These results actually make sense. The 10 year period covered a tumultuous time in our economy. When the market drops 20%, no fees are paid, but no breaks on future fees are offered either. So let's say they start with $100 billion. The fund loses 20% one year, then rebounds exactly 20% the next. If charging 20% of profits, $4 billion in fees are paid on the $20 billion "gain," even though investors made nothing. They've actually had a net loss of $4 billion after paying fees on their "gains".
That is primarily why these numbers seems so ridiculous - the market had a few bad years, and then came back around. The people in charge of deploying this money should negotiate better terms, like paying fees only on net returns over longer periods of time (5 years instead of one year, for example). At the end of the day, it's their own fault for cutting lousy deals. $160 billion gives you a pretty big bargaining chip on fees.
That is primarily why these numbers seems so ridiculous - the market had a few bad years, and then came back around. The people in charge of deploying this money should negotiate better terms, like paying fees only on net returns over longer periods of time (5 years instead of one year, for example). At the end of the day, it's their own fault for cutting lousy deals. $160 billion gives you a pretty big bargaining chip on fees.