SPVs have quietly become the emerging manager's default tool, yet few GPs will say what they really make of them. We asked 56 of them to be candid about how they use Special Purpose Vehicles, what they charge, who buys in and where the model starts to creak.
Add your details and the full report opens straight away.
SPVs are now core plumbing for emerging managers, and the same managers are increasingly uneasy about fee abuse, layered structures and what the boom does to the wider market over time. We put the question to 56 GPs and set out their answers across six chapters.
How widely SPVs are used and on what terms: adoption, carry, management fees, who carries the costs and how much skin GPs keep in the game.
Whether fund size, tenure and stage change how GPs use SPVs, and which factor actually predicts behaviour.
Who actually writes the cheques, and how GPs look after loyal fund LPs with better terms.
Principal-agent tension, concentration risk and how seriously GPs take having their own money on the line.
Where SPVs genuinely earn their keep: extending reserves, building an LP pipeline, winning allocation and keeping options open.
The qualitative read: SPVs as infrastructure, the rise of the SPV-only manager and where the market goes next.
SPVs are just a vehicle. It doesn't make sense to love or hate them. Strong feelings belong with how they're structured, whether there's bi-directional transparency, and how they're managed.
This makes a $20M fund feel a lot larger for our companies and allows us to deploy more capital in winners without getting tapped out.
SPVs are for your winners, that's it. I see too many managers host them when their LPs aren't positioned to make a sophisticated decision.
Every chart, benchmark and unedited answer, with named contributions from GPs at 1517 Fund, Deciens, FJ Labs, Hustle Fund, Social Impact Capital and more.