This piece sends a number of bad messages to leaders of firms, clients and the general public. First, bragging about a successful transition from a talented manager within the first year is hubris (I hope that things go well for the firm anyway). Secondly, clients are quite right to pull assets away when a dominant, talented money manager is displaced. Results may be as good, or even better in the future, but the investment process will be different. Third, the typical response to a key departure is to say he or she wasn't all that important anyway. Why don't firms tell this story before the manager leaves? Saying that the firm is better off without the so - called "Warren Buffett of Europe" sounds disingenuous, and undermines trust and respect for the firm.