Written with some mild snark , but no insult intended, because financial stuff can be ridiculously confusing...
Looked at another way, you're basically asking if the Biblical "Parable of the Talents" can be implemented as a business model.
You as the investor wish to be the "master", with the entity doing the investing playing the part of the "servant". Since the law prohibits actual servitude as described in scripture, the model must substitute a contractual profit- and loss-sharing scheme.
OK, based on what you've proposed, and by way of example, let's say you invested a thousand dollars. You give the investment service your money. At the end of a year, they give you back
- Your capital ($1000)
- Plus 1/2 of any profits
- Less 1/2 of any losses
So let's say the worst happens and they lose ALL of it. According to your proposal, they have to cover 1/2 of the loss.
You end up with $500...but they end up with LESS than nothing. They will be in a deficit situation because all the expense was theirs. They don't just fail to make a profit. They go in the hole.
It doesn't matter what percentages you use. Regardless of how the loss is shared, you've only guaranteed YOU can't lose all your money. The company CAN. Given a large enough investment, or enough market fluctuation, a big shared loss could shut down a smaller firm.
- You want a service that charges you nothing
- Does all the work of expertly managing and investing your capital
- Takes on part of the risk you would normally bear
- (on top of their usual risk and liability)
- Agrees to do so solely for a percentage of any return (where higher returns will likely involve a higher degree of risk)
- AND that guarantees, after just 1 year, you'll get X% of your capital back, no matter what. Win or lose.
- Even if the market crashes and all your capital, and theirs, is wiped out
Superbest, um, to be serious briefly: what you're proposing is, if nothing else, inherently unfair and inequitable. I believe you intended it as a mutually beneficial scenario, but the real-world imbalance in risk and reward prevents it being so. Any financial service that would accept those terms along with the extra degree of risk would be fiscally irresponsible. From a business standpoint it's an untenable model, and no company would build on it. It would be tantamount to corporate suicide.
The requirement that a service promise to give you back X% of your money, no matter how great the loss, makes your proposal impossible. You need to think about how much all this costs, realistically, as well what kind of returns you can actually expect. And that more risk for higher return is exactly what a service could NOT take a chance on if it had to "share" investors' losses.
Besides, it's not really sharing, now is it? They will always lose more than you, always end up in a negative situation, unable even to recoup costs. Circumstances beyond their control could result in a drop in the value that not only wipes out any profit, but requires them to pay YOU for work performed and expenses incurred on your behalf.
Why would they let anyon double-dip like that? Yeah, we all prefer getting something for nothing...but you want valuable services and for them to pay you money for the privilege of providing them? I totally agree that would be fantastic, but in this world even "free" doesn't come cheap anymore.
And getting back to costs: Without consistent income the service would have nowhere to work and no resources to work with. No office, computer, phone, electricity, Internet, insurance, payroll, licensing, training, maintenance, security, lobbying, etc., etc., etc. Why do people always forget overhead?
There's a reason these services operate the way they do. Even the best are working with fairly slim margins in a volatile sector. They're not into 1-year gambles unlikely to cover their cost of doing business, or having to pay for a negative return out of their own pocket.
Look, if you're the Biblical master asking your servant to manage things, overhead is built-in. You're taking all the risk as well. You're paying for all three servants' food, home, clothing, etc, plus you had to buy the servants themselves. So its reasonable that you reap the reward of their labor. You paid for it, and you didn't even punish the servant who buried your money in a hole. The two good servants may have done the legwork, but you took on the burden of everything else.
In your proposed service, however, contrary to the servant's usual role, the servant - i.e., the company - would be assuming a portion of your risk on top of their own, yet without any guarantee of profit, income, or even coverage of costs. They're also subject to regulations, fees, liability, legal stuff, etc. that you're not, against most of which you are indemnified and held harmless. If they agree to cover a share of your loss, it exposes to greater liability and more related risk. It robs them of resources they need to invest in their own business, while at the same time forcing them to do all the work.
As a result, your model doesn't give such a service a fighting chance. Getting it off the ground and lasting past the first-year payouts would require more luck than skill.
They'd be better off heading to Vegas and the blackjack table, where the only overhead is a cheap flight and room, where the odds and rules don't change overnight, and they at least get free drinks.
If none of the equivalents satisfies, then the Biblical parable appears to describe your only option for obtaining exactly what you want: Move to a country where slavery is legal and buy an investor :-)