GMO is solvent and has stayed in business.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
True if, as of 3 December 2012, GMO was still operating as a going concern, was not insolvent, and had continued in business since its underperformance around 1999-2000. False if records show GMO had become insolvent, closed, or stopped operating in that period. Mostly true only if it was operating but some minor detail differs (e.g. the exact timing of the underperformance).
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 The messenger shoots back Institutional Investor · 31 July 2003
“GMO nearly unraveled. From a peak of $31 billion in mid-1998, assets shrank to $20 billion in mid-2001, a roughly 35 percent decline, as long-time clients dismissed GMO as hopelessly out-of-date.”
-
E2 The messenger shoots back Institutional Investor · 31 July 2003
“GMO suffered more than most value-biased managers, and the firm -- a 26-year-old private partnership -- has also rebounded more dramatically, winning back old clients and attracting new ones.”
-
E3 Brent Sheather: Herd mentality does the damage - NZ Herald New Zealand Herald · 1 June 2007
“As technology shares soared this gave rise to serious short-term underperformance and the firm lost 40 per cent of its mainly institutional business.”
-
E4 QUARTERLY LETTER My Sister's Pension Assets and Agency Problems GMO · 18 April 2012 Own record
“Yet we survived, although not without some battle scars, with the great help that we did, in the end, win these bets and by a lot.”
Reasoning
Independent reporting from 2003 says GMO 'nearly unraveled' when its assets fell from $31 billion in mid-1998 to $20 billion in mid-2001. The same report says the firm then rebounded strongly, winning back old clients and adding new ones (E1, E2). A 2007 article independent of GMO describes the firm losing 40 per cent of its business during the technology boom, which implies it kept operating afterwards (E3). GMO's own quarterly letter from April 2012 says the firm survived, and the fact that it was still publishing that letter shows it was operating months before the claim (E4). No evidence shows insolvency or closure.
Cite this claim
Jeremy Grantham, “GMO is solvent and has stayed in business.” (said 3 December 2012). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_22ae6513a49d, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_22ae6513a49d
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Jeremy Grantham
-
Mostly true
“The tone of the market commentators back in January, when I was writing my last quarterly letter, seemed much too pessimistic on global stock markets, particularly the U.S. market, and I said so.”
-
Mostly true
“I had warned of trouble if China slowed its growth for demand for minerals quickly.”
Grantham had earlier warned of trouble if China quickly slowed its demand growth for minerals.
-
Mixed
“We have been modeling momentum and value as two key variables for 33 years, so this is pretty old hat.”
GMO has modeled momentum and value as two key variables for 33 years.
-
Mostly true
“we were 2 to 3 years early in our calls in both cases.”
GMO's calls on the Japan 65 P/E market and the 2000 U.S. tech bubble were 2 to 3 years early.
-
Mostly false
“the lowest rates in the history of man,”
Bonds currently offer the lowest interest rates in human history.
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.