Carried Interest Done Away w/ in Manchin-Schumer deal
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/27/manchin-reconcil…
Carried interest to be taxed at same rate as regular income per Manchin agreement w/ Schumer.
Wow. Could have interesting effect.
Trending Content
Career Resources
Fuckkkkkk Brandonnnnn
a lot of Finance folks voted for this clown, so it's only fair
Not a Brandon fan but would still vote for him again over the maga clown ass that started his presidency blatantly lying that he had the biggest inauguration ever and ended it trying to overturn an election he got destroyed in. Not everything is about shareholder value and I’m not necessarily convinced based on history that one party or the other has done a unequivocally better job at managing the economy than the other.
Mixed feelings on this. Have a decent carry allocation at my current role but recognize the inherent unfairness in the tax treatment of carried interest.
Same. Annoying to have to pay more in taxes but recognize that this really should’ve been done away with years ago.
Most of the laws they’re putting in place to take money out of rich peoples pockets are making it impossible for normal people to get rich!
If you think its unfair, you're more than welcome to pay in extra to the IRS. I'd prefer to take the lower tax rate thanks.
Nobody is saying because it is unfair, they aren't happy to benefit from it. Most people in finance have benefitted from some type of unfairness (easiest example is being born to a good family that provides education opportunities, or even nepotism). Sucks to lose money you would otherwise have made. But what folks are saying is just because the change would hurt them doesn't mean "eff these politicians they are so dumb this makes no sense"
That makes no sense- obviously people prefer to pay less in taxes, they also are capable of logical thought and realize that there isn't a good reason for carry to be taxed at the capital gains rate rather than the personal income tax rate.
The only reason carry has been taxed at the lower rate for so long is because it effects a very small amount of high income earners and it was broadly overlooked/not discussed.
So your solution to “unfairness” is to feed more money into our bloated government so that they can co your to allocate capital poorly? Hmm
The optimist would say that it doesn't feed more money in, it takes it out of the pockets of these guys instead of out of the pockets of some other guys.
I am really curious to know how you feel about student loan forgiveness
Yeah this is the bottom line. I’ve benefited from this but it is really hard to objectively defend with a straight face, let’s be honest.
Think it’ll actually become law or will PE firms / masters of the universe mobilize behind the scenes to stop it?
Only half gone. Besides if you stick with this job for a career you’ll still be unethically disgustingly excessively rich even with the change.
Such a joke. It’s literally payment as part of a capital gain. If capital gains are taxed less then carry should be taxed less. What an absolute joke. I hope the structuring geniuses can figure something out.
It is functionally a fee for management services provided. Capital gains are taxed lower than income because they come with risk of losing your investment. The GP commitment is treated as capital gains, as it should since it's an investment the GP made with its own risk. The 20% performance fee doesn't come with any principal risk and should be taxed as ordinary income.
If investment banking fees (which scale higher the better outcome your client receives) are taxed as ordinary income, then management fees should be as well.
I think principal risk is just one piece of it the carry is proportional to capital gain generated and so imo it should be taxed as such. I’m sure the structuring geniuses will figure something out. We put blood sweat and tears into the job fuck this. Lol at functionally a fee also, what??
If you're an LP yes. If you're an employee of the PE firm, no. Carry is really just another form of incentive compensation.
The argument for lower capital gains is you're getting taxed twice, which isn't the case for employees of a PE firm.
t's pretty hard to argue it's not compensation when the PE firms themselves are making the argument to their employees that it's compensation.
good. all the limousine liberal nyc PE types deserve this for propping up democrats in elections.
you get what you vote for.
based take
I know this sounds like a good talking point but Obama and Trump all advocated changing the treatment
And Republicans didn’t do high earners in blue states any favors with the SALT cap
Any why are property taxes high in blue states? Have an issue with SALT then lower your property taxes like majority of states manage to do and still have functioning governments.
Democrats want more things. High income voters that vote Democrat should want to pay more taxes for those things.
