Articles

What does it cost to roll on worse terms than the incoming buyers?

Nobody negotiates for the rolling investor, and the price of that is measurable before the election notice is answered.

A rolling investor with €5 million of value in a four-year continuation vehicle pays roughly €400,000 more under blind-pool economics than under terms appropriate to a continuation fund. On a 1.8 times gross return, a 2 per cent fee with 20 per cent carry leaves a net multiple of 1.56 times. A 1.25 per cent fee with tiered carry leaves 1.64 times. Eight points of net multiple, same asset, same vehicle, same performance.

The two sets of economics

Take a rolling investor with €5 million of value at the transaction price, in a vehicle with a four-year expected life. Assume the asset returns 1.8 times gross over that life. The asset is the same in both cases; only the terms differ.

Scenario one is blind-pool economics carried across unchanged: a management fee of 2 per cent on invested capital, and carried interest of 20 per cent over an 8 per cent preferred return with full catch-up. Those are the terms of a fund that sources new investments, builds a portfolio and deploys over an investment period.

Scenario two is what a continuation vehicle should charge for managing an asset it already runs, to a defined plan: a management fee of 1.25 per cent on invested capital, stepping to 1.0 per cent after year three, and carried interest tiered at 12.5 per cent to a 1.5 times multiple, rising to 20 per cent above 2.0 times, over the same preferred return.

A €5 million rolling position in a four-year vehicle, at a 1.8 times gross return. Net figures approximate.
ItemScenario oneScenario two
Value at the transaction price€5 million€5 million
Management fee over four years€400,000€237,500
Gross value at 1.8 times€9 million€9 million
Net to the investor€7.8 million€8.2 million
Net multiple1.56 times1.64 times

The difference is roughly €400,000 on a €5 million position, or eight points of net multiple. Nothing about the company changed to produce it. The fee saving is the smaller half; the tiered carried interest does the rest, because a flat 20 per cent applies from the first euro of gain above the preferred return while a tiered rate does not.

Why rolling investors end up on the worse side

Incoming buyers negotiate the partnership agreement of the continuation vehicle. Rolling investors do not. They inherit the result, and in many transactions they inherit a different version of it: incoming buyers may receive a lower fee, a different carried interest arrangement, priority in distributions, or governance rights that rolling investors are never offered.

The advisory committee of the new vehicle is frequently composed of the largest incoming buyers, so the constituency most exposed to the standard terms is often the one with no seat at the table where they are set.

Suppose the incoming buyers negotiated scenario two for themselves, and rolling investors receive scenario one. Same asset, same vehicle, same performance — and an eight-point difference in outcome determined entirely by who was in the room.

The fee already paid on the same asset

There is a second calculation, and it is the one that gets skipped. Carried interest in the continuation vehicle is charged on value created above the new entry price. An investor who has held the company for six years through the original fund has already paid management fees on it, and has already paid carried interest on its appreciation up to the transaction price. Rolling means paying again on the next tranche of growth.

That is not necessarily wrong. The sponsor is doing new work, over a new period, with new capital at risk. But it should be quantified rather than assumed away. Over the two vehicles combined, the total fee and carry load on a single asset held for ten years can approach a quarter of the gross gain.

The framing that makes this tractable is to stop treating the election as “sell or stay”. The asset is leaving the original fund regardless. The genuine choice is to take cash at this price, or to make a new investment in this asset, at this price, on these terms, for this duration. Posed that way, the fee load becomes an input to a fresh underwriting rather than an inconvenience attached to continuity.

What to do before the window closes

The remedy is a single provision: rolling investors receive terms no less favourable than any incoming investor. It is simple to draft, it costs the sponsor almost nothing, and it is worth more to rolling investors than most of what they will spend their diligence time on. Its absence is the clearest signal that the transaction was structured for the buyers rather than for the fund's existing investors.

Three things follow.

A sponsor that confirms matched economics in writing, states its reinvested carried interest in cash, and sets the default for non-responders to sell has settled the three questions that decide most of the value at stake. The eight points accrue to every rolling investor without any change to the asset's performance — but only where somebody asked before the election window closed.

The workbooks behind this article

Every figure above is a live formula in the free companion files for The Continuation Fund Handbook. Each workbook ends with a Checks sheet setting the printed figure beside the computed one. No account and no email address.

Open the companion files →

Also on this site