That would be incorrect. I just used numbers that weren't reflective of the article. To keep (dumbly) using my simple numbers, while still using their percent

That would be incorrect. I just used numbers that weren't reflective of the article. To keep (dumbly) using my simple numbers, while still using their percentages, it would be more like this: You could get $100 by using an index, but instead, you hire a guy who gets you $103 for not using an index, then charge you a $2 fee, leaving you with a "profit" of $1. At the end of the day, the fund recipients still come out ahead, just not as much ahead as if the managers charged no fees. If you can figure out a way to get people to work for free, and do a good job on top of it, then you'll have surely cracked the code (or reinvented slavery). Until then, it's hard for me to demonize a money manager who charged two percent over ten years, even if it was two percent of a very large number.