As I prepare my submissions to HM Treasury....
Can anyone give me any good reason, ethical or logical, why any Investment Manager's annual fees are based on unrealised asset valuations that they alone determine?
Surely they should be based on "hard" assets contributed by investors plus retained realised profits (cash at say 1/10th of investment cost based fee as there is nothing to do). Nothing should be payable for any unrealised net gains as there is simply no ongoing work after acquisition for which their Director's fees don't already compensate.
If we just look at Albion Capital Group they generate annual profits, without performance fees paid for years, for each of the members of more than £700,000.
There is simply no justification for such outrageous fee gouging for doing nothing that any 2-bit accountant couldn't administer. As for 2% for depositing cash in the bank...
Question: How much could Albion charge if the US GP base salary of $75k were imposed - any more comes from performance?
Comments
Post a Comment