In short: The counter-evidence the whole piece is built around. "The Global X Guru ETF (GURU), designed to track top hedge fund holdings, has underperformed the S&P 500 since its inception in 2012. And that comparison still leaves out the classic hedge fund fee drag." Presented as proof that the systematic version of copying 13Fs does not work — reinforced by the "2 and 20" fee arithmetic and the framing quote from Ian Cassel: "You can borrow someone else's stock ideas but you can't borrow their conviction."
GURU is an exchange-traded fund built to do automatically what readers of a 13F article are tempted to do manually: read the filings and buy the hedge funds' biggest positions.
Its record is the article's central piece of evidence: it "has underperformed the S&P 500 since its inception in 2012" — and, as App Economy notes, that comparison flatters the strategy, because it excludes the "2 and 20" fees (2% of assets plus 20% of gains) that the underlying funds actually charge their own investors.
The reason it fails is built into the data. Filings arrive 45 days late, cover only US long equity, and exclude the shorts and hedges that shape a fund's real risk. You end up copying a stale, partial photograph of someone else's portfolio without the conviction, the sizing rules or the exit discipline that made it work — which is why the article's conclusion is to use 13Fs "as a starting point," never as a portfolio.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.