> Dollars are fungible When there's no cost to moving them, yes, but that's not the case here: We're talking about the VCs personally, and the money that is in

> Dollars are fungible When there's no cost to moving them, yes, but that's not the case here: We're talking about the VCs personally, and the money that is in the hands of the firm is not worth the same to the VCs personally. Even if they could take the entire amount with impunity, they'd still be taxed on it as income, meaning that they'd lose as much as a third (depending on their marginal tax rate), so 15% is already incorrect from the start. But on top of that, they're not able to pocket all of that money, because they have a fiscal responsibility to use it in the interest of the fund's shareholders. The same is not true about their personal bank accounts (which is where the 5% comes from). Dollars are fungible, but that doesn't mean that $1 in a highly restricted fund is the same as $1 in an unrestricted fund. The former is worth some amount less (the discount determined by the premium associated with the restriction). If that last paragraph weren't true, by the way, money laundering schemes wouldn't lose any money due to attrition, and corruption would be essentially "free". But thankfully, that's not the case - people who embezzle money have less than 100% yield. (Not always a lot less, but still less). > management fees aren't just for expenses If LPs can show that a VC is neglecting necessary expenses and instead pocketing the management fee - as 5%-20% = -15% would imply - then the VC had better figure out how he's going to pay his lawyers, because the LPs have got a great lawsuit on their hands.