Sinema has specifically stated that she is against this. In a broader sense, don't forget that she was against all of the tax components of last year's legislation. While I might be biased by my hope that this does not pass, I feel as if there is a strong chance that this is dropped; ultimately a very small part of the "revenue" component.
I feel like they’ll can it eventually if not this time. Even trump campaigned against it a little
Circling back here, it looks like Sinema is seeking to remove this from the bill.
Understand it’s not carried interest, but how would this affect other forms of equity compensation like share-based compensation in public companies and MIP at portcos?
It won't, rules around how stock-based incentive comp packages are different and pretty clearly defined.
Interesting, why wouldn't private equity funds just set up a holding company that owns the GP's interests and issue share-based compensation proportionally for that holding company?
I haven’t combed through the entire bill but aren’t 5+ year holds exempt from the tax hike in the bill? Are we going to see longer hold periods as a result?
Does anyone have info on how the bill would affect carry tax for long term PE strategies if at all?
Yes, 5 year holds are exempt. However, since you get carry paid on a fund level, not investment level, I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows the actual dynamics of how that works.
Where does it say that 5+ year holds are exempt (taxed at the LTCG rate via the "loophole vs. as ordinary income)? Thanks in advance!
Do you think the carry tax dynamics would be different on an investment level compared to fund level?
Here comes the wave of GP-led secondaries deals!
Except you’ve got to roll crystallized carry into the new fund so not sure how much it helps.
You don't have to roll 100% of crystallized carry, and even a partial realization can be individually material when contrasting cap gains vs ordinary income
At the end of the day, business is portable, ideas are portable.
Unfair tax treatment will ultimately lead to less firms being US domiciled....
No one does more to avoid paying taxes than the ultra wealthy and there's no logical, unbiased reason that this loophole shouldn't be closed.
You guys wonder why so many people on both sides of the aisle hate the bankers and ultra rich in this country? Look at these reactions.
Rules for thee but not for me...
Normally I disagree with you but the carried interest loophole is egregious to pretty much everyone who doesn't work in PE. I understand why a PE person would be upset about this but it's actually a pretty crazy loophole when you think about it. Either way I don't have a horse in this race, just curious to see what happens
Not sure this actually passes though as Sinema is against it. Don't think Republicans are going to vote for this if it's bundled into a broader package with climate change so I'm not sure people are talking about this as a foregone conclusion
Agreed. This thread is fucking pathetic. A part of me is sad that I will be making less money if this goes through. Another part of me recognizes that I am making 8 figures when my carry comes in, I frankly do not need this much money, and it could be better allocated to other people. I am inherently greedy, just like everyone else, and that is why I was not voluntarily donating it to charity. That is why this is necessary. A big talking point on this forum is how democrats only hurt poor people and not wealthy people (???). But here ya go. This exclusively targets wealthy people. No sane person outside of PE will tell you the current loophole is fair. NOBODY. I love the outrage from college students who aren't even affected by this. If you make it to principal, you will still have far too much money to know what to do with. Don't worry.
This is an honest question - don’t you feel like you are better at allocating $$ than gvnt? Dollar for dollar Im sure your philanthropy efforts have more material impact than what the gvnt does/would be doing. I think people are upset to end up paying more in taxes when it is unlikely that anyone will benefit.
I'm a bit torn on this one, to be honest. My first reaction, as a LMM guy, was that *I* and the fund I work for create value in a way that is distinct from how megacap and even larger mid-market shops do, so my end of the market should be exempt (main character bias, obviously). I also had the knee-jerk reaction that they should be targeting public equities carry before coming after the private markets (kinda similar to first reaction on LMM vs. larger). On balance, there is no real reason for this tax treatment to exist for the vast majority of folks, as Alt-Ctr-Left says above.
