Thank you for your rigorous analysis.I still maintain my view...

Thank you for your rigorous analysis.

I still maintain my view that this is an undiversified business - most of their revenue comes purely from their global equity strategy. Airlie and infrastructure have relatively low FUM compared to the core strategies, and their new products like the Core series and FuturePay have barely gained traction.

You point out their private equity investments, fair enough. These still aren't big enough to be meaningful like when Buffett invests in railroads or buys out an entire grid. If it were meaningful, the market wouldn't have punished Magellan as badly in recognition of its diversified business model. Or perhaps, the market isn't recognizing the value in these and I'm wrong - either way Magellan's good leg (global equities) is limping.

I also point out the most fatal statement in your analysis: "Hamish is a great salesman."

Is being a great "Salesman" a sustainable business model, or is having a great "Product" a sustainable business model?

As a reminder, there is significantly increased scrutiny among advisers and super funds about the outcomes being achieved of their investments. Advisers are required to act in the best interest of their clients and super funds need to keep fees low or returns high in order to pull inflows, and if a fund manager isn't pulling their weight then their mandate will ultimately be terminated.

The other people referring to me as a pelican, you know fair enough I think a lot of people on HC do that. I don't, and if Magellan gets back above $40 mark my words I'll set up a thread called "Shoot this pelican who got it wrong."

I agree with @pete11 as well - why on earth are people calling Magellan's portfolios defensive? I'd love investors here to take a moment and compare Magellan's portfolio to the S&P 500 Index and tell me which one they feel better about from a risk perspective.

I think for investors wanting a safer bet in a more diversified business model Macquarie is the way to go, and on that note @noomxx I bought Macquarie at a discount but I'm happy to retain it at a premium as I have every confidence that its great management team and many lines of business in critical industries/growth thematic will see it do very well.

On the Macquarie threads I advocated to not participate in the capital raising and disclosed a sentiment of "hold" in that it had over-run, but I will not sell simply because a stock got too hot. Rather, I advocated waiting for a pull back to around $150 to accumulate more. This is a long-term winner that will multiply in size in the years to come.

I also think investors are just making too much of a fuss about "premiums" and buying things that are "expensive". If you care so much about that, you shouldn't be investing in Magellan anyway, because its funds invest in some of the most expensive businesses on the planet by your comments:
Crown Castle (70+ P/E)
Netflix (50+ P/E)
Visa (35+ P/E)
Alphabet (25+ P/E)

Funny logic isn't it? You're scared of investing in expensive stocks, but are happy to invest in a "cheap" fund manager whose business model is predicated on generating returns in exactly that universe.