Skip to main content

High-water marks

In yesterday's entry here, I made what may have seemed to some a quite cryptic observation about "high water marks."

To review, I said that the use of a 20%-of-gain element in the fee structure of hedge funds makes an issue out of the high-water mark, but that I would discuss this at another day.

The underlying idea is this. A hedge fund manager takes as his compensation 20% of the increase in fund value over the last recorded maximum.

Suppose a fund was worth $3 million at the end of year 1. Then it had a bad second year, and ended that annum worth only $2.5 million. No performance fee for them, of course (they have to content themselves with their share of the AUM.) In the third year, they do somewhat better, and get the value of the whole back to $3 million.

In their heart of hearts, the managers would surely like to say that they grew their fund by $500,000 in year 3, so they are entitled to 20% of that, or $100,000. But they can't. By standard contract terms, the profit is measured against the previous high water mark. so here it is ... zero ... at the end of year three.

Good luck with a better year four guys.

Here is an academic discussion from 2007.


Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…