Recently, Hu Xijin said that his three ** fell very badly, and if their income was not affected at this time, it would be unreasonable. He believes that the manager's income should be affected by the rise and fall. This view has sparked widespread discussion and controversy.
As a non-professional, I believe that a manager's income should be linked to his performance. First of all, a manager is an investment professional whose job is to manage the client's funds well and provide the maximum return for the client. It is clearly unreasonable if the performance is not good, but the manager's income is not affected.
*The manager's income should be shared with the market risk. In the investment market, risk is unavoidable. When the market is in the market, the net value will also fall. If, at this time, the income of the ** manager is not affected, then they cannot really feel the risk of the market. This is unfair to investors because they are taking on the risk of the market and the manager is not.
In addition, if a manager's income is not affected by the ups and downs, then they may lack the incentive to manage well. Because regardless of the performance of **, their income will be guaranteed. This can cause them to lose the incentive to pursue high yields, which can harm the interests of investors.
Therefore, I think that the income of **managers should be affected by the ups and downs**. When the performance is poor, their income should also be reduced accordingly. This can not only reflect the principle of market risk sharing, but also motivate managers to work harder to manage well and create greater value for investors.
Lao Hu is better at one thing, that is, when any public event is more related to his interests, some of the evaluations and opinions he makes are more objective. When it doesn't matter to him, he's probably a little muddy. So it's not a bad thing for him to enter the market to buy, as long as he has a **, it will have one more power to appeal. For example, when he said that the manager earns the same thing, I think it's right.
Netizens are hotly discussed: Then I'm too talented. These ** managers are all like pigs, made, all kinds of brilliant pigs.
He is a layman, **losses will continue to trigger redemptions, the scale will continue to shrink, management fees will definitely decrease, **manager income will decrease, this still needs his advice?If you really want to speak for everyone, let the ** manager have 0 annual salary, or buy two years of income by himself.
There is nothing wrong with this, how much money can be made, everyone will share weal and woe together, so that the ** manager will also invest the investor's money as his own
I seriously agree with Lao Hu's point of view, why is there a loss, but the income managed by the manager has increased due to the increase in scale, which is extremely unreasonable.
To tell the truth, Lao Hu's speech rate has skyrocketed since he was fried in A-shares, and many words can be listened to, and everyone likes to listen to them. I hope Lao Hu can hold on to the speculation for a few more years and say a few more words for everyone, of course, don't be gone.
Lao Hu has found a problem, the ** managers of A-shares are unpopular in this mode of drought and flood protection, and the people are now awakened, if they don't make changes, who will buy the public offering in the future?
Mr. Hu is right, for this kind of loss-making managers, they should only be allowed to take the lowest local minimum salary.