Brilliant thanks @lost great table. Agree with your conclusion.I...

Brilliant thanks @lost great table. Agree with your conclusion.

I agree global fund managers are closer competitors for GQG than the local FM firms.

Went to ChatGPT (did not go to underlying sources) to get a sense how market cap relates to AUM.

	Fund Manager	AUM (USD)	Reporting Date	MC/FUM @64c
1	T. Rowe Price (TROW)	$1.61 trillion	December 31, 2024	1.19%
2	Janus Henderson (JHG)	$379 billion	December 31, 2024	1.32%
3	State Street Global Advisors (SSGA)	$4.34 trillion	March 31, 2024	0.60%
4	Franklin Templeton (BEN)	$1.58 trillion	December 31, 2024	0.63%
5	GQG	$153 billion	December 31, 2024	2.7%

I think much of the AUM in the above table is passive, so low fee. GQG is all active money, so you would expect the market cap ratio to FUM to be higher than a lower margin bulge bracket passive management business.

Active money is represented in the dark blue below for each of the five firms. Source: ChatGPT.



P/E and P/B according to ChatGPT. GQG's return on euity is an outlier, their business is very capital light. I note the PE for BEN below is lower than in your table. BEN growth you show at nearly 19%, which would normally be rewarded with a higher PE if growth is considered sustainable. GQG growth is higher than that, and its PE is the lowest of the five firms.



So GQG's proposition is very reasonable PE and dividend yield for a company growing at >20% p.a. at very high margins, with a business plan seekign to leverage their skills and platform to capture greater market share