2 and 20 fees: performance fee after management fee

Alternative Investments·July 30, 2026·4 min read

A fund begins the period at 100 and ends at 120 under a “2 and 20” fee schedule. A candidate who charges the performance fee on the gross gain reports total fees of 6.40, but the correct total is 5.92 because the performance fee base is calculated after the management fee has reduced the ending value.

What the two fees actually charge

The name gives the rates, but it does not make the charges simultaneous. The rates are easy. The bases are not. Under the convention used in this question, the management fee rate, r_m, applies to ending value. The performance fee rate, p, applies only to the eligible profit left after that charge and any hurdle adjustment. Similar labels hide different bases, which is why multiplying both rates by the same gross amount quietly overstates the bill.

Management fee = Ending value × r_m

Performance fee = max{0, [Ending value × (1 − r_m) − Beginning value × (1 + hurdle rate)] × p}

The maximum function keeps the performance fee from becoming negative when the adjusted result does not clear its required level. More importantly, the expression shows where the management fee enters: it reduces ending value before eligible profit is measured against beginning value and the hurdle.

Hard and soft hurdles produce different fees

A hard hurdle limits the performance fee to profit above the threshold. The hurdle therefore reduces the amount exposed to p, even when the fund has earned enough to charge an incentive fee.

A soft hurdle works as a trigger instead. Once net profit clears the threshold, the performance fee applies to the entire net profit, not merely the slice above the hurdle. Two funds can cross the same threshold and still owe different fees because “hard” and “soft” answer different questions about the fee base. The word “hurdle” by itself is incomplete contract information.

That small adjective is contract language, not decoration. Questions often bury it in a clause after the headline fee terms, where it can look secondary even though it determines how much profit is exposed to p. A candidate may correctly see that the threshold was crossed and still calculate the wrong fee because eligibility and the fee base are separate decisions.

Working the 100 to 120 example

The fund starts at 100, finishes at 120, and charges “2 and 20” with no hurdle. The management fee is taken from ending value, leaving the performance calculation to measure what remains above the starting value.

Management fee = 120 × 0.02 = 2.40

Performance fee = (120 × 0.98 − 100) × 0.20 = 17.60 × 0.20 = 3.52

Total fees = 2.40 + 3.52 = 5.92

The gross gain is 20, but it is not the performance fee base in this setup. Charging 20 percent directly on that gain produces 4.00, which creates the familiar distractor:

Incorrect total = 2.40 + 4.00 = 6.40

Quick reference

The phrase “2 and 20” supplies the rates, not the whole contract. A question can move the management fee base from ending value to beginning value, add a hurdle, or introduce a high-water mark, and each version produces a different result even when the headline rates stay unchanged. Answer choices often reflect those different contract readings, so a correct calculation attached to the wrong wording is still wrong.

The same ambiguity appears in portfolio risk calculations: in both traps, familiar inputs invite a simple operation before the measure’s actual base has been identified.

Charter5m is an independent study tool and is not affiliated with CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse, promote, or warrant the accuracy or quality of this content. CFA® is a registered trademark of CFA Institute.