At the end of the day... it's a performance fee being...

At the end of the day... it's a performance fee being charged for any positive return. They return .001 percent - you pay the performance fee.

I have never heard someone justify this fee structure. And when they do, it seems they have completely forgotten they are already charging a high management fee.

It's not about whinging or not analysing the fees. Yes, they do show their fees.

The question is - in the face of passive investment vehicles taking over and in many respects outperforming - how long can any manager ask for performance fees without first showing they can in fact justify they have performed.

I am not really interested in listening to people nark about "they clearly stated the fees" or if you don't like it - sell. The argument is beyond any one fund.

The zero based performance fee is a relic and was never intended to just be a management fee add on. If they were open about the swindle, they would just adjust their management fee, taking into account the massive increase when taking the performance fee into account.

I am not even against performance fees - hell, if a manager can beat a relevant and appropriate benchmark, they deserve every cent.

But when did a manager deserve a performance fee if they can just dump their holdings into the lowest risk index fund on the market. Please. Rather, just chuck the money in bonds - cash... doesn't matter... they are winning.

Anyway - apparently you can't have an option about this if you are invested. God forbid.