Investment strategies

Management Fee Step-Down

Management fee step-downs reduce fees after the investment period. Allocators evaluate timing, fee base (committed vs invested/NAV), and offsets—cosmetic step-downs with unclear tail economics are a trust killer.

Management Fee Step-Downs reduce fees after investment periods end, reflecting a shift from capital deployment to portfolio management.

For allocators, step-downs are a test of economic alignment, not a concession.

How allocators define fee step-down drivers

Allocators evaluate step-downs by:

  • Timing: when reductions start relative to deployment completion
  • Magnitude: meaningful vs cosmetic reductions
  • Fee base: committed vs invested vs NAV-based constructs
  • Offsets: transaction/monitoring fees and rebate policies
  • Tail economics: harvest period, extensions, wind-down fees
  • Consistency: whether economics match actual workload + staffing

Allocator framing:
“Does fee decline track actual effort — or protect GP economics?”

Where step-downs matter most

  • long-duration funds and slow-deploying strategies
  • strategies with heavy monitoring/workout phases (credit, special sits)
  • managers with multiple vehicles where overhead allocation matters
  • funds likely to extend beyond term

How step-downs change outcomes

Aligned step-downs:

  • improve net outcomes via lower drag
  • support trust and re-up likelihood
  • reduce “fee fatigue” in later years

Misaligned step-downs:

  • signal fee maximization over partnership
  • inflate tail-period costs
  • increase negotiation friction and slow decisions

How allocators evaluate fee alignment

Conviction increases when managers:

  • step down onto invested capital (or another defensible base)
  • reduce fees materially after deployment
  • disclose offsets and expense allocations transparently
  • show how staffing and operating costs evolve post-investment period

What slows allocator decision-making

  • minimal reductions labeled as step-downs
  • fees staying on committed capital indefinitely
  • unclear offsets and expense pass-through logic
  • economics that do not match fund lifecycle reality

Common misconceptions

  • “Fees drop automatically.” → structures vary widely.
  • “Lower fees mean weaker support.” → efficiency and incentives matter.
  • “Step-downs are standardized.” → they are highly negotiated.

Key allocator questions during diligence

  • When do fees step down and by how much?
  • What is the fee base post-investment period?
  • What offsets apply and how are they reported?
  • What happens in extensions and wind-down periods?
  • How do fund expenses change over time?

Key Takeaways

  • Step-downs are one of the clearest alignment tests in fund terms
  • Timing + base matter more than headline %
  • Transparency on offsets and tail costs accelerates allocator conviction