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.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Bond King Jeff Gundlach Feuds With Unlikely Foe M*
FYI: Jeffrey Gundlach is locked in a protracted stare-down with an unlikely foe: Morningstar Inc. Gundlach, who formed his investing firm DoubleLine Capital LP in 2009 and built it into one of the most successful fixed-income fund companies, is sparring with the research firm over what DoubleLine says have been a series of false and misleading statements about its flagship fund, according to people familiar with the matter. Regards, Ted http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bond-king-jeff-gundlach-feuds-with-unlikely-foe-2015-07-14/print
I don't see this as a feud. Clearly there is disagreement and Gundlach shouldn't care what M* thinks. I don't think their opinion has affected the sale of his funds. Matter of fact if they had, any reasonable businessman would try to work things out.
So he is giving M* the cold shoulder. He is telling them he does not care. Why is this a "feud"? I ignore Donald Trump. I'm not fighting with him.
Gundlach: "you never really listen to me any more!"
M-star: "you're so not thinking rationally."
Gundlach: "you're impossible. I'm not talking to you any more!"
M-star: "you're ... you're ... you're unratable, that's what you are!"
Both: Hmpf. Glower. Scowl. Morningstar calls on a pre-set schedule; Gundlach hangs up.
At base, Morningstar analysts don't like confronting unconventional strategies. It messes up their boxes. It's also the source of my quip that Morningstar analysts do their best work when we need them least, when the strategy is straightforward and conventional. In any case, a fair number of managers have fumed (to me) that the Morningstar folks seem to listen without comprehension; mostly, they're trying to find out what box to put you in so they know what to think about you.
Gundlach's strategy is unconventional and the guy is, reputedly, quite a piece of work.
The WSJ article, by the way, is sort of sad. The online version reads "Morningstar analysts, who are keenly followed by investors ..." The original print version, though, gives a better hint about the writer's clue supply: "Morningstar analysts, who rate funds with stars andare keenly followed by investors ..." Post-release, someone broke the news that the analysts don't assign star ratings, which apparently was news. Several comparably insightful claims follow, at least in the print.
Comments
So he is giving M* the cold shoulder. He is telling them he does not care. Why is this a "feud"? I ignore Donald Trump. I'm not fighting with him.
M-star: "you're so not thinking rationally."
Gundlach: "you're impossible. I'm not talking to you any more!"
M-star: "you're ... you're ... you're unratable, that's what you are!"
Both: Hmpf. Glower. Scowl. Morningstar calls on a pre-set schedule; Gundlach hangs up.
At base, Morningstar analysts don't like confronting unconventional strategies. It messes up their boxes. It's also the source of my quip that Morningstar analysts do their best work when we need them least, when the strategy is straightforward and conventional. In any case, a fair number of managers have fumed (to me) that the Morningstar folks seem to listen without comprehension; mostly, they're trying to find out what box to put you in so they know what to think about you.
Gundlach's strategy is unconventional and the guy is, reputedly, quite a piece of work.
The WSJ article, by the way, is sort of sad. The online version reads "Morningstar analysts, who are keenly followed by investors ..." The original print version, though, gives a better hint about the writer's clue supply: "Morningstar analysts, who rate funds with stars andare keenly followed by investors ..." Post-release, someone broke the news that the analysts don't assign star ratings, which apparently was news. Several comparably insightful claims follow, at least in the print.
David