@lost Thanks for that spreadsheet you have on the FUM across different managers. I'd be very cautious about using those PAC calculations, as the primary data doesn't concur with their investor presentations. Specifically, they are not using pro-rata but an aggregation of the FUM on all their investments. So for GQG they have a 5% equity stake, but include 100% of the FUM. That is effectively their smallest equity position in their 15 investment management firms, where they typically own 25-100%. So the rate of increasing FUM for PAC is massively being over stated by their aggregation of FUM across investment partners, because a large portion of it relates to GQG which they own a small equity position in. I have not bothered to do the calculations, but this graphic shows you what I mean:
Also note that the same calculations above are being used for their '5yr out performance'. It's true, GQG has smashed it and grown really well. But this has not translated in a direct linear fashion to PAC because of their relatively small equity performance. Again, I have not done the actual performance calculations manually for PAC. However, as a proxy you could use EPS (it's a bit noisy to be honest) or Dividend Growth, both of which show MQG > PAC. I prefer dividend comparison because it removes the significant items of asset revaluations/impairments, and is a proxy for cash flow on these companies. Just looking at the "under performance of MQG over past 5 years", you see their dividends grew ~20% compared to the "over performance of PAC over past 5 years" of ~15%.
I don't have any view or position on PAC. Just looking at it as a comparator, and think the data doesn't necessarily reflect the position that they have, are, and/or will be a stronger business.
(20min delay)