Colin McGrady’s Post

View profile for Colin McGrady, graphic

Managing Partner @ Cedar Springs Capital | Private Equity Secondary Investments | Entrepreneur

As the Shasta Ventures approval deadline approaches, we're presented with a unique opportunity to observe the complexities and inherent conflicts in GP-led secondary transactions. This scenario sheds light on the considerable leverage GPs hold within the private equity infrastructure. According to the article, proposed continuation fund requires LPs to approve the transaction if they wish to roll their interests into the new structure—a stipulation that could be seen as putting undue pressure on LPs. This raises critical questions about the balance of power in private equity deals and the alignment of interests between GPs and LPs. What are your thoughts? Is it appropriate for GPs to demand such conditions for LPs to participate in a continuation fund? How do you see this impacting the broader private equity landscape and the perception of GP-led secondary transactions? Looking forward to hearing your insights and perspectives on this pivotal issue. #PrivateEquity #VentureCapital #InvestmentTrends #ShastaVentures #GPledSecondaries

Shasta Ventures seeks continuation fund

Shasta Ventures seeks continuation fund

axios.com

Oksana Malysheva

VC investor, bullish on Austin, lifetime learner, physicist in business, Forbes 50/50

4mo

I love you touching this thorny topic. Must be discussed!

Jamie Ebersole, CFA, CFP®

Founder and CEO at Ebersole Financial LLC | CFA, CFP / Investment Management / Husband / Dad / Kid's sports coach / Amateur (very) Golfer

4mo

It's never really been a partnership. Just a preferred structure for making investments. LPs powers are minimal as GPs are very good at dividing and conquering. (e.g. You are the only LP asking for that change.)

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics