9 ms·

>If you take away the 2% return, you've basically said that only super rich people that can afford not getting paid for 5-10 years should be VCs. Do you think t

>If you take away the 2% return, you've basically said that only super rich people that can afford not getting paid for 5-10 years should be VCs. Do you think that all the best investors in the world are super rich people? You can take away the 2% and leave some value value that still pays the investors. The problem with 2% is that the fund managers often taken home %1 type wages without actually performing. A %1 fee with a clause that caps all fund managers salaries at $60k (or some livable wage) ensures that the investors can live, but puts all of the income incentive on their bonuses which is tied to fund performance.

jacquesm 9y ago
> The problem with 2% is that the fund managers often taken home %1 type wages without actually performing. Right, and fund managers will work for free instead. I know quite a few of them and I would not want to trade with them. Spend half your life in transit lounges of airports and the other half in hotel rooms, maybe if you're lucky you get to see your kids on the weekends. I know divorced couples that get more family time than some of the VCs I work with, they're the hardest working people that I know, much harder than most founders. I suspect that your viewpoint is not illuminated with actual experience of the VC world. Note that people that made enough money to start a VC fund usually value their time well and if you want to get them to pull your cart for you (as an LP you have to do absolutely nothing) they expect to be compensated for their time.