I would doubt that it's the split that has caused performance to look less good than before. They do have experienced people there, with a good track record.
More, perhaps a question of short-term country allocations and risk levels adopted compared with other managers, and whether growth or value is what investors are buying (whether or not those decisions are going to be right in the future!).
Those who go directly into China more will probably increase their risk level compared with SIAPC, which is in a 'stable' where (like Aberdeen), the idea was to seek good levels of growth without betting the farm. The same would apply to PHI, I think : higher risk than SIAPC or PAC, but currently that's where people are keen to invest some of their money.
So it's a question of horses for courses - where do your priorities lie?
If you want the chance of doing extremely well or extremely badly, high risk profiles will no doubt give you what you want. If you prefer a good and fairly predictable result rather than a 'double or quits' result, then SIAPC will probably take you nearer to that objective.
We have had SIAPC in the past, but migrated more towards investment trusts.
I would not have any qualms about using them again if moving from ITs to funds.
