There seems to be a discrepancy between the QRI's target return...

There seems to be a discrepancy between the QRI's target return and its performance fee structure. The target is RBA cash rate + 5% to 6.5%, yet the performance hurdle is a flat 8%. According to the PDS, a 20.5% performance fee applies to monthly Net Income above 8.0% of Average Adjusted NAV. Given that the target return varies with the cash rate but the performance hurdle doesn't, this setup seems misaligned. For instance, with the current cash rate of 4.35%, QRI’s lending rates range from 10% to 14% (5.65% to 9.65% above the cash rate). This system could result in high performance fees during high cash rate periods, irrespective of management skill. Conversely, a low cash rate could see QRI missing out on performance fees despite strong management.

By comparison, MOT’s fee structure adjusts with the RBA cash rate plus 6%, which aligns better with the variable nature of private credit lending. Considering QRI has not met its target return for three years yet has collected fees in the last 12-18 months, a revision in the fee structure seems necessary to better reflect actual management performance, e.g., a 6% floor aligned with an RBA + 6% target.

Perhaps some bigger investors are finally catching on that QRI's performance fee structure is disadvantageous in relatively higher cash rate environments?