Anyone know the real scoop here? speculation welcome. It reads like some mini-Bill Gross got suspended for insufficient paperwork and the firm let nearly $10B walk out the door when they decided to shut down and liquidate the bond funds he managed after a rush of redemption requests. The company's stock (GAM in Switzerland, GMHLY for the US ADR) is down 50% in the last few months.
---
"Mr. Haywood was one of GAM’s most high-profile managers, running 14.6 billion Swiss francs, or around 9% of GAM’s assets, including 11 billion Swiss francs in the firm’s absolute-return bond strategy."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ith-a-legitimate-investment-strategy-gam-says
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gam-to...-of-funds-after-traders-suspension-1533924082
http://www.investmenteurope.net/regions/switzerland/gam-releases-faq-over-arbf-issue/
It wasn't a conflict of interest, it wasn't involved with anyone else, no clients or their investments were materially effected, his honesty "was not in doubt". The official line is that he sometimes signed some internal documents only once when someone else was also supposed to sign, he occasionally used personal email for work, and that he made investments with either insufficient due diligence or at least he didn't / wouldn't document his reasons for them. I saw inconsistent mentions of his use of their gifts and entertainment policies - not that they weren't allowed, but that he was perhaps supposed to have gotten preapproval for them.
---
"Mr. Haywood was one of GAM’s most high-profile managers, running 14.6 billion Swiss francs, or around 9% of GAM’s assets, including 11 billion Swiss francs in the firm’s absolute-return bond strategy."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ith-a-legitimate-investment-strategy-gam-says
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gam-to...-of-funds-after-traders-suspension-1533924082
http://www.investmenteurope.net/regions/switzerland/gam-releases-faq-over-arbf-issue/
It wasn't a conflict of interest, it wasn't involved with anyone else, no clients or their investments were materially effected, his honesty "was not in doubt". The official line is that he sometimes signed some internal documents only once when someone else was also supposed to sign, he occasionally used personal email for work, and that he made investments with either insufficient due diligence or at least he didn't / wouldn't document his reasons for them. I saw inconsistent mentions of his use of their gifts and entertainment policies - not that they weren't allowed, but that he was perhaps supposed to have gotten preapproval for them.