Portfolio management.

Why one year looks far worse. The account ran independently before 2023 and no performance fee was levied over those years. The whole accumulated amount was then charged in a single instalment in April 2024, which lands in FY24-25 by payment date. It is a catch-up covering years of prior appreciation, not that year’s cost, so the ratio beside it is not an annual fee rate and should not be compared with the other rows.

The stated terms are a 20% profit share with a 0% hurdle and a 0.10% p.a. management fee — so the profit share applies from the first rupee of gain. It is charged on total appreciation, realised and unrealised, while the realised gain shown here counts only closed positions; the two are not the same base.

Where the trade costs come from. Years with a Wallfort statement carry the stated brokerage, STT and GST. Years without one carry brokerage derived from MProfit’s own cash figure (Amount less quantity × price) — proved against the 244 trades where both exist, 204 matching the statement’s brokerage within fifty paise. MProfit does not record STT, which on that same overlap runs at almost exactly 1× brokerage, so the true trade cost in those years is close to double what is shown. It is not grossed up here: a derived figure from a real cash movement is evidence, a modelled STT is a guess, and mixing them in one column would hide which is which.

Manager fees exist from May 2023 only, when the Bank Book begins. Earlier years carry realised gains with no manager fee recorded.