The Case Against Performance Fees in Agricultural Investment Funds and Syndicates

In today’s competitive agricultural investment landscape, transparency and alignment of interests are critical to maintaining investor confidence. Yet one common industry practice—the use of performance fees—continues to raise concerns about fairness and the true alignment between fund managers and their investors.

Performance fees are typically charged in addition to the standard management fee and reward managers when returns exceed a particular benchmark. While this arrangement may appear to link a manager’s incentive directly to investor outcomes, the reality is less balanced.

A One-Way Incentive

If a fund or syndicate fails to outperform its benchmark, the manager still receives their full management fee. The only potential loss is the performance fee forfeited. When the manager succeeds, however—often by taking on higher or less transparent levels of risk—they earn an additional reward. This asymmetry creates a “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario for investors: managers gain from success but bear no cost for underperformance.

Few other professions operate this way. Accountants, for example, are not paid an extra bonus for reducing your taxes, nor do plumbers charge more because the leak they repaired stays fixed. In any profession, competent performance should be the baseline expectation, not an individually billable achievement. Agricultural fund management should be no different.

The Risk That Remains Hidden

True investment performance is not measured by returns alone, but by risk-adjusted returns—the balance between reward and the level of risk taken to achieve it. Higher returns can be achieved through leverage or speculative exposure, but these strategies increase the potential for losses. Since most fund and syndicate managers invest little of their own capital, it is the investors’ money, not the managers’, that bears these risks.

In effect, performance fees can encourage short-term, return-focused behaviour rather than disciplined, risk-aware management. Over time, this erodes both investor trust and portfolio resilience—especially in agriculture, where volatility, environmental uncertainty, and long investment horizons already require careful stewardship.

A Better Model for Alignment

A fair and sustainable structure is one centred on transparent management fees that compensate managers appropriately for their expertise and operational costs—without creating conflicting incentives. Even more effective is when managers invest personally alongside their clients, ensuring genuine “skin in the game.” This approach naturally aligns incentives, as both parties share in gains and losses on the same terms.

Agricultural investors value stability, integrity, and long-term partnership. Moving away from performance-based fee structures toward transparent and equitable models will foster stronger client relationships and more responsible fund governance.

Final Thought

Good fund and syndicate management should be rewarded, but not through mechanisms that compromise investor trust or encourage excessive risk-taking. In the agricultural sector, where success depends on time, prudence, and sound management, investors deserve clarity and fairness above all. Removing performance fees is not just a matter of principle—it is sound financial governance that protects both capital and reputation.

Contact the Gateway to South America team to learn about the best investment opportunities in the region. The company is a benchmark for foreign investors wishing to invest in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay, providing expert advice on property acquisition and disposal.