Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Most of the arguments in this comments sections are outdated. The same goes to the 'Buffet argument'. Most of the funds (after 2008) run with High-Watermark rule. Thus, in the case of your Scenario 2, fund will get nothing from the next 300 million it makes (apart from fixed fees). Thus, the investor will end up with 294 million at period 3. Just like if the fund made 100 million for 3 periods consequently.


That applies if people leave their money in the fund forever. If some of that cycles then there are no high water marks on the new money.


Quite right, though the high water mark approach predates 2008.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: