iStockphoto: Nuthawut Somsuk
The landscape of private market investing is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by increasing accessibility for a broader range of investors and the strategic adaptations of asset managers. Once the exclusive domain of institutional behemoths and ultra-high-net-worth individuals, private markets are now actively courting investors previously excluded due to income or wealth restrictions. This evolution is prompting a critical re-evaluation of investment vehicles, particularly the burgeoning "evergreen" or semi-liquid fund structures, as highlighted in a recent analysis by PitchBook.
Historically, private equity and venture capital funds operated on a "drawdown" model, requiring substantial capital commitments and often lacking liquidity for extended periods. However, a confluence of factors, including a perceived plateau in institutional investor appetite for increasing commitments and a desire among asset managers to tap into new capital pools, has spurred the development of alternative structures. Evergreen funds offer lower minimum investment thresholds, the ability to invest immediately rather than waiting for capital calls, and crucially, periodic liquidity options. These features directly address the inherent limitations of traditional drawdown funds and are proving to be a significant draw for individual investors and financial advisors seeking diversification beyond public markets.
This shift is not occurring in a vacuum. Government and regulatory bodies have signaled a growing interest in facilitating private market access. In 2025 alone, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed amendments to the definition of an "accredited investor," a key determinant of who can participate in private offerings. Concurrently, Congress advanced the INVEST Act, aimed at expanding investment opportunities in private markets, and President Trump signed an executive order encouraging the inclusion of private market investments within 401(k) accounts. While the INVEST Act has passed through Congress, its legislative journey is ongoing, with further Senate approval required for it to become law. These policy developments underscore a broader trend toward democratizing access to private investments, a move that necessitates a deeper understanding of the products being offered.
The Six Ps Framework Applied to Evergreen Funds
Hilary Wiek, Principal Analyst, Fund Strategies at PitchBook, in her analysis titled "Evergreen Funds: We Have Questions," advocates for a rigorous due diligence process for these evolving investment vehicles. Drawing on her extensive experience in institutional investing, Wiek applies the well-established "six Ps" framework—People, Philosophy, Process, Portfolio Construction, Performance, and Price—to the unique characteristics of semi-liquid funds. This framework, originally designed for evaluating traditional private market managers, is now adapted to scrutinize the specific demands and potential pitfalls of evergreen structures.
The implications of this shift extend beyond investors directly engaging with evergreen funds. For existing institutional investors in traditional drawdown funds, the expansion of managers into the evergreen space raises questions about how these new ventures might influence the management and focus of their current commitments.
People: Navigating Co-Management and Brand Dilution
The "People" aspect of Wiek’s framework encompasses firm management, investment teams, ownership structures, and overall alignment of interests. In the context of evergreen funds, several new and complex inquiries emerge.
A notable development is the rise of co-managed evergreen funds, where multiple established asset managers pool their expertise. Examples include collaborations like Capital Group and KKR, and Wellington, Vanguard, and Blackstone. This structure immediately raises critical questions: Who ultimately controls investment decisions? How is the overall asset allocation determined? Crucially, who is responsible for the intricate operational aspects of inflows, redemptions, valuations, and liquidity management? Investors are urged to probe the rationale behind a co-managed structure, seeking to understand why it would be superior to the more traditional single-entity management model.
Furthermore, the allure of a well-known "name-brand" firm offering an evergreen product can mask underlying operational realities. A significant concern is whether the team actually managing the evergreen fund bears any resemblance to the seasoned professionals who built the firm’s reputation. Many evergreen funds are deploying capital through secondary purchases, meaning portions of the portfolio are managed by the original general partners (GPs) who issued those underlying funds. Consequently, investors might find that the individuals they intended to underwrite are not the ones actively managing their capital. This detachment from the original underwriting team can significantly alter the investment experience and potential outcomes.
Alignment of interests also requires careful scrutiny. Evergreen funds can rapidly surpass the scale of even the largest traditional drawdown funds. Moreover, fees associated with non-institutional products often carry a premium. As management fee income from evergreen products becomes increasingly dominant, the traditional 20% carried interest incentive on drawdown funds may lose its primary motivational force. Unlike drawdown funds where the GP commitment is locked alongside investors, evergreen structures may offer managers avenues, through liquidity provisions, to reduce their own exposure over time, potentially decoupling their long-term commitment from that of their investors.
Philosophy: Defining Strategy in a Liquid Wrapper
It is insufficient for a fund manager to simply label their evergreen product as a "private equity fund." The inherent liquidity obligations of evergreen structures necessitate a different approach to portfolio construction. These funds may hold a significant "liquidity sleeve" and interests in secondary funds alongside direct investments in private companies, presenting a materially different composition compared to a drawdown fund. Investors must press for a clearly articulated investment philosophy that accounts for these structural differences.
