Quote from dabao91:
What is defined by New Trading Profit? --- Positive P/L in the month in question.
Take the following as an eg.
Month 1: Current Return = 10% <--------- NTP = 10%
Month 2: Current Return = 5% <----------- NTP = 0%
Month 3: Current Return = 15% <----------- N TP = ((115/110) � 1) * 100%
In the above scenario, what is the new trading profit in each case? Am i right to assume the following:
Month 1: New Trading Profit = 10%
Month 2: New Trading Profit = 0%
Month 3: New Trading Profit = 5% <---------- No not 5%, see above.
If that is the case, isn't it very unfair for the investors but advantageous for the manager? See below
Month 1: Current Return = 50%
Month 2: Current Return = 500%
Month 3: Current Return = 1%
The investors have to compensate the manager for the massive profit in month 2 but the manage lost most of the profits in month 3. So the 2nd month compensation is for nothing. <----------- Well the issue remains even base on 2/20 (vs. 0/30). You can argue that for 2/20, even investor loses, he still pays 2%. In you case, since the carry forward loss is a big negative, so the advisor needs to make it up before he can earn any incentive fee. So the 2nd month compensation is not necessary for nothing. 0/30 option is intended to solve the case even investor lose but still have to pay 2% management fees. 0/30 can not solve the case you cited. But the number (500%; 1%) is too extreme.
I've always thought compensation is charged on an annual basis, instead of monthly <----------- Since NFA/CFTC regulations, performance must be base on monthly. So most if not all, incentive fees are based on monthly not year (or quarter) for CTA/CPO.
If 2/20 or 0/30 is not that good, any suggestions you may have?
My issue is not with the 2/20 or 0/30 structure. My issue is with the way they calculate the profit.
Hedge fund investors can't liquidate at anytime they wish right?
So if they can only liquidate only once a year, wouldn't it be fairer if the profit be based on the profit at the liquidation period?