I do wonder whether more favorable levered coinvestment terms will start to come to the forefront to help solve for some of the decreased take-home. I would imagine that for future funds, GPs might ask LPs for more favorable terms so that the GP can provide higher levels low-cost leverage at higher levels than is currently market.
Someone smarter (@APAE) probably has a more nuanced take than my crayon scribbles above.
??? If anything the LMM guys do more operational work than the large cap guys. Large cap is closer to stockpicking than LMM is
Apologies if my post was unclear-- I agree with you (though there is an element of bias in that I am a LMM guy).
What do you mean public markets carry? you mean LT capital gains tax? If that's the case this is a truly autistic take. Private equities are held primarily by the top 5% (overwhelmingly the top 1-2%) while public equities are held by even the average Joe (or avg Joe has money invested in funds / indexes for the LT). Why would you screw over the average American by increasing cap gains on public equities? Makes 0 sense
My shop is handing out huge leverage lines to finance co-invest. Future returns on that will (hopefully) far outpace carry
HIG?
Obviously as finance guys none of us hate to see the deck stacked in our favor. But frankly, we'll be fine without it and probably don't deserve it.
My one wish is that they allowed the carried interest loophole to still apply to individuals building wealth (Below a HH net worth threshold in the millions). I still think there's a valid rationale to give tax advantages that encourage wealth building & investment from people trying to build their nest egg.
You can use the Mitt Romney Roth IRA structure for that :-)
Isn't it like a $7,900/year max contribution though? Also aren't there income restrictions at like $200K to contribute?
I don't know shit about shit when it comes to personal finance / wealth management lol I feel like I should be literate on this.
Let us pray that Sinema comes through or a structuring wizard figures out a solution.
Gotta imagine that funds are already exploring options/structuring solutions.
Do you think no Republicans will support this? Congresspeople representing primarily rural districts have more to gain here than lose by voting in favor of closing out the loophole.
Sinema's bankrolled by Big Pharma, not private equity. If anybody retains the carried interest loophole, it'll be a New Jersey Democrat (like Senator Bob Menendez and Rep. Josh Gottheimer).
(((Gottheimer)))
Well, this aged poorly.
Wonder if other jurisdictions (Canada, UK etc) will follow suit.
Time to move shop to Ireland???
2/20 about to be 4/40
it's been going the other way for a while...
Has it really? How are higher fees justified (except for the top 10% of funds maybe) when industry returns are coming down & have been coming down for decades? It anything there should be fee compression as you see with HFs / AM
renaissance/medallion been charging 5 and 44 :)
Tell me one PE fund that has a 30yr history of 60% annualized returns and I'll tell you one that can charge 5 and 44
Fact is Medallion fund is the greatest fund in history given its returns & longevity. Buffet is pretty incredible for putting up high-teens annualized returns over 5+ decades, imagine putting up 4x those nbs for 3+ decades. It's ridiculous
Could you just have LPs lend the money to GPs where the coupon is tied to performance of underlying loan use (investment equity) thereby skirting around the issue in the first place?
Eg bond + rate equal to performance of bond uses as equity. You could tinker with the math so that it ends up same as before.
Sweeten the deal for holdout LPs by raising hurdle a little bit and throw them a bone on some other terms if need be.
Wouldn't the coupon payments be taxed as normal income anyways? Not sure I quite follow tbh
If you're lending money then it wouldn't trigger a capital gain...it would just be ordinary income, so no advantage.
Thinking on the spot:
One variation on this is that the LPs lend the GP the money at the time of the initial deal. The GP then invests 20% of the equity directly at the time the initial deal is done. At the time of exit, the GP is actually the one who made the initial investment and is therefore eligible for capital gain. Some true-up mechanism would need to be exist also… but I think this would work if the GP were comfortable with the downside of actually losing money in the event the investments underperformed. The LPs could always forgive the loan at which point the GP would be on the hook for the subsequent tax consequences but it would lessen the blow substantially.
