Private markets are experiencing a seismic shift, with a significant expansion into portfolios previously inaccessible to the average investor due to stringent income and wealth requirements. This evolution is driven by asset managers adapting to a landscape where institutional investors are exhibiting caution regarding escalating commitments to private markets. In response, firms are meticulously crafting new products designed with lower minimum investment thresholds, immediate capital deployment capabilities, and importantly, periodic liquidity options. These innovative features directly address the inherent limitations of traditional closed-end, drawdown funds, making them more appealing to a broader spectrum of individual investors. Governmental and regulatory bodies are also playing a role in facilitating this transition. In 2025 alone, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed amendments to the accredited investor definition, signaling a potential broadening of the investor base. Concurrently, Congress advanced the INVEST Act, a piece of legislation aimed at encouraging private market investments, which was subsequently signed into an executive order by President Trump, specifically targeting the inclusion of private market investments within 401(k) accounts. It is crucial to note that while the INVEST Act has passed through Congress, it has not yet been enacted into law as it awaits Senate approval.
This burgeoning trend necessitates a rigorous re-evaluation of how investors assess private market opportunities, particularly in the context of these new, semi-liquid structures. Hilary Wiek, Principal Analyst of Fund Strategies at PitchBook, drawing upon her extensive two-decade-plus experience in institutional investing, recently published an in-depth analysis that applies a six-pronged framework—People, Philosophy, Process, Portfolio Construction, Performance, and Price—to the unique demands of evergreen funds. Her prior work, "An LP’s Guide to Manager Selection," published in 2023, focused on traditional drawdown funds. The advent of evergreen structures, however, introduces a distinct set of considerations that warrant a dedicated inquiry. These questions are not only critical for investors contemplating allocations to evergreen funds but also for understanding the broader implications for established drawdown strategies managed by the same firms.
The Evolving Landscape of Private Market Access
The traditional gateway to private markets was largely restricted to sophisticated institutional investors like pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds, as well as high-net-worth individuals who met specific income and asset thresholds. These restrictions were designed to protect less experienced investors from the inherent risks, illiquidity, and complex structures associated with private equity, venture capital, and private debt. However, several converging factors have begun to dismantle these barriers.
Institutional investors, while historically significant allocators, are increasingly exhibiting prudence in expanding their private market commitments. This caution may stem from a variety of factors, including market volatility, a desire to rebalance portfolios, or a more measured approach to deploying large sums of capital in an uncertain economic climate. This slowdown in institutional appetite has prompted asset managers to seek alternative sources of capital.
Simultaneously, there has been a growing recognition of the potential diversification and return enhancement benefits that private markets can offer to a broader investor base. The development of evergreen funds represents a strategic response to these converging trends. By offering features like lower minimums, immediate investment opportunities, and periodic liquidity, these funds aim to democratize access to asset classes that were once the exclusive domain of the ultra-wealthy and institutional giants.
The regulatory environment is also showing signs of adapting. The SEC’s proposed amendments to the accredited investor definition could expand the pool of eligible investors. The INVEST Act, by encouraging private market investments in retirement accounts like 401(k)s, signifies a governmental endorsement of broader private market participation. This legislative push, while still in its nascent stages, suggests a long-term trend towards integrating private assets into mainstream investment vehicles.
Deconstructing the Evergreen Model: A Framework for Scrutiny
The introduction of evergreen funds, characterized by their open-ended structure and continuous offering, fundamentally alters the dynamics of private market investing. Unlike traditional drawdown funds that have a finite life and capital commitment period, evergreen vehicles are designed for perpetual operation, allowing for ongoing subscriptions and redemptions. This structural difference necessitates a bespoke analytical approach. Hilary Wiek’s framework provides a robust lens through which to examine these complexities.
People: Navigating Co-Management and Brand Dilution
The "People" aspect of Wiek’s framework delves into the core of a fund’s management, the expertise of its investment teams, the intricacies of ownership structures, and the crucial element of alignment. In the context of evergreen funds, several novel and critical questions emerge.
