> I guess if the benchmark looses money, and they loose less they get to take a % of something? But they you are paying them for having lost money? Seems odd.

> I guess if the benchmark looses money, and they loose less they get to take a % of something? But they you are paying them for having lost money? Seems odd. I don't see a problem with it. This scenario, like negative interest rates, or negative electric rates [1], may be counterintuitive and seem odd, but it makes sense if you think about it. I'd be paying them for losing less money that I would have otherwise, and "losing less" is just another way of saying "gaining more". [1] Discussed recently on HN in the context of wind turbines in Europe, IIRC