a handpicked sample size of 1 out of 9000 doesnt justify this bubble structure that will be probably gone for decades
Maybe: A. He invested in illiquid securities. B. He doesn't want bad numbers on his track record. C. He lost big and he's hiding losses D. He stole the money. I'll go for C or D
anyone who bases his decisions on the size of the fee rather than the after fee expected return is a dumbass.
SAC also charges a 4% management fee and most hedge funds charge a 2% management fee in addition to a share of the profits. almost none of the trading companies I've ever run across charge a management fee. It's all a percentage of profits. You might be thinking of that model.
I'm going watch Surf's back on this one. Certainly CW would agree with you. No I wouldn't pay a guy 50% to take shots. Let alone to imitate Surf's buddy Vic. However what if a firm with excellent customer flow-for instance an options market maker-came to you and said we have an edge and we'll split 50/50 with your capital. Naturally you'd do it. The same way a producer pays Sandler 20mil instead of Steve Guttenberg 1mil, knowing one actor will produce a release and the other guy can't open. Look at stocks. You pay 20x earnings, management gets paid millions, the stock pays no dividend and you have absolute price risk. Crap deal. Big pic a quality manager charging 25% is a steal. That being said the time to give Cohen money was 1997 not 2007....