I don't understand what the article is talking about. Hedge funds traditionally take 20% of the profits from their investments. They also pocket 2% of the money that investors put into the fund (and 2% of it again when they withdraw), but I don't see why this would be classed as 'investment gains.' It's just more money they've been given to manage.
I posted a more complete thought as an independent comment, but essentially, by focussing on redemptions Lack'a analysis ignores un-realised gains. By this logic, Berkshire Hathaway has paid out less in dividends (zero) than accumulates compensation to its staff (since we are noting all cash receive by the fund as manager compensation, research and office space be damned).
