The primary risk in private markets isn't necessarily financial loss, but rather informational disadvantage ('opacity') and the inability to pivot quickly ('illiquidity'). In contrast, public markets' main risk is short-term price volatility that can impact performance metrics. This highlights that each market type requires a fundamentally different risk management approach.
Related Insights
By combining public and private strategies, the firm observes that public markets react more quickly to crises. This provides predictive insights into the slower-moving private markets, creating an informational edge to anticipate cycles and opportunities before they fully materialize.
Ultra-late-stage companies like Ramp and Stripe represent a new category: "private as public." They could be public but choose not to be. Investors should expect returns similar to mid-cap public stocks (e.g., 30-40% YoY), not the 2-3x multiples of traditional venture rounds. The asset class is different, so the return profile must be too.
Private equity and venture capital funds create an illusion of stability by avoiding daily mark-to-market pricing. This "laundering of volatility" is a core reason companies stay private longer. It reveals a key, if artificial, benefit of private markets that new technologies like tokenization could disrupt.
Private credit allows investors to act like chefs—deeply involved from ingredient sourcing (diligence) to final creation (structuring). Liquid market investors are like food critics, limited to analyzing the finished product with restricted access to information, which increases risk.
Success in late-stage venture resembles trading more than traditional investing—it's about buying and selling on momentum. However, this "new public market" has a critical flaw: while liquidity exists on the way up, it vanishes on the downside, making it impossible to execute a true trading strategy when a correction occurs.
Private VCs with board seats operate deterministically, using their influence to 'make sure' a drug succeeds. Public fund managers operate probabilistically, accepting imperfect information in exchange for liquidity. They must calculate the odds of success rather than trying to directly shape the outcome.
While retail investors may demand daily pricing for private assets, this eliminates the "hidden benefit" of illiquidity that historically forced a long-term perspective. Constant valuation updates could encourage emotional, short-term trading, negating a core advantage of the asset class: staying the course.
Investors are drawn to PE's smooth, bond-like volatility reporting. However, the underlying assets are small, highly indebted companies, which are inherently much riskier than public equities. This mismatch between perceived risk (low) and actual risk (high) creates a major portfolio allocation error.
The venture capital paradigm has inverted. Historically, private companies traded at an "illiquidity discount" to their public counterparts. Now, for elite companies, there is an "access premium" where investors pay more for private shares due to scarcity and hype. This makes staying private longer more attractive.
The trend of companies staying private longer and raising huge late-stage rounds isn't just about VC exuberance. It's a direct consequence of a series of regulations (like Sarbanes-Oxley) that made going public extremely costly and onerous. As a result, the private capital markets evolved to fill the gap, fundamentally changing venture capital.