|
|
|
|
|
by tptacek
5079 days ago
|
|
Wait, didn't Kauffman suggest that many funds were getting most of their returns from fees? That the fee structure was encouraging the creation of huge funds so that partners could profit from those fees, despite the fact that larger funds are harder to invest well? That most funds are underperforming the market? Kauffman's portfolio included Bessemer, Benchmark, and General Atlantic, among others. They weren't talking about shady funds. If you really are expecting to get a giant locked-in chunk of your return from fees, than the interests of partners and the "chief partner" are not necessarily aligned. |
|
For example, if a fund earns $10M in management fees, it would pay back that $10M from the first returns generated by the fund. Then, only after getting "breaking even," would the partners earn carried interest. If the fund doesn't hit that watermark, it loses money for investors.
There are exceptions, though most of the industry has moved this way.
For those who haven't read the report, it's here: http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/vc-enemy-is-us-report....
Personally, I don't put much weight into it. It's conclusions are heavily skewed by the decade after 2000, which destroyed returns for most investing asset classes. (Despite the report's claims that it covers "20 years" of funds, most charts and examples, esp about mega funds, are recent).