The question which isn’t answered in the article is: how would the fund have done if passively invested in the market? If the market lost money over the same time period, then although extremely high, the fees are a relatively "good deal" (since the fund was up $40M, and the alternative would be losing money). If they’re talking about the last 10 years however, it looks like the market should have returned about 70%, which makes the fund manager's performance look even worse.