3 possibilities: 1. They answered from the perspective of an investor- most likely choice 2. They are dumb and either can't do basic math or have a gross misunderstanding of the reality of the business in terms of performance. 3. They considered the capital raising effect as it relates to the fee structure. I didn't think the question is that involved, however, I really don't think there is any benefit from a capital raising perspective for 0/25 vs. 2/20. From the CTAs perspective of strictly maximizing fees within a saleable structure, there is no contest between 2/20 vs. 0/25. That said, 5/0 is the best structure for maximizing fees if one has no regard to capital raising.
It looks like we have 4 voters voted for: 1. 5%/0% --- only 5% management fee, no incentive fee. what are your mainly reasons?
Only one voter voted for option 4 "0%/20% --- 0% management fee, 2o% incentive fee WITHOUT High-Walter-Mark and no hurdle" ? Why?
Noq we have 5 voters voted for: 1. 5%/0% --- only 5% management fee, no incentive fee. what are your mainly reasons?
I like 5/95 better. My clients are happy with it. 5% management fee and 95 % performance fee? Are you sure?
5 / 0....What´s the incentive for the manager to "perform" if you have "safe" 5 % p.a. ? In effect it´s "risk free" money for the management, isn´t it ?
5 / 0....What´s the incentive for the manager to "perform" if you have "safe" 5 % p.a. ? In effect it´s "risk free" money for the management, isn´t it ? Well, if the manager does not perform, the investors will eventually withdraw their investment and close accounts...... I think manager still have to perform ...... What do you think?