Big question in my opinion is what happens if underperformance sits at -2% as it has most of the past year month after month with fees over a percent for the next year.
It would mean more media turmoil on top of what is effectively a 3% haircut in an already high risk and volatile environment, why exactly would even 40b worth of assets be plonked in a fund performing that poorly for that long?
There's likely to be accelerating percentages of FUM decreasing unless the underperformance is fixed.
Which is the entire crux of the issue to begin with, this is an active fund manager with CONSISTENT medium term (closing in on long term) underperformance, they don't have a reason to exist as a company at some point, especially when the management team isn't consistent either.
Prior star CEO selling big should be clues enough to anyone looking here. Your calculations are interesting, but at the end of the day the make or break variable is FUM and 40b if performance doesn't improve soon seems an incredibly generous estimate. Nothing else in the equation matters nearly as much.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)