When multiple established asset managers, such as Capital Group and KKR, or Wellington, Vanguard, and Blackstone, collaborate to co-manage an evergreen fund, the lines of decision-making authority can become blurred. Investors are compelled to understand the precise allocation of responsibilities: who dictates asset allocation strategies, who manages the crucial functions of inflows and redemptions, and who is ultimately accountable for valuation and liquidity management? A fundamental question arises: why would a co-managed structure offer a superior outcome compared to the focused expertise of a single, well-defined management entity? The rationale behind such partnerships must be clearly articulated and demonstrably advantageous to the investor.
Furthermore, the appeal of a "name-brand" firm offering an evergreen product can mask a significant operational reality. The team actually responsible for managing the capital within the evergreen fund may bear little resemblance to the renowned individuals who built the firm’s reputation. Many evergreen funds are actively deploying inflows through secondary purchases—acquiring stakes in existing private market funds. This means that substantial portions of the portfolio are, in essence, managed by the general partners (GPs) who originally raised those underlying funds. Consequently, the expertise and strategy that investors initially underwrote may not be the direct drivers of their current capital’s performance. This raises a critical concern about the continuity and authenticity of the investment strategy.
Alignment of interests, a cornerstone of traditional private market investing, also requires heightened scrutiny in the evergreen sphere. Evergreen funds can, and often do, grow to dwarf the size of even the largest drawdown funds. Concurrently, the fee structures for non-institutional products tend to be higher. If the substantial management fee income generated by these large evergreen vehicles becomes the dominant revenue stream for the asset manager, the traditional 20% carried interest incentive on drawdown funds may lose its primacy. Moreover, in drawdown funds, the GP commitment is typically locked up alongside investor capital. However, in an evergreen structure, managers may leverage liquidity provisions to progressively reduce their own exposure over time, potentially decoupling their interests from those of the investors.
Philosophy: Defining Strategy in a Liquidity-Constrained Environment
A manager’s stated philosophy for an evergreen product cannot simply be a reiteration of their traditional private equity or venture capital mandate. The inherent liquidity obligations of evergreen funds necessitate a different approach to portfolio construction. These funds often maintain a significant "liquidity sleeve"—a portion of assets held in more liquid instruments—and may hold substantial interests in secondary funds alongside direct investments in private companies. This composition is materially different from that of a typical drawdown fund. Investors must press for a clearly articulated philosophy that acknowledges and addresses these structural differences.
The critical question is whether the manager aims to provide broad market beta exposure or to generate specific alpha through active management. The patient, deliberate approach required to identify and invest in only the most compelling opportunities, cultivate value, and execute profitable exits may be at odds with investor expectations for immediate and consistent private market exposure. Managers may feel incentivized to deploy capital rapidly, even if it means acquiring assets at suboptimal prices, rather than waiting for the opportune moment. Past success in drawdown strategies, which often involve acquiring controlling stakes and actively managing portfolio companies, may not be replicable if the manager is compelled to acquire minority or secondary stakes, thereby relinquishing a degree of control. Investors should directly question whether the evergreen structure is a genuinely strategic fit for the manager’s core investment philosophy and capabilities, or if it is primarily a pragmatic response to a challenging environment for raising capital in traditional drawdown funds.
Process: Adapting Deal Structuring and Conflict Management
The investment process itself undergoes a transformation within the evergreen framework. A manager whose reputation was built on acquiring distressed companies and executing complex turnarounds may need to pivot towards more stable, income-generating assets to support the fund’s liquidity requirements. Investors should not assume that traditional drawdown track records translate directly into evergreen success.
The management of conflicts of interest demands particular attention, especially when a manager holds positions in both a drawdown fund and an evergreen fund. If a portfolio company requires additional capital, the evergreen fund might be positioned to provide it. In such a scenario, it becomes imperative to understand who advocates for the distinct interests of each fund when capital allocation decisions are made. Furthermore, if a manager is actively acquiring secondary stakes to deploy capital, investors need to comprehend whether this is a temporary strategy to build out the portfolio or an ongoing operational approach. Crucially, they must also ascertain whether the underlying managers of these secondary stakes have undergone a rigorous vetting process.
Portfolio Construction: Balancing Liquidity and Growth
Beyond traditional diversification across asset classes and geographies, evergreen funds demand active and sophisticated liquidity management. Surprisingly, many managers are still refining their approaches in this critical area. Common models include:
- Maintaining Substantial Cash Reserves: Holding enough cash to cover the maximum potential redemptions allowed within a given period. This minimizes cash drag but can reduce overall investment returns.
