To be clear, it wasn't simply a "timing" issue, its a permanent...

To be clear, it wasn't simply a "timing" issue, its a permanent capital loss issue in which they will never be proven right because it involved high cash allocations and specific allocations from which they've pulled out in specific companies that tanked.

The analysts have been feeding information to management that has acheived -1.5% underperformance PA over a 5 year period, and doing so with industry topping fees. You compound that 1.5% underperformance on top of the fees and suddenly that is *whopping* underperformance over the long term, currently 3% underperformance in the flagship fund.

They have a history of outperformance starting five years ago of a modest 2-3% under former leadership that is gone and not coming back. Now they're dealing with media pressures on top of this and most importantly, mass pullouts from institutions who have absolutely no reason to stick with a fund charging 1.35% for underperformance across a 5 year period, failures in a crisis like Covid (where active management is supposed to excel) and a team of people collecting 6 figure paychecks that have under performed the "no point of difference" index fund for the better part of a decade.

The whole moralising you and others here engage in suggesting that MFG are somehow the only serious folk in the industry sticking to solid valuations and cashflows when the reality is that MFGs success was literally built off tech stocks is laughable and goes to show most people here simply don't know what they're investing in.

A little in poor taste, but to suggest "good professional investors/analysts rarely lose their brains" is a little rich for a defender of a company for which the fund manager left due to mental health issues as a result of a catastrophic 18 months destroying over a decade of successes that extended to an end to a career and a divorce.