3 ms·

Right, better to give the money back and preserve IRR/ reputation than try to simply earn carry.

by cellis 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> preserve IRR/ reputation than try to simply earn carry Management fees. Carry is performance based.
patrickhogan1 2y ago
They aren’t giving it back they are converting it into a new fund for early stage companies. The article is click bate.
- ajsharp 2y ago
  Oh i missed that part -- that makes way more sense.
noleary 2y ago
FWIW, the IRR clock doesn't start until they call capital from the LPs.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the IRR clock doesn't start until they call capital from the LPs Capital calls must be honoured on short notice. That means committed capital must be kept low-risk and liquid. That has an opportunity cost. While you are correct in conventional IRR, particularly that touted by funds, only starting the clock when capital is called, LPs measure their own IRRs that consider the opportunity cost of committed uncalled capital.
  - noleary 2y ago
    Yeah, that's a good point :) Do you have any inside info on how some of these big LPs are modeling opportunity cost against their growth equity commitments? My understanding gleaned from friends has been that they're generally just cutting exposure to growth-stage software and planning to park the capital in pretty vanilla/liquid public equities and fixed income anyway. Seems like no one really wants to be interested in increasing their exposure to PE or growth equity anymore.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > how some of these big LPs are modeling opportunity cost against their growth equity commitments? This isn't unique to growth equity but commiting to a capital-calling fund in general. > no one really wants to be interested in increasing their exposure to PE or growth equity anymore PE and VC suffered relative to private credit [1][2]. (Basically, folks want to lend to private companies more than they want to buy stakes in them.) It's unclear whether growth is being uniquely impacted versus private equity in general, early-stage VC inclusive. [1] https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2dk6rmatv89c9uqfcgglc/portfolio/private-equitys-fundraising-skid-continues https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2dk6rmatv89c9u... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-01/jpmorgan-picks-partners-to-boost-its-reach-in-private-credit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-01/jpmorgan-...
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        Thanks for sharing your perspectives in this thread. You seem to have a lot of deeper knowledge about how all this works. Any guidance on what to follow or where to learn to understand these complex dynamics of the investment world? I feel like much of what I’ve seen is more like the basics.

Right, better to give the money back and preserve IRR/ reputation than try to simply earn carry.

by cellis 2y ago

Right, better to give the money back and preserve IRR/ reputation than try to simply earn carry.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> preserve IRR/ reputation than try to simply earn carry Management fees. Carry is performance based.

patrickhogan1 2y ago

They aren’t giving it back they are converting it into a new fund for early stage companies. The article is click bate.

ajsharp 2y ago
Oh i missed that part -- that makes way more sense.

noleary 2y ago

FWIW, the IRR clock doesn't start until they call capital from the LPs.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the IRR clock doesn't start until they call capital from the LPs Capital calls must be honoured on short notice. That means committed capital must be kept low-risk and liquid. That has an opportunity cost. While you are correct in conventional IRR, particularly that touted by funds, only starting the clock when capital is called, LPs measure their own IRRs that consider the opportunity cost of committed uncalled capital.
- noleary 2y ago
  Yeah, that's a good point :) Do you have any inside info on how some of these big LPs are modeling opportunity cost against their growth equity commitments? My understanding gleaned from friends has been that they're generally just cutting exposure to growth-stage software and planning to park the capital in pretty vanilla/liquid public equities and fixed income anyway. Seems like no one really wants to be interested in increasing their exposure to PE or growth equity anymore.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > how some of these big LPs are modeling opportunity cost against their growth equity commitments? This isn't unique to growth equity but commiting to a capital-calling fund in general. > no one really wants to be interested in increasing their exposure to PE or growth equity anymore PE and VC suffered relative to private credit [1][2]. (Basically, folks want to lend to private companies more than they want to buy stakes in them.) It's unclear whether growth is being uniquely impacted versus private equity in general, early-stage VC inclusive. [1] https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2dk6rmatv89c9uqfcgglc/portfolio/private-equitys-fundraising-skid-continues https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2dk6rmatv89c9u... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-01/jpmorgan-picks-partners-to-boost-its-reach-in-private-credit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-01/jpmorgan-...
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      Thanks for sharing your perspectives in this thread. You seem to have a lot of deeper knowledge about how all this works. Any guidance on what to follow or where to learn to understand these complex dynamics of the investment world? I feel like much of what I’ve seen is more like the basics.