Zero Management Fees
Zero Management Fees
Zero Management Fees
Aaron Westlund adds colour to this: “Some of our initial non-accredited investors
didn’t qualify to be charged an actual performance fee. So, for those initial non-
accredited investors (we no longer have any non-accredited investors), we put in a
management fee but committed that we would waive that fee down to what would have
been charged as a performance fee instead”.
Sweden
4%
Israel
4%
USA
41%
Germany
4%
UK
6%
India
8%
Switzerland
9% Australia
11%
Some features from the commentary that was received from zero management fee
managers follow:
The lock-up period for investors was generally one year but in some cases, there was
no lock up and in one case a three year lock up. In general, I found that for funds offering
zero management fees, the percentage of the fund beneficially owned by the manager
and related persons was higher than I would normally expect to see in a private fund. I
thank Rhys Summerton, from Milkwood Capital Limited who flagged this up for me
when he wrote “I suspect what you will find is that the higher percentage of own capital
of a fund, the more the fund manager will accept zero management fees and focus on
performance fees”. Almost 100% of the respondents issued their NAV’s monthly and
the predominant fund strategy was long only in a global geography. The most telling
feature however was the significant number of managers who claimed to be value
investors.
I also found that new investors, when given the choice, were more likely to pick a zero
management fee class rather than a Two and Twenty class, signifying a general investor
recognition than managers should be compensated for performance. However, for tax
reasons I found that existing investors in a fund offering both options in different
classes, were often loathe to shift to the zero management fee class as they would likely
crystallise a taxable gain on the change in class.
In addition, I found several innovative fee structures, for example one run by Orbis
Investments, called the Refundable Reserve Fee share class, where the high-water mark
concept is scrapped. The performance fee is based on the relative performance
experienced by each client and such performance fees are refunded in the event of
subsequent underperformance. I thank Dan Brocklebank of Orbis Investments for
sharing their complex but very fair fee arrangements with me.
1
Please Note:
While I have tried to include as much as possible about the manager one piece
of data that I have consistently left out is the managers’ returns. We are not in
a position to audit them, and do not want to run into any regulatory or other
issues when it comes to advertising returns. All of the funds where we have
performance numbers, however, showed extraordinarily high returns – far
better than the indices – which strongly suggests that there is a selection bias:
Those managers who are confident of delivering outsized returns are the ones
who go for a zero management fee structure
FURTHER COMMENTARY
Having distributed this document to a small group we received some further valuable
commentary: Mark Weidmann wrote:
“I started my fund in May of 2009. Prior, I wrote to Warren Buffett for
the fee structure he felt was fair, and followed what he suggested when
he wrote back: no management fee, 25% of any gain above 6%, and a
high water mark – If the fund loses money one year, it has to make up
that amount, then make 6%, and then I take any gains above 6%.
I do agree with the principles of investing laid out by Warren Buffett and
attempt to follow them.
Other Sources
Alfred Winslow Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Winslow_Jones
The Jones nobody keeps up with – Carol Loomis in Fortune Magazine – 1966.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/29/hedge-funds-fortune-1966/b