对“2和20”分析的反响
许多人并不相信，在对冲基金“2% 管理费加 20% 业绩提成”的模式下，简单的算术就能揭示出投资回报在投资者与基金经理之间的分配失衡。正如我所展示的，如果将“2 和 20”的费用结构应用于沃伦·巴菲特的投资业绩，那么最终基金价值的 90% 以上将不属于投资者，而是落入基金经理的口袋。
There are many who disbelieve the simple arithmetic of the impact of hedge fund style 2 and 20% fees on the division of the investment proceeds between investor and fund manager. As demonstrated, if 2 and 20 were applied to Warren Buffett's investment performance, over 90% of the eventual value of the fund would accrue not to the investor, but to the manager.
同样，也有人对我计算基金经理所得金额的方法提出异议，认为我假设那“2 和 20”的费用投入基金后，会与投资者的份额以同样的速率复利增长。我认为这个假设并无争议，而且确实反映了一些实际对冲基金的做法。
There were also many who disagreed with the methodology of calculating the amount which accrues to the manager based upon the assumption that the 2 and 20 fees are invested in the fund and compound at the same rate as the investor's stake. I think this is an uncontroversial assumption and certainly reflects the practice in some actual hedge funds.
但无论经理如何处理这笔收益，或者如何计算，一个简单的事实是：在一种情形下，你最终有 430 万美元，而在另一种情形下，你只有 30 万美元。有些评论者似乎认为这是可以接受的。但这个行业需要变革。
But regardless of what the manager does with the proceeds or how it's calculated, the simple fact is that under the one scenario you'd have $4.3m and under the other you'd only have $300k. Some commentators seem to think this is acceptable. This industry needs change.
还有人指出，以沃伦·巴菲特为例来说明“2 和 20”收费并非原创。虽然这个例子是我从零开始计算的，但约翰·凯在他关于此主题的一篇文章中已经讨论过这一点。
Someone also pointed out that the example of Warren Buffett charging 2 and 20 is not original. Although I calculated the example from scratch, it was covered by John Kay in an article on this subject.
我的原创之处在于，我不只是写写而已，我还成立了一家基金管理公司，以实际行动来应对这个问题。或者正如有人曾说过的：“预测下雨不算本事，造方舟才是。”
What is original is that I am not just writing about it, I have set up a fund management business to do something about it. Or as someone once said "Predicting rain isn't what counts. Building an ark is."