|
LPs Co-Investing
|
|||||
|
We have found that a number of our limited partners have created very professional groups to co-invest with us in deals. These groups are so responsive that we can approach them quickly, and have them take significant co-invest pieces of our deals — whereas in the previous years we might have brought in another private equity firm to participate with us. A question: Will the creation of these professional co-investment teams at Canadian Pension, Goldman Fund of Funds, Alpinvest, etc. decrease the number of GPs investing together?
Most Popular Posts |
![]() |
![]() |


















November 6th, 2006 at 11:41 am
The answer to your question hinges on whether the LPs with dedicated co-investment efforts are able to meaningfully contribute enough of the equity check, on a consistent basis, to preclude the invitation other sponsors. As mega fund sizes increasingly expand so do the acquisition targets - personally I feel that recent large acquisitions are just too significant for a single sponsor to take down (within the single investment concentration constraints in most partnership agreements) alongside co-investing LPs - this leads to collusion with other GPs who naturally want to put as much capital to work as possible, naturally to the determinant of the aforementioned co-investing LPs’ allocation.
Wouldn’t every GP want to “keep it in the family” as regulators increase their focus on the space and mega LBO GPs seek to distinguish themselves from the competition? Practically speaking co-investment programs may be able to supplement, but not replace, the club deals that you mention.
November 6th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Co-investment opportunities are taking a greater role to the extent LP’s are investing at the Fund level to ensure the co-investment opportunity or other available financing for the fund. The inherent nepotism can be benficial to the new fund manager if they subscribe to this theory and utilize it. When marketing a new fund seek LP’s with co-investment interests and deep pockets. It is easier to raise capital from a happy LP with deep pockets than going to the “outside market”.. It’s fast, it’s easy and it’s clean..
This also enables the fund to operate below the radar since all information surrounding acquisitions and exits are in the family. As long as all the LP’s are comfortable with the situation, there is no harm done by this approach and as a banker, it makes us more cognizant of who we market the funds we represent.