I think the question is very much worth asking, but my point...

I think the question is very much worth asking, but my point would be that KNOWINGLY engaging in a sunken cost fallacy in which you suspect MFG is doomed but hold anyway because of emotional reasons and are talking about "jinxing" or psychological attachment to an investment or anchoring your own mistakes, you've made a grave mistake whether or not you're wrong or right about the investment.

If you've mentally "written off" an investment you'd be better off parking that written off money in an asset that actually has good upside potential such as highly volatile tech investments or crypto.

If you understand the concept of asymmetric risk, you can see that even small amounts of money can have major growth potential in specific asset classes. Your losses can remain as small as you like, but your upside depending on the investment can be technically infinite. Regularly you see 10-100x in cryptocurrency, or 10x in various leveraged index funds over the course of a few years.

This is of course high risk, high volatility and should not encompass an entire portfolio, but for money you're writing off anyway you ought to have a small portion of funds (say between 1-5%) in hyper growth options as the losses are not substantive but upside can be extraordinary even with a relatively good chance of success.

I would say Bitcoin in particular is absolutely an "investment" in terms of what it is and its place in terms of the broader financial system, especially when its comparatively low in market cap compared to alternatives like gold. However its extremely highly influenced by interest rates, market risk sentiment and the stock market. In general though I would agree that virtually all cryptocurrency is "speculation", but that doesn't mean that as a small portion of a portfolio its

Again, apply basic understanding of asymmetric risk and if you see assets in a sector like crypto that are regularly doing 100x during bull markets and more aggressive broader market conditions, you're going to massively benefit allocating a small portion of a portfolio into areas like these. MFG on the other hand is an awful investment because you have a very small chance of a recovery, and a recovery would take years and years. Best case scenario maybe you double your money in two or three years, worst case here (and by far the most likely scenario) you can halve again.

100 baggers might not be easy, but they regularly occur in crypto and even broader leveraged tech indexes. These opportunities exist and occur consistently when markets return to risk on mentalities, as will eventually occur. This happens time and time again and the opportunity (as is the case now) typically exists most when buying during a sectoral downturn. Rather than lamenting a 700k that has turned into 100k in a stock like this, sell before you lose almost everything and find something that actually offers some kind of serious upside opportunity, even if only with a small portion.

Rebranding isn't going to fix the state of the company from an institutional perspective, they aren't Gods by any means but they aren't stupid enough to keep their money in a failing fund with high fees because of a badge change. The reality is the fund needs to massively turn the corner in terms of outperformance, its still failing to do that.

Magellan is not only not a good business, it has no business full stop at this point. I've said since $20 that a managed fund company that is underperforming, failing to meet an absolute return metric for 7 years and charging industry high fees has no business model. A brain damaged monkey can allocate funds and underperform an index while charging industry high fees, but you don't have a sustainable business by doing this.

From what I've seen you say here and other posts I'd highly recommend strong consideration of this point. Look at performance metrics, both their own touted total returns and out/underperformance and current outflows. There's no business in active management here because they can't outperform, they've massively underperformed in the long term. They failed in a high risk event like Covid to beat the index which is where an active fund is supposed to shine.