The most recent Business Week fiction regarding Tiger Management was its assertions that the company was "literally forced out of business" because of liquidity issues at the Jaguar Fund and also that Tiger had commingled assets among its funds ("What really killed Tiger," Finance, Apr. 17).
In fact, Tiger made its decision to liquidate its funds in mid-February and commenced market activities to that end well before investors notified Jaguar of requests for Mar. 31 redemptions. Tiger's desire to treat all of the investors in its six funds equitably led to a suspension of redemptions not just in Jaguar but also in Tiger and other funds having quarterly withdrawal rights.
The first-quarter withdrawals in the Jaguar Fund would have reduced its outstanding shares below the threshold set by Antilles law. If Tiger wished to continue its investment operations, however, Jaguar's Board could have fixed the problem, as it did in September, 1999, by declaring a stock dividend. This quick and easy procedure would have averted the legal impediment cited in your story. Jaguar's liquidity, contrary to your thesis, was never a factor.
Contrary to what you state, commingling of assets among Tiger's investment funds has never occurred. Ever since its inception, Tiger has utilized a common investment strategy to manage its various funds. Each fund holds separate and identifiable positions in nearly identical portfolios of securities. Spelled out in the offering circulars and Tiger's regulatory filings, that practice is--and was--well known to all of our investors.
All of this information was explained to your reporter prior to publication of his article, but he obviously decided to ignore it.
William R. Goodell
Tiger Management LLC
Editor's note: Business Week stands by the story. A Tiger spokesman interviewed for the story told Business Week that the decision to shut the funds was made in late February, after requests for redemptions had begun pouring in. Redemptions were so huge by the end of March that Jaguar investors were told that they were legally precluded from withdrawing their money from the fund. If there was a "quick and easy" way to allow withdrawals, as Goodell says, that is contrary to the clear language of the notice to Jaguar investors.
Business Week did not "assert" that commingling had taken place. We reported this as one of the issues raised by an Ocelot Fund investor. Our primary point--that Ocelot shareholders were disadvantaged by withdrawals in other funds--was substantiated by the letter from Julian Robertson reprinted in the article. Tiger's response to all these matters was quoted in the article.