That's the investors' choice to do so, it has nothing to do with...

That's the investors' choice to do so, it has nothing to do with whether BLA's disclosures are faulty as Glaucus allege.

By the way, two truths I can share with you as someone who's spent their entire career either advising or working for alternative asset managers:

1) whether fees are charged on equity or gross assets doesn't particularly matter, the manager will take its pound of flesh regardless. If investors demand the fee be on equity, the manager will simply ratchet up the % to get it to the same economic position it would be in if the fee were charged on gross assets.

2) the incentive to stupidly ramp asset values only exists if the manager is being remunerated on mark to market AUM values, which BLA aren't for >75% of their AUM. Even if they did want to ramp asset values for the <25% AUM subject to mark to market, there's strong disincentives against that - the investors (particularly institutions) usually aren't complete idiots so they'll pick up on it if it happens, and the jig is up anyway when the manager has to sell the asset and does so at a big discount to inflated mark to market value - that's one of the easiest ways for an alternatives asset manager to kill its business.