Can structuring gurus opine what if you tie it to the gp coinvest. Gp gets a different class of shares with 0 value at entry but accrete in value as moic steps up (synthetically simulating 80/20). Since it’s part of the original investment for which you took capital risk it’s cap gains?
edit: Maybe it’s like a SAR and taxed at ordinary income? I’m sure ppl can figure this out fuck taxes
The problem is that whatever cash payout you get from whatever structure you manufacture, is going to be taxed as ordinary income.
And why is that? You can definitely cook up something just need to tie it to the initial principal risk in the gp coinvest. I.e. gp coinvest aren’t pari passu then it’s no longer carry just different class of shares but only pays out if capital gain and does have capital at risk
Dems really coming for my username smh
Edit
Ridiculous. Carried interest is accompanied by nearly as much risk as if it came from your own capital in a fund. If equity-based compensation isn't taxed as income, neither should carry (which is far more illiquid and volatile).
How do you figure that carry has the same risk as your own capital in a fund? There's no way you can have principal loss with carry but you can with your own capital in a fund?
Equity comp is the same as is 401k matching. If PE hurts, maybe equity comp should be taxed at normal rates as well as 401k match (when vested). If Wall Street can't get a freebie, Main Street, or Silicon Valley shouldn't either.
I don't disagree that equity-based comp should be similar to carry.
But by your logic from your first point (carried interest comes with same type of capital risk as in you might not get it), then you would say bonuses should also be taxed at a lower rate. If you take a job with a 200k salary but target 500k bonus, that 500k could be 0, 500, 750, etc.
The only way I’d be ok with this change is if there was a corresponding broad base cut in income tax for all Americans.
Any tax change that justifies additional government spending of any kind deserves to go down the drain. I could go outside and burn my money myself instead of the government doing it. This bill is going to help no one.
Very strange to tax money that is earned from actively managing investments as ordinary income... NYC NeverTrumpers get what they voted for though. Looks like Wall Street doesn't have many friends left after going woke + ESG + voting Democrats in.
This narrative sucks. Trump capped the SALT deduction. Very painful for high earning white collar professionals in NYC
Yeah he raised taxes on them but NYC isn't something Republicans care about
I know this isn't your point but it is worth putting out into the world. SALT deserved to be done away with because it gives states piss poor concern and responsibility for their state's residents from a financial perspective and softens the blow in the minds of their residents about taxes. Other states seem to get along just fine with zero or half of what NY/CA taxes are. Not that things will get any better but why should other states' residents need to kick up in full to fed gvnt while liberal states burn the money and send the federal gvnt what is left (to also burn on fire)? Blue states deserve very high taxes for their voting patterns.
The capital gain on an investment is the same whether one individual owns the asset or it's owned through a partnership that allows a disproportionate split of the profits. The same amount capital is contributed, but under this proposal, the government will take a larger cut of the profits simply because the gain is being split disproportionately to how much capital each partner contributed. For a $100 capital gain on a $100 capital investment, a 100% owner of that entity pays $20 in tax. Under an 80/20 scenario, ignoring a pref, where the LP puts up all the capital, a $100 capital gain on a $100 capital investment results in the LP paying $16 in tax and the GP paying $8 in tax for total tax of $24. Does the gain deserve an extra $4 in tax just because of the partnership structure? If the carried interest is being viewed as "income" then it's someone else's "expense" - the LP's should be able to deduct that, thereby allowing for a more aggressive structure than 80/20 with the hopes that each party's after-tax outcome will be similar as it is today and Johnny Public is happy that alternative investment managers are "paying their fair share."
