These are great questions. I'm in the business of analysing fund managers for context.
There is a fair bit of a survivorship bias here of course. We only talk, or the media talks up a handful of names because they are still around, or are successful.
Then there is the association bias - 'I worked on one of the tiger cubs, under Julian ...' that person is perceived to be hard nosed, talented, etc. There is some truth to that to be clear but you know what I mean.
Talent is not something we look for explicitly to be very clear in the institutional world. Partly because as a starting point, we already identified a talent, a spearhead leader who has set the strategy, vision and can inspire (us and his/her existing team or prospective team members). That person already has a track record (rather than 'talent'), which we then describe as proven. Not talented as a category, though we of course would say he/she is talented as there's proof.
Ignore for now the importance of strategy, philosophy, style. Where there is an absence of proof or track record, we look for well defined team structure, interaction, cultural values and alignment of interest. We of course trust the fund has hired accordingly, has a high hurdle to join and can offer and attract individuals that they want to target. What do they generally look for? 1. Motivation to learn (with evidence, which includes a track record if any, and/or education etc), 2. Compatibility with the fund's existing team, cultural values, long term visit, 3. Technical ability or specific knowledge to help complete and round out the team. Like my role in searching for funds to rate and have clients invest in, one does not go out searching for 'talent' per se.
To answer your first question: track record comes ahead of talent. We don't have time to entertain the hundred's of self-claimed 'talent' that want a rating from us, for the simple fact we don't fool ourself to look for talent. Provide a verifiable track record along with evidence of how that was achieved.
On your last question: Well, you don't have talent as a measure to begin with, so you don't have talent to unwind. But if you were to rephrase to can a fund manager they get it consistently wrong after a strong run? Yes. It can be bad luck, macro shifts or other business reasons (unplanned departures, team conflict and changes including poor health, loss of mandates that distract and so on). But it can also be a poorly supported shift in style from bad hiring, poor processes and delegations, poor adherence to investment discipline, changes in decision making and so on. Forager ticks a lot of boxes in my last sentence. Investors going index rather forager would certainly be a lot happier today and have had much better quality sleep over the years!
Expand
