No sir, I believe that your reasoning is a bit one-dimensional. Under your arrangement, if the market should offer twice as many gains to your client in a given year, you will dutifully confiscate twice as money from him, while providing the exact same service - thus "spreading the wealth" - directly into your pocket. If you did the honorable, by contractually guaranteeing reimbursement of a percentage of any potential losses, you would have a true 'performance based compensation'. Unfortunately, you and other managers chose a compensation scheme that undeniably encourages money managers to expose their clients' capital to more risk as a means of obtaining higher personal reward - with no additional personal risk being borne by the manager. A '% of AUM' fee would never create a similar compromising situation for your client. The hedge fund industry's version of 'spreading the wealth' is more insidious than anything Obama is going to come up with. Of course, I understand why you prefer to view the client/manager relationship in the terms you've outlined.
There is no sense in arguing with these folks. They do not understand the difference (or the moral deficiency) between earning a living from the fruits of your own labor versus collecting a living from the fruits of others labor. Primary example: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8
Are you disagreeing with this assertion?: "you and other {hedge fund} managers chose a compensation scheme that undeniably encourages money managers to expose their clients' capital to more risk as a means of obtaining higher personal reward - with no additional personal risk being borne by the manager." If so, I must call into question your fundamental comprehension of the term 'moral deficiency'.
you clearly misunderstood where she was coming from. She doesn't expect Obama to put gas in her car or pay her mortgage, she expects the economic outlook to get better so she doesn't have to worry like she does under the current "MBA president" and his collapsed economy.
How is that more fair? I had about just under $300,000 a year in expenses to run the business, but if I did not make a return in excess of T-bills I did not get paid at all. Most funds charge you first on a percentage of assets under mgnt, and then a percentage of profits as well. In my case I did not get paid unless I made money, if I lost money not only did I not get paid, but I was actually spending money to show up and work pretty hard. I'm not sure how you can see it as me being anything but very ethical and I think that every one of my clients would agree, as I never lost a single one except due to a divorce and two deaths.
You have got be kidding me. Are you really that ignorant. How exactly is Obama going to make the economy better?
So, you don't get paid unless you get a settlement for your client about his accident. Huh. Sounds like the same scheme lawyers use to me.
I've never had a problem with lawyers, I think they have a valuable job and with a few exceptions they do a good job.
U obviously don't get it. raising taxes is not the problem. raising taxes on one group, and then blatantly giving that money to people that don't even work in the form of a check is the problem. CLASSIC redistribution of wealth. 6 of 7 of Obama's "tax credits" don't actually require any income to claim. Those that don't pay taxes get a check instead of a tax credit. Obama does not even deny that he will be giving money to people that don't work at all. If the higher taxes were going to medicare, infrastructure, etc, no problem. THAT is not socialism. Spreading the money around is. BTW, I am not republican. I just believe BO's tax ideas are insane!