I do fairly straight forward real estate syndications, so structuring PE funds isn't my background, and for all I know, PE funds may already do this, but thinking out loud here... couldn't the carried interest be avoided by restructuring the fund/deal into preferred equity and common equity? So take for example a deal where LP/GP split is 80/20 after an 8% pref and with no GP co-invest to keep it simple. Total capital needed is $100. LP contributes $100 as preferred equity paying 8% preferred dividend. Common equity ownership is 80% LP, 20% GP with LP contributing $0.80 and GP contributing $0.20 to establish common equity capital accounts. I don't see how this is any different than a public company issuing preferred shares and common shares. The common doesn't have to pay a higher tax rate on capital gains due to the investment being profitable enough to pay off any debt, all the preferred shares and then still have money left over for the common stock holders. Although public companies also pay ordinary income taxes on long term capital gains, so maybe not the best example. If not preferred equity, maybe some sort of junior debt issued? There has to be a way to structure around this...
Your top portion is a really good argument (basically taxing cap gains above a threshold profit return at a higher rate), at the point that it reaches employees.
Obviously you could also hit your carry through super strong cash-on-cash, which is separate from cap gains
Happy to be in Europe !!!
How's the weather in London, Mohammed?
That is interesting. Is there a way this could be a money making opportunity though.
knowing how incompetent our government is theyll probably create another loophole
This guy is from West VA…. What does he know about “carried interest”…
Nice
As has been mentioned, Sinema wants this provision out. Carried interest wins again.
Another example of our horrifically corrupt government, but looks like PE lobbyists will win this one again. Sinema arguing to keep it out of bill
Importing millions of immigrants is ok, but the carried interest loophole isn't?
Yes.
Odit officiis illum et quae et animi. Veritatis omnis fugiat magnam id magnam. Beatae eos quis ipsum asperiores deserunt dolor rerum. Aliquam iure provident eligendi dolorem ut consequatur corporis.
Tempore aut dolorum aut aliquid. Veritatis aut reprehenderit quam enim. Voluptatem ipsa doloribus quas deserunt voluptate enim molestiae. Cumque ipsa impedit qui fuga. Architecto in error et et distinctio maxime. Quis sit molestias aliquid adipisci. Eum dolorem aspernatur laudantium qui qui.
Eaque beatae et aspernatur eveniet sunt. Molestias ipsam exercitationem aut unde delectus delectus ex aspernatur. Voluptate sed quia fugiat. Minus dolorem aut quia magnam id ut reiciendis. Enim laborum earum et ipsum. Velit distinctio consectetur corrupti autem tempora libero.
Iste quis nihil ipsa omnis nobis. Voluptas quo id qui tempore.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Laborum rerum debitis cum quia. Eos distinctio illum amet consequatur illo magnam vel. Quis suscipit sunt reiciendis eos quia non voluptatem.
Non illo doloremque ipsam rerum aliquam sunt placeat. Nam libero sequi libero sit. Et vel molestiae non et sunt.
Quis dolorum ab placeat magni aspernatur. Est deleniti adipisci et minima maiores ut ea reprehenderit. Rerum accusantium nemo esse blanditiis sint.
Optio ab molestiae in voluptas. Molestiae optio nam animi modi voluptatem. Consequatur placeat ut voluptate corporis nihil omnis id. Quisquam qui debitis iusto quidem. Expedita error aut sint similique iusto. Quia et est eaque aut accusamus aperiam.
Et tenetur maiores necessitatibus earum asperiores. Quia laborum accusantium asperiores nesciunt.
Fuga aliquam recusandae tempora et. Accusantium dolorem itaque magnam aspernatur ab. Eos rem ut quidem. Magni maxime quia exercitationem inventore ad vel.
Aspernatur eos in non. Doloremque molestiae expedita qui ut facilis. Ex nostrum et qui et. Officia commodi voluptatem qui similique. Facere at aut facere animi incidunt cupiditate. Quia non error sequi et velit dolores voluptatem.
Nihil ratione nihil ex in dolor et sint. Sequi voluptatem dolores animi voluptates veniam modi. Et optio id qui est. Nostrum minima corporis eius aut. Neque ullam accusamus nulla. Accusamus et vero dolor rerum voluptas sequi iusto.
Non sunt alias qui dicta omnis. Tenetur optio ut qui facere saepe.