Features
The fee model decides whether your best providers stay
A trader with a following is portable, and so is the following. Fee structure is not an operational detail on this product — it is most of the retention strategy.
A share of profit above the high-water mark
Aligns the provider with the investor
A periodic charge on assets followed
Pays the provider even in a flat month
A charge per lot copied
Usually the brokerage rather than the provider
A flat fee to follow a strategy
Simple, and unpopular with investors
A charge on joining or leaving
Use sparingly; exit fees damage trust
See it live
A tiered rule table your ops team can actually read
Performance, management and volume fees line up against the tier that applies, rather than sitting in a spreadsheet somebody reconciles by hand.
Three design rules
Learned the expensive way by other programmes
Providers leave over fees
A good trader with a following is portable. If the split is unfair or the calculation is opaque, they take their followers to a platform where it is not, and the followers go with them.
Investors leave over surprises
Not over the level of the fee — over discovering one they did not expect. Every charge should be visible before the investor commits and itemised afterwards.
Calculate on the ledger
Fees derived from the same records as the trading, not from a spreadsheet reconciled monthly. A fee nobody can trace back to a trade is a fee somebody will eventually dispute.
Three more you can enable
Not every strategy earns on performance alone
Subscription fee
A fixed recurring amount for access to a strategy, charged whether or not it traded. It suits providers whose value is availability rather than turnover, and it is the only fee here that a follower pays in a flat month.
Profit fee
Charged on winning trades individually rather than on the net result of a period. It pays out sooner than a performance fee and, without a high-water mark behind it, can charge on gains that later reverse — which is exactly why the mark matters.
Joining fee
A one-off charge on first subscription. Useful to deter churn-driven sampling of a strategy, and worth stating plainly in the follower's view because a surprise entry cost is the fastest way to a complaint.
FAQ
Fee structures: common questions
7 short answers to what teams ask before a demo.
Practically, yes. Without it a provider earns a performance fee on the same profit twice after a drawdown and recovery. Investors identify this quickly and it is the fastest route to a strategy losing its following.
Per strategy or per tier, configured and visible to both sides. Providers are portable, and an opaque split is the single most common reason a good one moves platform.
Yes, and they usually should. A high-volume, low-margin strategy and a low-frequency one with a strong record do not belong on the same fee model.
On a defined cycle for management fees and at realisation for performance fees, both calculated from the ledger. Charging performance fees on unrealised profit produces a fee on a gain that then disappears.
It is available, and we would use it sparingly. An exit fee is felt as a penalty for leaving and is remembered publicly. The retention it buys is usually smaller than the reputation it costs.
Yes, and they should. Every charge that will apply is shown before subscribing and itemised on statements afterwards. Investors object far less to a fee than to finding one they were not told about.
To the account the provider nominates. A provider can register a separate payout account and assign it as the destination for their fees, and the full fee history can be exported to a spreadsheet for their own records.
Still have a question?
A specialist will answer it directly, with your set-up in mind.
Ask a specialistWhat would your best trader earn here?
Model it against their actual record before you set the split. If the number is not compelling to them, the programme has no providers and therefore no product.