I have read on the forum that AGS should get much more of the new BTS than PTS because AGS are illiquid. For disclosure, my background is in investment management, and have worked for one of the biggest endowment in the U.S with over 10B in AUM, that invests across asset classes, both in public assets and private assets, and currently work for a quant hedge fund.

It is generally believed that private equity earns higher returns than public equity. These are similar assets, except public equity is liquid, while private equity is illiquid. How much more private equity earns is open to debate, with estimates ranging between 0% and 5% annually, see newbielink:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-private-equity-beat-the-market/ [nonactive]

This means that the extra return you require each year for taking on illiquidity ranges between 0 and 5%. This suggests that it could be fair for AGS to receive somewhat more BTS than PTS, perhaps 1 to 1.05 more, due to AGS holders holding illiquid asset for 1 year, it however does not support that AGS should get more than that due to illiquidity.