One of the biggest trends in private equity over the last couple of years has been the rise of funds to extend the economic gains of performing assets

Continuation funds burst onto the private equity scene only relatively recently but have quickly become established as an attractive part of the market. While they have been around for several years, there has been a step change in how aggressively they are being used.

Continuation funds involve an entity – whether a co-investment fund, another private fund or one of the other existing limited partners (LPs) – seeking to buy out existing LPs as the fund approaches its natural conclusion. While there is not necessarily any new capital coming in – existing LPs have a choice of either rolling their investment into the new fund or cashing out and taking profits.

Previously, such circumstances came up only occasionally, perhaps when portfolio companies within a fund were not ready for sale at the end of the planned lifecycle. A special purpose vehicle was set up to house assets, perhaps for three years, allowing further business development to be carried out or for market conditions to return to a more optimal state. The companies involved were not necessarily the crown jewels of a fund. 

Over the last year or so, they have made up around half of the deal flow in secondaries and general partners (GPs) have started raising capital for dedicated funds. These are both huge shifts in such a short space of time.

New generation

This has all now changed. Continuation funds have become a way for GPs and their investors to hold on to companies longer, rather than selling them outright to another private equity firm or listing them on an exchange. Rather than the focus being on ‘problem’ companies, assets transferred to continuation funds are likely to be the best performers of the main fund and can therefore be considered a growth or momentum play.

While they are conceptually similar, in practice continuation funds differ significantly from traditional secondaries in terms of their risk profile. A typical secondary fund buys and holds pools of assets – so the resulting funds are highly diversified across perhaps several hundred companies.

By comparison, a continuation fund may contain 1-5companies and are therefore much more exposed to single-company risk. Existing LPs therefore need to take a view on whether they want to roll into a continuation fund that has a very different risk profile to the main fund. Such a concentrated fund may have volatility analogous to a single stock rather than a fund, so it would occupy a very different role within a client’s overall portfolio.

The creation of a continuation fund only increases the options of the LPs, so it should normally be seen as a positive development. The GP would only decide to hold on to an asset if it believes it can secure further economic gains. Therefore, the economics usually are better than they were in the original fund. If the LP disagrees, it is of course free not invest and seek liquidity instead.

In addition, a continuation fund is very likely to have a shorter liquidity timeframe than the original fund, often three or four years compared to the original ten. LPs are almost certainly not being asked to provide rescue funding for a floundering investment – they are typically being offered the option to roll over capital to extend exposure to a performing asset.

We believe this positive development for the industry as it provides additional liquidity, allows LPs to reconstruct their portfolios and prolongs exposure to the turbo-charged end of the investment J-curve.

Due diligence

Continuation funds present some new challenges for LPs to consider. They present potential conflicts of interest and there is no one-size-fits-all template for deals, as every transaction is unique. For example, has the fund fully paid carry, or is there some being rolled over? How much concentration risk, in a particular company or sector, are you willing to accept? At what point do you decline? Likewise, GPs must think about risk management and create rules for the fund, which are tasks they may infrequently have to consider.

Compared to a typical private equity fund, the fees are generally a bit lower and the preferences are likely to be more in the LPs’ favour. For example, there may be lower carry until it achieves its target internal rate of return (IRR) of perhaps 12% or 15%. However, if the continuation fund underperforms, the LPs may end up paying a higher carry than had the asset remained in the broader portfolio.

As it is likely that the best performing companies are transferred from the main fund to the continuation fund, asset prices are likely to appear high. In the absence of public market price discovery, a fair price needs to be determined for assets to be transferred. In some cases, a third-party is brought in to conduct a valuation but this potentially presents a conflict of interest. We believe a better arrangement is for the price to be set by another GP or professional investor entering the fund – the price it comes in at then sets the price for other investors entering or exiting. In addition, interests are better aligned when the GP itself rolls over a substantial stake at the same price as the new and old LPs.

Another issue to consider is the attributes of the GP, or GPs, involved in the continuation fund. The investor would have carefully vetted the original GP before making the initial investment. However, more than one GP can be involved in the continuation fund and the original one may no longer have a controlling interest. Investors would therefore need to be similarly comfortable with the new GP.