- Relying on Portfolio Income and Exits: Generating liquidity through dividend payments, interest income, and successful asset sales. This model is dependent on the predictable performance of underlying assets and may not be sufficient during periods of market stress.
- Utilizing Lines of Credit: Securing credit facilities to meet redemption requests. This can optimize capital deployment by minimizing cash drag but introduces leverage risk, particularly if a market crisis coincides with a peak in redemption requests and creditors simultaneously withdraw credit lines.
Investors should also inquire about the fund’s strategy for managing large inflows when prevailing market conditions make primary investments unattractive. At what point does the manager deem the fund to be "fully mature," and what metrics define this state? Understanding the upper and lower capacity limits of the fund is equally important. Excessive capital can dilute investment discipline and dilute the impact of the best ideas. Conversely, insufficient capital can hinder diversification, particularly for strategies that require significant or controlling stakes in companies.
Performance: Navigating Valuations and Return Metrics
Valuation methodologies carry significantly more weight in evergreen funds than in their drawdown counterparts. Investors subscribe to and redeem from these funds based on manager-determined Net Asset Values (NAVs). In some cases, performance fees are calculated based on these same valuations. Consequently, investors must thoroughly understand the fund’s valuation policies for illiquid assets. Key questions include: Are third-party experts engaged to review and validate these valuations? And what proportion of a fund’s historical return is attributable to realized exits versus internal markups by the general partner?
Two specific issues warrant particular attention:
- Secondary Stake Markups: Secondary stake purchases are often acquired at a discount to the underlying GP’s NAV. These stakes are then immediately marked up to that NAV, creating an artificial short-term gain that inflates early performance figures. Investors should probe the extent to which a manager’s reported track record reflects this phenomenon.
- Inappropriate IRR Comparisons: It is crucial to recognize that historical Internal Rates of Return (IRRs) from drawdown funds are not meaningful predictors of evergreen fund time-weighted returns. These are structurally different calculations, and any direct comparison is inappropriate and potentially misleading. Evergreen funds, with their continuous liquidity and varying capital deployment cycles, present a distinct performance profile.
Price: Deciphering Complex Fee Structures and Redemption Terms
The pricing and fee structures of evergreen funds can be exceptionally complex, challenging to compare across different products, and often multilayered in ways that predominantly benefit fund managers. Investors should demand a comprehensive, itemized list of every fee charged by share class. This includes not only management fees but also acquired fund fees (from underlying funds in secondary transactions), interest expenses, loads, and any other ancillary charges. Performance incentive fees levied on unrealized, manager-valued investments represent a significant potential conflict of interest and warrant the most rigorous scrutiny.
Redemption terms, too, are frequently more intricate than they initially appear. Investors must gain a clear understanding of lock-up periods, the maximum interval amounts that can be redeemed, any redemption loads, and, critically, the specific conditions under which the manager reserves the right to suspend redemptions entirely. This latter provision is a vital safeguard for managers but can represent a significant risk for investors seeking liquidity.
Potpourri: Additional Considerations for Allocators
Beyond the core six P’s, a few additional considerations may prove valuable for investors allocating capital to evergreen funds:
- Regulatory Oversight and Investor Protections: Investors should assess the regulatory framework governing the evergreen fund and the specific investor protections in place. This includes understanding reporting requirements, independent oversight, and the channels available for addressing grievances.
- Operational Due Diligence: Given the ongoing nature of evergreen funds, robust operational due diligence is paramount. This extends beyond investment strategy to encompass the fund’s infrastructure, compliance, technology, and risk management capabilities.
- Managerial Adaptability: The long-term success of an evergreen fund will depend on the manager’s ability to adapt to evolving market conditions, regulatory changes, and investor demands. Investors should seek evidence of a proactive and agile management team.
The expansion of private markets into broader investor portfolios via evergreen funds represents a significant development. While offering compelling opportunities, it also introduces new complexities that demand a heightened level of due diligence. By rigorously applying a comprehensive framework and asking probing questions across all facets of the fund’s structure and operation, investors can navigate this evolving landscape with greater confidence and make more informed allocation decisions.
The full version of this paper can be found here.
Learn more about CAIA Association and how to become part of a professional network that is shaping the future of investing, by visiting https://caia.org.
