Correct, they've always backed their investment team and...

Correct, they've always backed their investment team and strategy, the very same team they're gutting now.

I guess you can't pass off several years of underperformance at the same time you're charging a premium for that very same performance.

1-2 years is just being early, some bad luck, some poor timing, usually made up for handsomely over time buying undervalued companies, when you start talking 5-7 years at a time that's an entire market cycle, that's not poor timing, it's poor investment.

It's the broken clock analogy to the tee, an entire market cycle is like the clock going right around, 1-2 years of out performance with 5-7 underperforming is literally the broken clock.

The hardest part for me is I actually agree with their narrative and investment choices, I very much think Andrew is on the ball in this regard, my critique of him has always been to tone down the arrogance, I though PTM was a great way for me to invest in China as I think they're an incredibly undervalued market, even more so now IMO, not knowing the Chinese market in depth I thought Andrew and team did.

Historical outperformance has been largely boosted by massive outperformance during bear markets whilst maintaining decent performance during bull runs.

If you can run a fund that keeps pace with the market in the bull run but only go down 10% when the market crashes 50% the long term outperformance is incredible.

That's the sell that used to keep institutional money sticky over the long term, quiet confidence and self assurance like Kerr, not arrogance and an air of talking down people on the other side of some of your investments like I think Andrew comes off.

Massive market distortions created by Governments hasn't helped the PTM investment style but we're all in the same market and need to adjust accordingly.