very interesting question. I am trying to work out the reason...

very interesting question. I am trying to work out the reason for the change. In my opinion it can not be performance. The past performance up to end 2018 was excellent. 2019 was line ball with indexes and then had two years of under performance to the indexes. Still year returns were 19%.
If I use the cricket analogy, can you drop a batsman who has great record averaging over 50 and scores a hundred and someone else has a blinder for 1 match only and scores a double hundred.
In my opinion this change is due to management issues, key personnel issues and Hamish himself leaving the scene, hopefully temporarily.
The upside is it provides an opportunity to set up the management structure better. For example having an independent Chairman and a board is always a good idea in any company. Hamish who set up the company with Chris also being the chairman and chief investment officer plus the main face of the organisation is not good
from decision making point of view. When Hamish comes back, he is not going to have similar authority like what he had before. Chris and new faces projecting company will happen in my opinion. I think these are the things they need to do break this key personal issues. Similar to how Macquarie bank grew from early eighties with 2 principal executives Alan & Nick Moore to many more over the years, MFG will have to evolve itself.
Personally I am looking for fund investment company which is US centric and invested in very large multinationals with real market presence.Extremely strong BS is crucial and Hamish and Chris seems to be having similar views.
Once these issues are sorted in my opinion the recommendations will change over next year or two.