Non-partner employee here. Same poster as elsewhere on a different throwaway. The benefits are very strong. I had not heard of this issue previously, and don’t

Non-partner employee here. Same poster as elsewhere on a different throwaway. The benefits are very strong. I had not heard of this issue previously, and don’t especially care. I’m not clear on if you mean the performance is too high or too low because the article kind of implied both. I don’t think the amount was particularly material nor do I think it’s especially bad if the firm gives preferential treatment to partners because... it’s a privately owned firm... by the partners... and in general it treats its employees very well. I’m not sure I’m communicating this well because the underlying facts feel vague. But I would give my employer an A+ based on my experience so far. The possibility that a percentage point of returns was lost on my 401k is bottom of the barrel priority. I can’t tell from the article what happened, but it would be really hard to outweigh the visible, conscious investment in its people that the firm does. I recognize this sounds like I’m drinking the Kool Aid here, but frankly, very few companies invest much into their employees. The best case scenario is often lame office perks for tech workers. But tech workers get shitty non competes. McKinsey, for example, gives you weeks of fully compensated time off to find your next job elsewhere. I think it’s a remarkably healthy culture.