For each of these considerations, industry best practice due diligence has not been fully established. The growth in continuation funds has been so explosive over the last 18 months that there has been little time for the industry to catch up. So long as institutional investors are comfortable with the unfamiliar sources of risk that they present, continuation funds provide a valuable new tool to utilise when constructing and optimising portfolios. 

Michael Forestner
Michael Forestner
Global CIO Private Equity
Brad Young
Brad Young
Global Deputy CIO Private Equity

Important Notices


References to Mercer shall be construed to include Mercer LLC and/or its associated companies.


© 2021 Mercer LLC. All rights reserved.


This content may not be modified, sold or otherwise provided, in whole or in part, to any other person or entity without Mercer's prior written permission.


Mercer does not provide tax or legal advice. You should contact your tax advisor, accountant and/or attorney before making any decisions with tax or legal implications.


This does not constitute an offer to purchase or sell any securities.


The findings, ratings and/or opinions expressed herein are the intellectual property of Mercer and are subject to change without notice. They are not intended to convey any guarantees as to the future performance of the investment products, asset classes or capital markets discussed.


For Mercer’s conflict of interest disclosures, contact your Mercer representative or see


This does not contain investment advice relating to your particular circumstances. No investment decision should be made based on this information without first obtaining appropriate professional advice and considering your circumstances. Mercer provides recommendations based on the particular client's circumstances, investment objectives and needs. As such, investment results will vary and actual results may differ materially.


Information contained herein may have been obtained from a range of third party sources. While the information is believed to be reliable, Mercer has not sought to verify it independently. As such, Mercer makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy of the information presented and takes no responsibility or liability (including for indirect, consequential, or incidental damages) for any error, omission or inaccuracy in the data supplied by any third party.


Funds of private capital funds are speculative and involve a high degree of risk. Private capital fund managers have total authority over the private capital funds. The use of a single advisor applying similar strategies could mean lack of diversification and, consequentially, higher risk. Funds of private capital funds are not liquid and require investors to commit to funding capital calls over a period of several years; any default on a capital call may result in substantial penalties and/or legal action. An investor could lose all or a substantial amount of his or her investment. There are restrictions on transferring interests in private capital funds. Funds of private capital funds’ fees and expenses may offset private capital funds’ profits. Funds of private capital funds are not required to provide periodic pricing or valuation information to investors. Funds of private capital funds may involve complex tax structures and delays in distributing important tax information. Funds of private capital funds are not subject to the same regulatory requirements as mutual funds. Fund offering may only be made through a Private Placement Memorandum (PPM).


Not all services mentioned are available in all jurisdictions. Please contact your Mercer representative for more information.


Investment management and advisory services for U.S. clients are provided by Mercer Investments LLC (Mercer Investments). Mercer Investments LLC is registered to do business as “Mercer Investment Advisers LLC” in the following states: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia; as “Mercer Investments LLC (Delaware)” in Georgia; as “Mercer Investments LLC of Delaware” in Louisiana; and “Mercer Investments LLC, a limited liability company of Delaware” in Oregon. Mercer Investments LLC is a federally registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended. Registration as an investment adviser does not imply a certain level of skill or training. The oral and written communications of an adviser provide you with information about which you determine to hire or retain an adviser. Mercer Investments’ Form ADV Part 2A & 2B can be obtained by written request directed to:  Compliance Department, Mercer Investments 99 High Street, Boston, MA 02110.


Certain regulated services in Europe are provided by Mercer Global Investments Europe Limited and Mercer Limited.


Mercer Global Investments Europe Limited and Mercer Limited are regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland under the European Union (Markets in Financial Instruments) Regulation 2017, as an investment firm. Registered officer: Charlotte House, Charlemont Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. Registered in Ireland No. 416688. Mercer Limited is authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales No. 984275. Registered Office: 1 Tower Place West, Tower Place, London EC3R 5BU.


Investment management services for Canadian investors are provided by Mercer Global Investments Canada Limited. Investment consulting services for Canadian investors are provided by Mercer (Canada) Limited.