1. Let us imagine in a simple hypothetical situation, that you have a pool of money in a fund which guarantees you annual returns of X% in interest rate regardless of good times or bad.
2. Overtime, if you were to believe that X% interest rate is too low due to factors such as inflation, then by all means suggest and request for a consideration of higher annual returns – and that means altering the initial understanding of how much you will get each year.
3. It is a plain act of mischief by harping over and again on how much are the fund’s returns since inception, or that of its managers (if any exist). The main issue should be as per the initial understanding of all parties involved, what are the guaranteed returns, and whether or not this obligation can be fulfilled – you ought to be relieved if these issues were addressed, and you can also ask questions on those fronts if you have further doubts. The initial agreement between parties is the key.
4. What is the big deal if the fund or its managers indeed has/have returns much higher than the X% of returns guaranteed to you annually regardless good or bad times, and bearing in mind that this is not even considering if the fund or its managers are managing some other assets other than your pool of money?
5. If you are truly concerned about the pool of money you have with the fund, the questions should be what are the annual rate of returns guaranteed to you, whether or not this can be fulfilled, and whether based on current circumstances, the guaranteed rate of returns is sufficient. If it is not sufficient, by all means suggest changing the initial understanding on the amount guaranteed returns.
6. So why the persistent harping on the issue of “returns since inception”? To open more fronts in order to confuse and to mislead?