What a difference three years makes (New Star)

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[Mikeyboy]

In some ways I'm not surprised really. A friend of mine joined them in their marketing deprtment, post payout unfortunately for her, and she like Duffield but got the impression that a lot of the other FMs were arrogant but slightly clueless, i.e. had that tendency to think they were heroes of FM when no matter what they decided the markets would have gauranteed returns of equal or more anyway.

The reason I'm a bit surprised is that almost all of these businesses work the same way, so why New Star?

[NoelWatson]

I'm surprised that active funds have any market share at all, and that people believe that past returns have a bearing on future outperformance

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=ft...

[jeff m]

The IPO was launched without issuing any shares
I assume it was all financed. The shares which were "handed out" had to be held for three years. That must have been fun

NB the management company of a closed end fund gets it's fees even though they may be on a performance related scale and reduced somewhat.

[playerone]

How does a fund manager have £240 mill of debt?

Surely the whole point of managing funds is you can use other peoples money and clip the ticket as it passes through.