Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Question for those of you who know the culture and history of Artisan Funds.
I seem to recall a while back they were looking to go public. Given what you know about the motivations for that move and the interested parties, how likely is it that being publically traded would significantly alter Artisan's culture (think, for example, of Royce after the Legg Mason acquisition)?
Artisan went kind of public March, 2013. It trades under APAM, Artisan Partners Asset Management.
My understanding is that the stock is set up in such a way that the fund management side is somewhat insulated. APAM is theoretically the "adviser" to Artisan Funds, and seems to exist in order to distribute some of the Artisan's profits through dividends. Most shareholders seem to be employees, though I think Wellington bought a big chunk.
They continue to tout the autonomy of the investment teams. How that works in the future, I have no clue.
As Mr. Berra once (allegedly) opined, "it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
That having been said, I think this one is safe: Artisan's not going to put their business model at risk by nibbling away at the autonomy of their investment teams. Three bits underlying observations:
1. Artisan is wildly successful
2. because it can attract and retain "category-killer" managers
3. almost all of whom join for the support and autonomy that Artisan promises.
Artisan officials report interviewing a couple dozen managers or management teams a year and hiring maybe one every two years. I've interviewed a number of those folks and the culture Artisan promises them is a powerful magnet (no more "management by marketers," no more micro-management, no more mandatory bloat).
I agree with David. They certainly haven't been on a fund-launch rampage since going public, and the recent Krug/ARTFX launch is very much in line with the 'category killer' approach.
Comments
My understanding is that the stock is set up in such a way that the fund management side is somewhat insulated. APAM is theoretically the "adviser" to Artisan Funds, and seems to exist in order to distribute some of the Artisan's profits through dividends. Most shareholders seem to be employees, though I think Wellington bought a big chunk.
They continue to tout the autonomy of the investment teams. How that works in the future, I have no clue.
That having been said, I think this one is safe: Artisan's not going to put their business model at risk by nibbling away at the autonomy of their investment teams. Three bits underlying observations:
1. Artisan is wildly successful
2. because it can attract and retain "category-killer" managers
3. almost all of whom join for the support and autonomy that Artisan promises.
Artisan officials report interviewing a couple dozen managers or management teams a year and hiring maybe one every two years. I've interviewed a number of those folks and the culture Artisan promises them is a powerful magnet (no more "management by marketers," no more micro-management, no more mandatory bloat).
Just a guess.
David
D.S.