Key Takeaways
- • Partners Capital's head of co-investments Adam Spence warns limited partners to monitor "style drift" risk as co-investment funds increasingly incorporate GP-led deals and secondary transactions, which deviate from the core strategy LPs originally committed to.
- • General partners must enhance transparency with LPs regarding the portfolio composition and strategic impacts of embedding GP-led continuation vehicles and secondary deals within co-investment fund structures.
- • The growing trend of blending single-asset continuation deals and secondaries into co-investment vehicles poses a structural challenge to investment alignment and return expectations for institutional capital providers.
- • Partners Capital targets a 12.5% allocation to secondaries within its flagship pooled vehicle, positioning secondaries as a core component of modern private markets liquidity management strategies.
Summary
Partners Capital's Adam Spence, head of co-investments, has raised a critical governance issue for institutional investors: limited partners must exercise heightened vigilance regarding "style drift" in co-investment funds, particularly as general partners increasingly incorporate GP-led deals and secondary transactions into vehicles originally positioned as direct investment opportunities.
The core concern centers on the blending of strategies within co-investment structures. As outlined by Spence and echoed across Partners Capital's market commentary, co-investment funds are increasingly becoming hybrid vehicles that mix traditional single-asset direct investments with continuation vehicles, secondary transactions, and GP-led deals. This strategic evolution creates a material divergence between the investment profile LPs initially underwrite and the actual composition of capital deployment—a phenomenon Spence identifies as "style drift."
The transparency imperative is paramount. GPs must explicitly communicate the portfolio impacts and strategic rationale for incorporating secondary and continuation strategies into co-investment funds. This disclosure gap creates asymmetric information between sponsors and their institutional capital providers, potentially distorting expected return profiles, liquidity timelines, and risk characteristics. Institutional investors—particularly family offices and pension funds—require granular reporting on the proportion of capital allocated to secondaries versus primary co-investments to accurately model portfolio performance and align strategies with their own liability structures.
Partners Capital's own positioning reflects the growing acceptance of secondaries as a strategic asset class. The firm targets a 12.5% allocation to secondaries within its flagship pooled vehicle, underscoring the belief that secondary liquidity providers play a necessary role in private market recycling and LP deployment. However, this institutional embrace of secondaries must remain transparent and deliberately engineered—not embedded covertly within co-investment mandates where LPs have negotiated price discovery and deal-level conviction based on primary investment expectations.
The broader market implication is that co-investment fund documentation and governance frameworks require updating to accommodate the realities of modern GP capital structures while protecting LP interests through explicit strategy delineation and performance reporting segregated by deal type.
The core concern centers on the blending of strategies within co-investment structures. As outlined by Spence and echoed across Partners Capital's market commentary, co-investment funds are increasingly becoming hybrid vehicles that mix traditional single-asset direct investments with continuation vehicles, secondary transactions, and GP-led deals. This strategic evolution creates a material divergence between the investment profile LPs initially underwrite and the actual composition of capital deployment—a phenomenon Spence identifies as "style drift."
The transparency imperative is paramount. GPs must explicitly communicate the portfolio impacts and strategic rationale for incorporating secondary and continuation strategies into co-investment funds. This disclosure gap creates asymmetric information between sponsors and their institutional capital providers, potentially distorting expected return profiles, liquidity timelines, and risk characteristics. Institutional investors—particularly family offices and pension funds—require granular reporting on the proportion of capital allocated to secondaries versus primary co-investments to accurately model portfolio performance and align strategies with their own liability structures.
Partners Capital's own positioning reflects the growing acceptance of secondaries as a strategic asset class. The firm targets a 12.5% allocation to secondaries within its flagship pooled vehicle, underscoring the belief that secondary liquidity providers play a necessary role in private market recycling and LP deployment. However, this institutional embrace of secondaries must remain transparent and deliberately engineered—not embedded covertly within co-investment mandates where LPs have negotiated price discovery and deal-level conviction based on primary investment expectations.
The broader market implication is that co-investment fund documentation and governance frameworks require updating to accommodate the realities of modern GP capital structures while protecting LP interests through explicit strategy delineation and performance reporting segregated by deal type.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.