Tag Archive: Performance fees

At the Master Fund

Once the master has recorded the net capital flows it has to work with,
it then has a pooled trading account for which it can then generate all
P&L. All buys, sells, dividends, interest, etc. are initially accounted for
at this level. At an interval that reports need to be generated, it then
needs to “allocate” the P&L components back down to the feeder funds
that invested in it generally based on their relative capital (economic)
percentages.

At the Feeder Fund

Again, feeders are their own partnership (legal entity). They can decide
to invest in a master fund, as well as anything else allowed by the partnership
agreement. Thus there often times two sources of P&L for a
feeder—results from the master, and feeder-specific P&L. Feederspecific
P&L is what you’d expect it to be; P&L related only to things that
that feeder invests in (i.e. stocks, bonds, etc.), having nothing to do with
the P&L from other feeder(s) or P&L from the master fund. In addition,
the feeders carry certain expenses of their own such as management
and performance fees. Since each level of the master feeder structure
(i.e. corporation/partnership) is a legal entity, full books and records for
financial and tax reporting must be maintained for each.
The following activities typically occur solely at the feeder level:

  • Cash—kept on hand for miscellaneous feeder-specific expenses and fees
  • Capital contributions and redemptions of the investors
  • Direct investments in securities and short positions
  • Feeder level expenses including management fees and performance fees
  • Other liabilities
  • Organization costs

So, after the master P&L has been distributed to its respective feeders,
all the feeder-specific P&L is entered; then, finally, allocation down
to the investors can occur.

High water mark method

High water mark method

With this “average” method all shareholders are treated like a single pool as incentive fees are charged at the fund’s level without considering the investments’ purchase date or cost. The calculation is said to be asymmetric as performance fees are averaged between all existing investors on the pro-rata basis of their investment.

It tends to be bias to new investors in both cases when the fund’s net asset value goes up or down. It is not representive of individual losses or gains. This problem is compounded, the more volatile a fund is The problem is compounded when a substantial amount of capital entered. In some cases, some investors are overcharged or when others get a free ride. The NAV per share does not represent the real performance of the fund and investors will often have different performance on their investment. Shares are bought and sold at their NAV after deduction of all fees. NAV per share does not represent the performance of the fund Investors who have already paid incentive fees a negatively biased to new shareholders.

The easiness of the calculation as well as being easily understood have made it being quite popular within the industry. A single NAV per share can be reported to all investors, the listing of the fund

Partnership Method

This is the most sensible method to fairly calculate and allocate carried interest between investors. Ahead of any shareholders’ capital contributions or withdrawals, performance fees are allocated on a pro-rata basis of each investor’s capital at the beginning of the period. Simple to understand and easy to apply, it does not distort the fund’s performance when incentive fees are charged. Investors are only disbursed fees on the performance of their investment; they cannot have a “free ride” or see part of their money being “claw backed” in the fund. However, most investors will shy away of such structure as they will incur income taxes on annual basis as most jurisdictions have lower capital gain than income taxes that they might incur when redeeming their investment.

 The fund has made a gross performance of 20% which solely allocated to partners A as partners B ploughs money into the partnership at the end of the quarter. On June 30th, the fund’s assets have sustained a loss of $510’417 (-20.83%) shared equally between Partners A and B. By the end of the third quarter the net assets stands at $3,713,158, a gain of $773’575 carved out between the three existing partners. The gross ending market value is assessed at $4’022’588 which represents a gross gain of $772’588, the general partners is due $154’518 of incentive fees. The final net assets is $3’868’070 which is also the new HWM.

This is the most sensible method to fairly calculate and allocate carried interest between investors. Ahead of any shareholders’ capital contributions or withdrawals, performance fees are allocated on a pro-rata basis of each investor’s capital at the beginning of the period. Simple to understand and easy to apply, it does not distort the fund’s performance when incentive fees are charged. Investors are only disbursed fees on the performance of their investment; they cannot have a “free ride” or see part of their money being “claw backed” in the fund. However, most investors will shy away of such structure as they will incur income taxes on annual basis as most jurisdictions have lower capital gain than income taxes that they might incur when redeeming their investment.