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
Pimco Co-Founder Bill Gross's Wife Of 31 Years Seeks Divorce
C'mon, this could affect all those people holding his Janus fund because doesn't he own a huge proportion of the shares? If she takes half of everything then it could impact the rest of the fund's shareholders negatively. If nothing else, it's a distraction.
VF has a point, supported (perhaps inadvertently?) by kevindow - at best this celebrity gossip belongs in OT, not fund discussions.
While I agree that JUCIX's performance has been less than stellar, it has also been better than average. Of course that depends on what one is averaging.
Removing the "clutter" from the performance graph, and looking only at the fund's performance vs. the category average, the fund doesn't look so bad. Not that it looks so hot either, nor is a hodge podge category of "nontraditional bond funds" necessarily a good set of funds to compare to.
The latest annual report (now six months old) says much the same thing: "For the 12 month period ending June 30, 2016, Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund's Class I Shares returned 2.90%, compared with a 0.41% return for the Fund's benchmark, the 3-Month USD London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)"
If I were part owner of the Gross' portfolio, I'd be concerned about the lack of diversification. Out of the $2.1B (as reported in the original article), about 40% (around $810M) is invested in JUCIX.
According to the latest SAI, " 60.6% [of] outstanding Class I Shares [are] held beneficially by William H. Gross (including his family) .... Mr. Gross (including his family) beneficially owns 47.5% of the outstanding Shares of the Fund [counting all share classes]. "
C'mon, this could affect all those people holding his Janus fund because doesn't he own a huge proportion of the shares? If she takes half of everything then it could impact the rest of the fund's shareholders negatively. If nothing else, it's a distraction.
Let's start a website tracking each of our funds managers to see if their spouses are possibly going to divorce them. Potentially it could result in the spouse getting half of shares owned by fund manager and resulting in sell - off. We can call it WTF***ipedia.
While we are at it, let's also start tracking the daily commute of fund managers to see if they walk under buildings where a Piano can drop on them. You never know.
@VintageFreak, You have obviously not visited the MFO Off-Topic forum !
Kevin
That's just it, though. I also didn't think I would visit MFO to receive SPAM, as in, every single link to every single story that had any remote connection to what we should all be interested in, that I carefully did NOT subscribe to. Some people have more time than others to find things of interest in the morass of nonsense.
For the umpteenth time, I ask for "Ignore" feature on the forum boards. If we are going to degenerate to a bulletin board of yore, this is a minimal feature that is expected and is available on all boards I have seen.
I've heard of lot worse. Franklin Templeton about 15 years back had a manager (seems to me he ran a long-short fund) who not only got into a nasty divorce, but was badly alcoholic and facing criminal assault charges for spouse abuse. Very high up in the firm. Might have become CEO were it not for the personal issues. And I recall one of T Rowe's managers (PRWCX) had serious personal problems. Stuff happens.
Been there. Done that. My heart goes out to anyone in these situations. A good prenuptial agreement written up by a good attorney is your best protection. The contrast between NY divorce law and California (Ted's linked article) is interesting. From that I deduce that Trump in NY fared better in his 2 previous divorces than Gross will in California.
We can split hairs I suppose about whether this is fund related or OT. But in all honesty I don't think it belongs on the board.
Let's start a website tracking each of our funds managers to see if their spouses are possibly going to divorce them. Potentially it could result in the spouse getting half of shares owned by fund manager and resulting in sell - off. We can call it WTF***ipedia.
While we are at it, let's also start tracking the daily commute of fund managers to see if they walk under buildings where a Piano can drop on them. You never know.
And I thought only I did ANALysis...
@VintageFreak, that would be something to behold. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, most managers own a tiny percent of their funds so we don't really have to worry much about them other than succession planning for whatever happens.
It doesn't really matter to me whether something like this is a Fund Discussion or OT. My point was only that even though most people who comment here have a love affair with Gundlach rather than Gross, there are probably at least a few of the thousands who read this stuff who might care about the impact something that's personal for the manager could have on the fund "in this case".
And maybe not as much as you, but I enjoy a little ANALysis now and then too.
Comments
Seriously though, if I were a mutual fund manager, my wife would seriously consider divorcing me if she saw THIS !
Kevin
While I agree that JUCIX's performance has been less than stellar, it has also been better than average. Of course that depends on what one is averaging.
Removing the "clutter" from the performance graph, and looking only at the fund's performance vs. the category average, the fund doesn't look so bad. Not that it looks so hot either, nor is a hodge podge category of "nontraditional bond funds" necessarily a good set of funds to compare to.
Here's that graph.
The latest annual report (now six months old) says much the same thing: "For the 12 month period ending June 30, 2016, Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund's Class I Shares returned 2.90%, compared with a 0.41% return for the Fund's benchmark, the 3-Month USD London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)"
If I were part owner of the Gross' portfolio, I'd be concerned about the lack of diversification. Out of the $2.1B (as reported in the original article), about 40% (around $810M) is invested in JUCIX.
According to the latest SAI, " 60.6% [of] outstanding Class I Shares [are] held beneficially by William H. Gross (including his family) .... Mr. Gross (including his family) beneficially owns 47.5% of the outstanding Shares of the Fund [counting all share classes]. "
While we are at it, let's also start tracking the daily commute of fund managers to see if they walk under buildings where a Piano can drop on them. You never know.
And I thought only I did ANALysis...
For the umpteenth time, I ask for "Ignore" feature on the forum boards. If we are going to degenerate to a bulletin board of yore, this is a minimal feature that is expected and is available on all boards I have seen.
JMHO.
Regards,
Ted
Been there. Done that. My heart goes out to anyone in these situations. A good prenuptial agreement written up by a good attorney is your best protection. The contrast between NY divorce law and California (Ted's linked article) is interesting. From that I deduce that Trump in NY fared better in his 2 previous divorces than Gross will in California.
We can split hairs I suppose about whether this is fund related or OT. But in all honesty I don't think it belongs on the board.
It doesn't really matter to me whether something like this is a Fund Discussion or OT. My point was only that even though most people who comment here have a love affair with Gundlach rather than Gross, there are probably at least a few of the thousands who read this stuff who might care about the impact something that's personal for the manager could have on the fund "in this case".
And maybe not as much as you, but I enjoy a little ANALysis now and then too.