Pension Scheme Pacing and a First-Close Fee Discount
Northbridge Pension, a £6bn scheme, has a private markets target of 10% and a current NAV of 12.4% after a denominator fall in public equities. Its pacing model assumes 75% of commitments are called over five years. The scheme is already over-committed at 1.35x and has £90m of unfunded commitments. A mid-market buyout GP is raising Fund V with a $1.2bn target, a 20% single-company concentration cap, a five-year investment period, and a 180-day subscription line. The GP offers a 100bp management-fee discount to first-close LPs committing before quarter-end. Northbridge's consultant recommends a $60m commitment to maintain vintage diversification. The investment committee is split: one member wants to pause all new commitments until the allocation falls below 11%; another argues the fee discount and strong Fund IV (65% called, 1.6x net TVPI) justify proceeding. Liquidity is adequate but the scheme is reviewing a 5% strategic shift into private credit next year.
1. Should Northbridge commit to Fund V? Recommend a decision and, if yes, a commitment size, showing how you reconcile the allocation, over-commitment, and liquidity constraints.
Read the worked answer
Commit, but not at $60m. Start with a $30-40m commitment, conditional on a refreshed pacing review. The 12.4% NAV against a 10% target looks like an overweight, but the NAV is depressed by the public-equity denominator fall, so pausing all commitments would lock in the denominator effect and leave the scheme under-allocated when markets recover. The binding constraint is unfunded exposure: £90m already unfunded plus a $60m commitment at 1.35x over-commitment is too aggressive when a 5% private credit shift is also being reviewed.
A $60m commitment is not $60m of cash today; at a 75% call rate over five years, expected calls are about $45m. But calls can accelerate in a downturn, so stress the model to 90% called within two years and no distributions for 18 months. On a £6bn scheme, 10% is £600m; current NAV is about £744m. New commitments should replace distributions, not add net exposure. A $30-40m commitment preserves vintage diversification and captures the fee discount without breaching a 1.4x over-commitment ceiling. If the IC cannot agree, defer to the next close and ask for the same discount; a first-close discount is not worth a liquidity breach.
2. Explain how the 180-day subscription line affects reported IRR and TVPI, and what due diligence questions you would ask.
Read the worked answer
A subscription line is fund-level debt secured by LP uncalled commitments. If the GP draws the line to buy an asset and calls LP capital 180 days later, each LP's capital is at work for less time, so IRR is measured against a smaller and shorter called-capital base. This can materially flatter early IRR, especially during the J-curve years, and make the fund look stronger than a peer that calls capital upfront. TVPI is affected less because the line does not create value by itself; interest and fees reduce net proceeds, while the delay can improve cash-flow timing. The risk is that reported IRR becomes an artifact of financing rather than investment performance.
Due diligence should cover: line size and maturity relative to unfunded commitments; whether the line funds distributions or management fees, which is a red flag; how interest is allocated between the fund and LPs; covenants and rollover risk; whether the line is secured by uncalled commitments; and whether the GP reports a called-capital-adjusted IRR alongside the standard figure. Ask for a schedule of line usage and a sensitivity showing IRR without the line. Also check that the line is not masking a slow distribution pace or a long hold in underperforming assets.
3. Identify the fee-discount trade-off and two terms you would negotiate before committing.
Read the worked answer
The 100bp discount is valuable but small relative to the long-term economics of a $1.2bn fund. The trade-off is that first-close LPs bear blind-pool risk and commit before later vintages are known; the discount compensates for early commitment and liquidity, not for weak governance. It should not drive a decision that conflicts with pacing.
Negotiate at least: first, management fee on invested capital rather than committed capital after the investment period, with a step-down; second, no fee or carry on the subscription line and no fund-level leverage without LPAC approval. Also seek a concentration limit with LPAC consent for the top five positions, co-investment rights at no fee and no carry above a threshold, a key-person clause, and excuse rights for regulatory or ESG conflicts. Ask for most-favored-nation protection so the first-close discount is not worse than later LPs. If the GP refuses fee-on-invested-capital, the 100bp discount may be offset over ten years.