Continuation Funds: What They Are and Why They Matter
With traditional private equity investment exits facing difficulty over the past few years — albeit improving somewhat recently — private equity sponsors have increasingly relied on the use of continuation funds. Once a niche tool, continuation funds have become mainstream and investors should learn to understand how they work, why they exist, and what risks they carry.
What Is a Continuation Fund?
A continuation fund is a new vehicle created by a private equity manager to hold onto one or more portfolio companies beyond the typical ~10 years of an original fund. Rather than selling an asset outright at the end of a fund's life, the general partner (GP) transfers the underlying investment into a new, separate fund. This provides existing limited partners (LPs) with a choice — either cash out now or roll their existing investment into the new vehicle and maintain exposure to the existing portfolio company. New investors, often large secondary market buyers, come in to provide liquidity for those who do not wish to invest in the continuation fund. The GP is assuming that the company still has meaningful upside and that additional time will produce a more attractive outcome.
Watch to the replay. Sponsored by LPL Financial: From Income to Impact: Advanced Tax Strategies for the High-Net-Worth Investor
Why Do Managers Use Them?
The appeal for general partners is straightforward. Selling a high-conviction portfolio company in a weak market can reduce or leave additional value on the table. Continuation funds allow managers to maintain ownership, avoid a fire sale, and/or keep collecting management fees. For the GP, it also means retaining a flagship asset that supports their track record and next fundraise. For LPs who roll over, they maintain exposure to a company they are already familiar with. For those who want out, the structure offers liquidity without waiting for an uncertain initial public offering (IPO) or sale.
Impact on Public Markets
Continuation funds have a meaningful indirect effect on public equity markets. By allowing GPs to defer exits, they reduce the pipeline of IPOs that would otherwise enter public markets. When large, mature private companies stay private longer, they end up representing a growing part of the economy that public market investors cannot access.
This dynamic has contributed to the well-documented decline in the number of public equity firms. Fewer companies going public means less opportunity for traditional fund managers. It also means that some of the most compelling growth stories play out entirely in private ownership, with public market participants left holding the slower-growth, post-peak version of a company if and when it finally lists.
Controversies and Conflicts of Interest
With this growth, there has also been significant criticism. The main problem is a conflict of interest inherent to the structure itself. The GP simultaneously represents the seller (the original fund), the buyer (the new continuation vehicle), and sets the valuation at which the transfer occurs. Critics argue that GPs are incentivized to only choose their best assets for continuation funds, in turn, leaving weaker companies in the original fund to wind down.
Key Risks for Investors
For LPs considering rolling into a continuation fund, several risks deserve attention. Valuation opacity remains the central challenge, as private assets are difficult to price independently, and the GP's mark may not reflect what an arm's-length buyer would pay. There is also concentration risk, as continuation funds are often single-asset or two-asset vehicles, meaning there is no portfolio diversification to cushion against a bad outcome. Liquidity extension is another concern. Rolling over means recommitting capital for an uncertain additional period, often another three to five years, with no guarantee of an exit at the end. And fee structures can reset, meaning investors who roll may find themselves paying full management fees again on assets they have already held for a decade.
LPL Research Takeaway
Continuation funds are neither inherently good nor bad, rather, they are a tool whose value depends on their proper use. When deployed to preserve genuine value in a difficult exit environment, they may serve investors well. When used to extend GP fee income or obscure underperformance, they do not. As an investor, the right question to ask is not whether a continuation fund exists, but why and whether the GP's interests truly align with yours.
Michael McClain, CFA, is responsible for liquid alternative due diligence and alternative investment implementation across LPL’s centrally managed platform.
Important Disclosures
This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors. To determine which investment(s) may be appropriate for you, please consult your financial professional prior to investing.
Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk.
Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and does not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.
This material was prepared by LPL Financial, LLC. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.
Unless otherwise stated LPL Financial and the third party persons and firms mentioned are not affiliates of each other and make no representation with respect to each other. Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services.
Asset Class Disclosures –
International investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and political instability and may not be suitable for all investors. These risks are often heightened for investments in emerging markets.
Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity.
Municipal bonds are subject and market and interest rate risk and potentially capital gains tax if sold prior to maturity. Interest income may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Municipal bonds are federally tax-free but other state and local taxes may apply.
Preferred stock dividends are paid at the discretion of the issuing company. Preferred stocks are subject to interest rate and credit risk. They may be subject to a call features.
Alternative investments may not be suitable for all investors and involve special risks such as leveraging the investment, potential adverse market forces, regulatory changes and potentially illiquidity. The strategies employed in the management of alternative investments may accelerate the velocity of potential losses.
Mortgage backed securities are subject to credit, default, prepayment, extension, market and interest rate risk.
High yield/junk bonds (grade BB or below) are below investment grade securities, and are subject to higher interest rate, credit, and liquidity risks than those graded BBB and above. They generally should be part of a diversified portfolio for sophisticated investors.
Precious metal investing involves greater fluctuation and potential for losses.
The fast price swings of commodities will result in significant volatility in an investor's holdings.
This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.
Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | May Lose Value
For Public Use – Tracking: #1070629
A message from Advisor Perspectives and VettaFi: Discover something new! Click here to register for our upcoming webcasts.
Read more commentaries by LPL Financial
