Fortune raises a now-standard issue about alternative investment companies that trade publicly: What may be good for the partners may not necessarily be good for the shareholders. The article talks specifically about the Fortress Investment Group, but it could easily be about any hedge fund and private equity fund that trades publicly.

Portfolio manager David Swenson, CIO of the Yale Endowment, argues there are a host of built-in conflicts. The principals keep "the lion's share of the plenty generous '2 and 20' fee structure the limited partners cough up while the minority shareholders get just a taste." Shareholders want the stock to go up; that's how they profit. But the partners may be more focused on how portfolio investment performs. And so it goes: If the principals owned lots of shares, would that make a difference? The limited partners may not think so. In any case, an excerpt from a recent book goes into detail about Fortress. 

For more on hedge funds going public:
- read this

Related Articles:
Hedge funds still bent on going public?
More hedge funds to tap capital markets?
Fortress the once and future king of hedge funds?
Why more private equity firms aren't going public