Regarding the fee structure, I am curious as to why it is not more common to see a structure like 1% management fee and 50% performance fee above the S&P500.
Perhaps one seemingly unnatural issue for the limited partners would be to pay the manager in a down year. For instance if the S&P was down 20% and the fund was down gross 9% (-10% after mang fee), then the LP's would pay the manager another 5%, so they would be down net 15% versus the market 20%. Although many LP's may have an issue with that, it seems to me quite fair in my mind.
And in addition, the S&P returns should act as a "highwater mark" over the years, so a manager doesn't receive a performance fee in a big out performance year if the LP is still net negative to the S&P500 since inception.
I suspect the uniqueness of the structure is due to the fact that very few managers would earn a performance fee. Nonetheless, it seems to be an equitable structure to me.
