Real-world case · What fell short · Secondaries

Continuation funds: one asset, two sides of the same negotiating table

How continuation vehicles create liquidity and extend ownership, why GP conflicts are structural and what a selling or rolling LP should demand from the process.

Outcome lensWhat fell short
EventMarket evidence 2023–2026
Reading time12 minutes
Evidence review7 August 2026
Evidence status

Market sizes are institutional estimates. ILPA materials describe governance practice; economics vary by transaction.

The underwriting question

Can the same GP fairly run a sale process and continue managing the asset after it changes hands?

AssetsNest judgement

A continuation fund can solve a genuine duration problem, but familiarity with the asset does not create independent price discovery. Selling and rolling LPs need time, a real cash option, full economics and credible third-party bids.

Reported
>$160bn

annual PE-secondary market

Jefferies described a market of this scale in its 2025 outlook.

Reported
$6bn → $10bn

credit-secondary volume

Jefferies estimated growth from 2023 to 2024 and expected further expansion.

Confirmed
Two decisions

LP election

A cash sale and a rollover are economically separate underwriting choices even when presented in one process.

Why this case matters

A continuation transaction begins with an awkward fact: the manager believes an asset deserves more time, while the old fund needs liquidity. The GP may help select the buyer, set the story, crystallise carry and then keep managing the same company in a new vehicle. That does not make the transaction abusive. It makes conflict management part of the investment case.

The market's growth reflects a real need. Funds have finite lives; companies do not mature on schedule. A continuation vehicle can avoid a rushed sale and give existing LPs cash. The price, process and reset economics decide whether that flexibility creates value or merely extends fees.

Transaction chronology

What happened, and when the meaning changed

The GP buys and develops the asset using old-fund capital.

Original underwriting, fees and carry establish the baseline against which a transfer should be judged.

The GP tests a continuation structure, often with secondary buyers.

Information access, bidder competition and time available to LPs shape price quality.

Existing LPs may sell for cash or roll into the new vehicle.

A rollover is a fresh commitment with a new duration, fee schedule and concentration profile.

ILPA consulted on updated continuation-fund guidance.

Continued governance work reflects the mainstreaming of a structure with persistent conflicts.

Economics and mechanics

Follow the claim, not the label

Build the rollover bridge

Start with the cash price offered. Deduct any crystallised carry and transaction costs, then show the value reinvested, new management fee base, new carry hurdle and expected holding period. A nominal 100% rollover may not preserve 100% of economics.

Price discovery is a process, not an opinion

A fairness opinion can support a board process, but investors should also ask how many bidders saw full information, whether a standalone sale was tested, which bids were binding and whether the lead buyer received special economics.

Concentration changes after the transfer

An asset that was 8% of a diversified old fund can become 50% of a continuation vehicle. The company's quality may be unchanged while portfolio risk rises sharply.

Stakeholder ledger

Who gained flexibility—and who kept the risk?

Selling LPs

They obtain liquidity but depend on process quality and sufficient time to evaluate the offered price.

Rolling LPs

They maintain exposure while accepting new duration, concentration and economics.

GP

It can preserve ownership and management fees and may crystallise carry, creating incentives that require explicit governance.

Secondary buyer

It negotiates price and governance for the new vehicle and may receive information or rights unavailable to smaller rolling LPs.

Competing interpretations

The constructive reading

A high-quality asset receives time and capital to complete a visible value-creation plan, while a competitive auction gives old LPs clean liquidity and rollover economics remain aligned.

The sceptical reading

The process avoids a weak third-party sale, uses a favourable mark to crystallise carry, compresses the LP election window and resets fees on an asset whose best growth is behind it.

What the evidence cannot settle

Open questions and verification limits

  • Market-size estimates differ by data provider and may include different transaction definitions.
  • A fair process cannot be inferred from a transaction label; bid access, data-room equality and conflicts are deal-specific.
  • Future value creation remains a forecast even when the GP has a strong historical record with the asset.

Diligence lessons

What to carry into the next investment memo

  1. Treat rollover as a new investment committee decision with a zero-based valuation.
  2. Request the complete bid chronology and every fee, carry and transaction-cost reset.
  3. Compare the cash option with rolling after tax, concentration and duration—not only at the headline transfer price.
  4. Give process risk its own downside scenario; a good company cannot repair an unfair transaction.

Source file

Sources are labelled by provenance. Company and provider claims remain attributed; illustrative calculations are not presented as observed results.

Institutional researchILPA — continuation funds guidanceOpen source ↗Institutional researchILPA — continuation fund disclosure templateOpen source ↗Institutional researchJefferies — credit secondaries and continuation vehiclesOpen source ↗Read the AssetsNest research methodology
Important information

AssetsNest Investor Services — ARN 318691. This case study is educational and informational only. It is not personalised investment, legal or tax advice, an offer, a solicitation or a recommendation. Figures may be company-reported, institutionally estimated or illustrative as labelled. Verify current primary documents and seek appropriately qualified advice before acting.