftist, Milton Friedman, in 1962.
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/negative-income-tax-explained

IMO, mistakes with TAA are not disastrous. In retirement, I try to maintain 40-60% effective-equity with TAA. And I have made mistakes in these markets - should have had 60% when had 40%, and vice-versa. But still, I did OK vs pure market-timers (100% or 0% equity). I guess I could just leave it in the middle at 50% but that wouldn't be as much fun.

* May be pay-walled.
By Jason Zweig, The Intelligent Investor at the WSJ.
"The ARK Innovation ETF posted big returns, and big money followed. Now it’s the latest example of what happens when a fund becomes too large for its own good."
Read Article

Here is the summary prospectus and the prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1614370/000119312522007437/d229344d497k.htm (summary prospectus)
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1614370/000119312522007433/d229344d485bpos.htm (prospectus)

Pure timers are completely in or out based on signals.
On the other hand, tactical asset allocation (TAA) involves changing allocations suitably according to market assessments, and rebalancing simply adjusting to strategic/fixed asset allocation.

Thank you @yogibearbull
Makes sense. I added a 5-10% “Speculative” sleeve several months ago. It’s currently just under 8% of my holdings. Others might call that a tactical position. It’s a place where my overall assessment of where various markets are can be counted into the otherwise static allocation format. I realize this is not for everyone and all circumstances.

Q4 earnings season starts today with most big banks reporting. C report was bad. JPM report was dressed up by reversal of old loss reserves into earnings but the market isn't buying it. Retail sales fell.
So, economic slowdown may be happening whatever the causes (Covid-19/Omicron, high prices, wages not catching up, supply-side disruptions).
For those following AAII Sentiment Survey, it turned bearish yesterday (a contrarian indicator).
https://www.cmegroup.com/

Ritholtz has a way of boiling it down to some basics the average person can grasp. Not brilliant perhaps - but effective communicating some basic investment principles with a certain audience.
I’m not as opposed to timing as he seems to be. If all attempts at timing are futile, than little need to keep abreast of markets, investment trends, valuations and peaks and troughs. Hell, throw everything at the S&P and go fishing. Turn off Bloomberg & CNBC. Cancel subscription to Barron’s and the WSJ.
Timing need not be “all in” or “all out”. It can be lightening up in frothy markets. Rebalancing once or twice a year. Favoring one particular style, sector or geographic area over another. While Warren Buffett would decry “timing”, he’s been known to build huge cash positions when equity valuations are high. And, he’ll move $$ around favoring pockets of opportunity (ie railroads). So he doesn’t always walk the talk.
My 2 cents worth.

+1

@msf yes you raise some excellent points. I went through that same analysis that you describe above and evaluated both funds 2 years ago. Long term they both have similar track records. But MFAPX gets there with much less volatility. MIOPX actually held up quite well in the March 2020 selloff -- only dropping about 15% in comparison to 19% for its category. But things really turned south for MIOPX and other funds with large emerging markets exposure when China cracked down on its technology industry last year. I think you can trace its underperformance starting then. I might return to MFAPX at some point but am looking for more of a large cap blend. I find selecting an international fund to be quite difficult because they have underperformed the U.S. for so long. This year to date foreign value is doing quite well with funds like Dodge and Cox International up over 6% YTD but I wonder if this is a short term thing. Their long term track record is pretty poor. Again international is real conundrum.
@carew388 It's funny you mention MSFBX because that one has come up on my screens too. I really like that funds defensive posture with about 30% in consumer staples. Unfortunately it also has a 20% allocation to tech so if tech continues to get hit as I believe will happen -- you won't be safe in the fund. YAFFX is intriguing with a great long term track record -- also more of a global fund. It is one fund I'm looking at also. I think this is going to be a difficult year to make money though.

@Baseball_Fan …
What do you therefore suggest we investors do with our life savings? Stuff it in a bank account at 1%?
I’ll entertain any constructive suggestions.

This will be a bit painful to do but I will be selling most of my position in MIOPX. I really like the manager -- Kristian Heugh. But there is too much downside risk in his portfolio.

If you like the manager and want to dial down the risk a bit, you could consider MFAPX. The difference between the MS summaries is that MIOPX includes emerging companies, while MFAPX is primarily focused on established companies.
Morgan Stanley MIOPX page
Morgan Stanley MFAPX page
Obviously they have a lot of overlap, but their figures are significantly different.
Portfolio Visualizer comparison
Close performance over 3, 5, 10 years (through year end 2021). A notable distinction is that from 2Q2020 on, MIOPX rose and fell faster. For example, YTD (2022), MIOPX dropped 9.23% and MFAPX dropped 2.83%. PV shows other significant differences (better figures are MAFPX):
std dev: 16.58% vs. 12.99%
max drawdown: 26.18% vs. 17.26%
Sharpe ratio: 0.77 vs. 1.00
Sortino ratio: 1.27 vs 1.71
As one might expect with its higher volatility MIOPX had a much better best year (55.06% vs. 44.18%) and a much worse worst year (down 12.36% vs down 5.48%).
According to M*, the best fit index for MIOPX is US Convertible Bonds!
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=MIOPX
From inception through 2016 MIOPX tracked FISCX pretty closely. (MIOPX even returned less over this period). Then it became more volatile and returned more. But it wasn't until 2020 that it took off like a rocket. And then fell like a stone. In that same period, MFAPX also rose with MIOPX, but not as quickly and with much gentler spikes.

I don’t own. Play with DKNG - one of her holdings. Buy at $23-24 and sell at $26-27. Kinda scary though, Might drop thru the floor one of these days. Think I’ll swear off.
DKNG -7% today @ $24.24
ARKK Today -5.42%
ARKK looks to be down about 15% YTD / Takes some perseverance to hold on to something like that!

Sarah Raskin, Fed VC-Supervision, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Bloom_Raskin
Lisa Cook, Fed Governor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_D._Cook
Philip Jefferson, Fed Governor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Jefferson
News https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/biden-to-nominate-sarah-bloom-raskin-lisa-cook-and-philip-jefferson-to-key-fed-positions.html

+1 CDC outclasses AUENX and YAFFX , 2 funds I've held in the past.

I sold out of ARKK & ARKG in Mar. 2021. I sold ARKF in May 2021.