Is it time for the venture capital “two-and-twenty” to end?

money-moneyPrivate equity is starting to get the hint. Is it time for venture capital to do the same?

For more than a generation, “two-and-twenty” has been a rule of thumb for management fees in the venture capital industry. It means fund managers get twenty percent of any profits they generate and two percent of total assets under management in fees.

Chris Dixon, who co-founded Hunch with Flickr co-founder Caterina Fake and made early stage investments at Bessemer Venture Partners, published a provocative post last week asking if it’s time to end the practice:

The problem is the management fees.  2% made sense back when VC funds were much smaller, but not now that they have gotten so large.  As peHUB said in their email newsletter today, Benchmark had an $85M fund in 1995 but today has a $500M fund.  That seems to be the typical trend for most big VCs.

Let’s do a little math.  2% of $85M is $1.7M.   Assuming 8 partners, that means salaries are in the $100-$200K range.  Much higher than national averages but, by the standards of finance, they aren’t getting “rich.”  2% of $500 is $10M, so each partner is probably getting $1M+ in salaries.   Over the 10 year life of the fund that’s $10M.  Even on Wall Street that is considered pretty rich.  And they get that money even if they make only bad investments and don’t return a dime to their investors.

The private equity and hedge fund industries are undergoing similar soul-searching (if that’s possible) after last year’s market crash when they were swamped with redemption requests. Two-and-twenty was also a rule of thumb among hedge funds.

After the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index plummeted by the most since 1937 last year, investors questioned why managers should automatically earn a 2 percent cut of $1 billion under management, for example, even if they delivered a loss. Private equity funds are now down to asking for 1.8 percent this year, according to London-based research firm Preqin Ltd. Hedge fund fees have stayed a little firmer than that, although some new funds are charging 1.5 percent, according to Bloomberg News.

As the venture capital industry also contracts, sending investment activity back down to mid-1990s levels, perhaps its time for funds to ask similar questions as they compete for dwindling inflows from long-term investors like university endowments and pension funds. A lower automatic management fee, with the same or more generous profit-sharing arrangement, would place a venture capitalist’s mindset more in line with the entrepreneur’s experience.

Another plus, Dixon argues, is that venture capitalists won’t flood the market with money start-ups don’t need, make too many “me-too” investments or raise too large a fund just to capture management fees. Indeed, Bill Gurley, a venture capitalist at Benchmark Partners, argued last week that a contraction may nurse venture capital back to its former health.

Next Story:
Previous Story:

Photo of Kim-Mai Cutler

About the Author, Kim-Mai Cutler

Kim-Mai was born and raised a stone's throw from Apple headquarters in Cupertino by a devout Hewlett-Packard family. After attending UC Berkeley, Kim-Mai worked for Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires in New York, Los Angeles, London and Buenos Aires. Follow her on Twitter at @kimmaicutler, and follow VentureBeat on Twitter at @venturebeat.

  • Steve
    They make way more than that! Most decent venture funds have 3-4 active funds at any given time (most funds have a 10-year life, and VCs tend to raise funds every 3 years or so).

    You need to at least triple every comp figure in your post,
  • First, I completely agree that the venture model is broken. I also agree that large funds cause most of the problem and huge fees are the big incentive to raise large funds. HOWEVER, wholesale implementation of lower fees as "standard" would actually make part of the VC problem even worse.

    One of the biggest challenges facing start-ups today is a lack of seed and early stage funding. Part of the reason for this is that institutional investors no longer back early stage funds (which is strange since they've always had the best returns - but that is different story). Part of the reason is that it is not economically practical to operate a small fund on 2% fees. Let's assume that the perfect size fund for first round investments is $20mm. The annual fees for this fund would be $400,000. Many would argue that it actually takes more staff in a small fund than a large one (because early stage companies generally have more challenges). So, running this size fund with 2-3 partners, a few associates and an office is simply not possible.

    My view (which is extremely unpopular in VC world) is that compensation should actually be tied to PERFORMANCE. Institutional investors should negotiate a maximum base salary with GPs (like investors do with CEOs!) and the carried interest should represent the upside (like a CEO's stock options). I think this change would go a long way to resetting the industry as the best GPs might start migrating back to early stage deals where the upside has always been much greater, rather than getting fat and happy with management fees.
  • macstibs
    Letting a GP take a 2% management fee on a $1B+ fund is ridiculous, but arguing that a $100M fund should take less than 2% is equally so. There is no generalization to be made here that makes sense. If anything, the compensation in PE/VC has had to keep up with the outsized packages at the big banks to be competitive for top talent. Until you see some progress on that front, don't expect there to be any on the private side.
  • we haven't seen a $85m fund with 8 partners. the math in this article is just wrong.
  • Who cares? VCs are fast becoming a non-factor and irrelevant. As for Hunch, a nice concept. I'm a member and joined after seeing Caterina pitch the NY Tech Meetup. Hunch will do fine, with or without VC bucks.
blog comments powered by Disqus