A key question is whether the manager aims to provide broad market exposure (beta) or generate outperformance (alpha). The patient, disciplined approach required to identify and invest in only the most exceptional opportunities—working to create value and exit at a premium—can conflict with investor expectations of immediate, diversified private market exposure. Managers may feel incentivized to deploy capital quickly rather than waiting for optimal entry points. Past success in traditional drawdown strategies might not be replicable if the manager must cede control by acquiring secondary stakes rather than building controlling positions. Ultimately, investors should directly question whether the evergreen structure genuinely aligns with the manager’s core strategy or if it is primarily a pragmatic response to challenging drawdown fundraising environments.
Process: Adapting Deal Sourcing and Conflict Management
The operational processes for evergreen funds must adapt to the unique demands of semi-liquidity. A manager whose reputation was built on restructuring distressed companies might pivot towards more stable, income-generating businesses to support the consistent cash flow required for liquidity obligations. Investors should not assume that a manager’s established drawdown track record directly translates to success in an evergreen vehicle.
The management of potential conflicts of interest is of paramount importance, particularly when a manager holds a position in both a drawdown fund and an evergreen fund. If a portfolio company requires additional capital, which fund will provide it? And critically, who advocates for the distinct interests of each fund in such a capital allocation decision? When a manager is acquiring secondary stakes to deploy capital, investors need to understand whether this is a temporary strategy to build initial portfolio assets or an ongoing approach. Equally important is understanding the vetting process for the underlying GPs of these secondary stakes.
Portfolio Construction: Balancing Liquidity and Deployment
Beyond the standard diversification across multiple asset classes and strategies, evergreen funds necessitate active and sophisticated liquidity management. Surprisingly, many managers are still refining their approaches to this critical function. Common models include maintaining substantial cash reserves to meet maximum redemption requests, relying on portfolio income and exit proceeds, or utilizing lines of credit. Each of these strategies carries inherent trade-offs. While credit lines minimize cash drag, they introduce significant risk during periods of market stress when redemptions peak and creditors simultaneously reduce access to capital.
Investors should also inquire about the fund’s strategy for managing large inflows when prevailing market conditions make primary investment opportunities unattractive. At what point does the manager deem the fund to be "fully mature," and what are the defined characteristics of such a state? Furthermore, understanding the upper and lower capacity limits of the fund is crucial. An overabundance of capital can dilute investment discipline and dilute the impact of the best ideas, while insufficient capital can hinder adequate diversification, especially in strategies that require significant or controlling stakes in portfolio companies.
Performance: Scrutinizing Valuations and Return Metrics
Valuations play a far more critical role in evergreen funds than in their drawdown counterparts. Investors subscribe to and redeem from these funds based on net asset values (NAVs) determined by the manager. In some instances, performance fees are calculated on these same marks. Consequently, investors must thoroughly understand the fund’s valuation policies for illiquid assets. They should also ascertain whether independent third parties are engaged to review these valuations and the extent to which historical returns reflect realized exits versus internal markups by the GP.
Two specific issues warrant particular attention. Firstly, secondary stake purchases are often acquired at a discount to the underlying GP’s NAV and are immediately marked up to that NAV, generating a short-term gain that can artificially inflate early performance figures. Investors should rigorously investigate the proportion of a manager’s reported track record that stems from this phenomenon.
Secondly, it is imperative that fund managers do not imply that historical Internal Rates of Return (IRRs) from drawdown funds are reliable predictors of evergreen fund time-weighted returns. These are structurally different calculations, and direct comparisons are fundamentally inappropriate and can be misleading.
Price: Deconstructing Fees and Redemption Terms
The pricing structures of evergreen funds can be notably complex, difficult to compare across different offerings, multilayered, and often structured to the advantage of the fund managers. Investors are strongly advised to request a detailed, itemized list of every fee levied by share class. This should include management fees, acquired fund fees from underlying investments in secondary transactions, interest expenses, sales loads, and any other applicable charges. Performance incentive fees charged on unrealized, manager-valued investments present a significant conflict of interest and demand exceptionally close scrutiny.
Redemption terms, often perceived as straightforward, are frequently more intricate than they initially appear. Investors must gain a comprehensive understanding of lock-up periods, permissible redemption intervals, any redemption loads or fees, and, critically, the specific conditions under which the manager reserves the right to suspend redemptions entirely. These clauses can significantly impact an investor’s ability to access their capital when needed.
Potpourri: Additional Considerations for Investors
While the primary framework focuses on the six Ps, several additional considerations may prove beneficial to investors allocating capital to evergreen funds. These points, while not fitting neatly into the established categories, are crucial for a holistic assessment.
The rapid expansion of private markets into new investor segments is an undeniable trend. However, as the PitchBook analysis underscores, this expansion must be met with equally rigorous due diligence. The structural innovations of evergreen funds, while offering greater accessibility, introduce new complexities and potential risks that demand careful examination. Investors, armed with a discerning approach and a deep understanding of these evolving structures, are better positioned to navigate this dynamic investment frontier.
The full version of this analysis, offering a more in-depth exploration of these critical questions, can be accessed via a direct link provided by PitchBook.
For those seeking to deepen their understanding of alternative investments and join a professional network shaping the future of finance, the CAIA Association offers extensive resources and professional development opportunities. More information can be found at https://caia.org.
