Not a fan of the VGI fee structure. I think you need to be very confident they produce very good before fees performance in order to compensate.
Fees appear less with some of the other names I pointed out in my earlier post. Maybe VGI are simply better managers though?
If I interpret it correct, let's say the MSCI index goes up by 15% in the first year but unfortunately VGI lag and do 10%.
Take off 1.5% base, then almost that again for performance fees (0.15* after fee performance being 8.5%). I think we need to shave off 2.8% total there. Then 50bps maybe in admin costs (not really sure). So you might get 6.7% of that 10% and in a year when they did worse than the equity index. Potentially of course.
At least with many competitors in this scenario the investor may get about 8.5% rather than 6.7%.
The VGI method may work better in large down years? Some other managers may get a performance fee when their fund loses 10% but the index drops 20%.
Interested in other's thoughts. 1.5% is not cheap for a base fee even forgetting about performance fee methods.
- Forums
- Strategic Investments
- LICs
Not a fan of the VGI fee structure. I think you need to be very...
- There are more pages in this discussion • 145 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
HAR
HARANGA RESOURCES LIMITED.
Peter Batten, MD
Peter Batten
MD
Previous Video
Next Video
SPONSORED BY The Market Online