"The management fees @2%, is a bit higher than some in the market, but with the returns they have provided, are probably justified."
And then some...don't forget the 20% performance fee. No mistake, they sure know how to charge.
As for the monthly commentary, I am sure that - like all cunning managers who play their cards close to their chests - there is a significant element of redundancy in the commentary (i.e., any stocks that enjoy a mention do so on an after-the-fact basis).
What surprises me is that - despite that spectacular historical performance and the winning of numerous awards of the years, and despite them being focused on the Australian market - they remain an anonymous group of individuals with virtually no media profile (absent some unwanted adverse publicity late last year).
And, stranger still, they manage virtually no institutional money, domestic or international; it's all private client dough from my understanding. Which makes me keep wondering what the asset consultants and the super funds see that they don't like when they due their due diligence on the manager.
Maybe, in a world where delivering lower costs to your client base seems more important when managing super money that anything else, the big insto's can't get their collective heads around the fee structure.
They've left a lot of value on the table, if that's the only thing that keeps them at bay.
