Venture Secondaries: 3 Proven Frameworks Every Fund Manager Needs to Escape the LP Liquidity Trap
Venture secondaries are no longer optional for fund managers who want to survive the 10 to 12 year LP liquidity crisis quietly building inside most portfolios today.
Key Takeaways
- Understand that venture secondaries represent a structural tool fund managers can explore to address LP liquidity demands before they escalate into a crisis.
- Learn how the power law principle shapes the way experienced venture secondary buyers evaluate and price fund positions, and why only the top five percent of a portfolio typically drives valuation decisions.
- Discover why venture secondaries require relationships with buyers to be built years before liquidity is actually needed, not in response to an urgent LP request.
- Consider how fund documentation, quarterly reporting standards, and valuation policy consistency directly determine whether a secondary buyer will engage with your fund or walk away.
- Explore how AI adoption and AI-native disruption are reshaping portfolio valuations across nearly every sector, creating new urgency for managers who assess their holdings through the lens of venture secondaries.
Venture Secondaries and the Liquidity Crisis Most Managers Will Not See Coming
Can each LP realistically hold for 10–12 years? Identify concentration risk early.
Identify IPO and M&A candidates. Estimate realistic distribution timelines per holding.
Pinpoint positions unlikely to exit before fund wind-down. These are secondary candidates.
Initiate buyer relationships years before a crisis, not in response to LP pressure.
Framework: Aman Verjee, Practical VC
Venture secondaries have moved from a niche transaction type to a critical planning mechanism for fund managers navigating the realities of a 10 to 12 year return cycle. According to Aman Verjee, a former CFO of eBay and Sonos who has structured over a billion dollars in financing, the math is straightforward and unforgiving. To reach a 1x DPI as a Series A or Series C investor today, a typical fund starting out should plan for a decade or more of capital lock-up.
Verjee explains that the problem is not just duration, it is the gap between LP expectations at the time of commitment and the reality they face five to seven years in. Even when a fund is performing well and the underlying companies are healthy, LPs can reach a point where they need liquidity they did not anticipate needing. Venture secondaries exist precisely to address that gap before it becomes a crisis.
For fund managers who have not yet considered venture secondaries as part of their portfolio planning, the first step is a basic audit of fund structure and timeline. According to Verjee, the questions to ask are whether LPs can realistically hold for the full duration, what IPO and MA candidates exist in the portfolio, and whether the fund has already begun identifying secondary market buyers. The SEC’s framework for alternative investment fund structures underscores why liquidity planning is a fiduciary consideration, not an afterthought.
The 3-Step Process for Accessing the Venture Secondaries Market
Target institutional players: Industry Ventures, Seedana, 137 Ventures, 3SPOKE, and similar firms. Start conversations before any LP demands an exit.
Provide audited financials, quarterly updates, and top-holding context. Lead time removes urgency discount from final transaction price.
Document accounting policy, valuation methodology, and information rights per portfolio company. Eliminate information asymmetry proactively.
Framework: Aman Verjee, Practical VC
Venture secondaries require a sequenced approach, and Verjee outlines three specific steps that fund managers should begin well before any LP actually demands an exit. The first step is identifying two to three qualified secondary buyers and beginning those conversations early, not when a crisis is already underway. Verjee names firms including Industry Ventures, Greenspring Associates successor structures, Seedana, 137 Ventures, 3SPOKE, and others as examples of institutional players operating in the venture secondaries space.
The second step is educating those buyers about the portfolio over time. Verjee is direct about what makes venture secondaries work from a buyer’s perspective: a fund manager who has already provided audited financials, quarterly updates, and context on the top holdings will receive a materially better price than one who approaches a buyer under time pressure with incomplete documentation. The goal is to give secondary buyers enough lead time to form an informed view without the constraint of an urgent transaction timeline driving the terms against the seller.
The third step is preparing the data room. Verjee explains that as a secondary buyer himself through his firm Practical VC, the most effective fund managers are those who can clearly communicate their accounting policy, their valuation methodology, and their information rights on each portfolio company. According to Harvard Business Review’s analysis of private market secondary transactions, information asymmetry is the single largest friction point in secondary deal execution, which is exactly why Verjee emphasizes eliminating it proactively.
How Venture Secondaries Buyers Apply Power Law Thinking to Value a Fund
Venture secondaries valuation is not a function of the entire portfolio, it is almost entirely a function of the top five percent of holdings. Verjee explains that power law dynamics, well understood within venture capital, mean that in a portfolio of even 100 companies, five holdings will likely determine the total value of the position. Secondary buyers focus their diligence on those names and treat the remainder as a long tail that may approach zero.
For each of the top holdings, Verjee describes a multi-layer underwriting process in the context of venture secondaries. Buyers examine the capital stack, whether the fund holds common or preferred shares, the price per share being carried and why, and critically, who set the last pricing round. A valuation established by a top-tier fund like Benchmark or Founders Fund in a recent round carries far more credibility than a 2021 price set during a period of excess capital. Venture secondaries buyers apply their own heuristics about which lead investors did genuine diligence versus which ones priced speculatively.
Beyond share structure, Verjee describes a financial re-underwriting process that attempts to reach free cash flow, unit economics, and where possible a comparable public market multiple. For late-stage companies approaching IPO, public comps provide a pricing anchor. For companies at earlier stages, sector-specific benchmarks for SaaS, e-commerce, and fintech provide a framework. As Investopedia notes in its treatment of power law distributions, the mathematical concentration of returns in venture portfolios is not a theory, it is a documented empirical pattern that experienced venture secondaries buyers build directly into their underwriting models.
Pricing Venture Secondaries Positions When No Market Exists
Venture secondaries transactions frequently involve assets that have no observable market price, and Verjee offers a structured approach to managing that challenge. The first method is working backwards from a projected IPO scenario. For a company like Anthropic, which Verjee references as currently at approximately $30 billion in ARR and adding $8 to $10 billion per month, a buyer would model the revenue trajectory, apply a relevant SaaS or AI company revenue multiple from public comps, discount for time and execution risk, and arrive at a current implied value.
The second method Verjee describes is direct benchmarking against comparable private companies. In the episode, he discusses his firm’s practice of comparing OpenAI and Anthropic side by side on metrics including revenue growth, burn rate, management stability, and competitive positioning. This approach to venture secondaries pricing treats the private market like a relative value exercise, identifying which of two similar assets is more attractively priced relative to its fundamentals rather than relying on a single absolute valuation.
The third method is what Verjee calls the three blind men framework. In this approach, borrowed from an old parable, the buyer accepts that no single source of information provides a complete picture of a private company. Venture secondaries diligence requires pulling data from Pitchbook, CB Insights, Carta, former employees, customers, the fund manager, and the company’s own investors to build a composite view. According to Bloomberg’s coverage of private secondary market activity, the information asymmetry problem in venture secondaries is the primary reason transactions take longer and carry higher diligence costs than comparable public market transactions.
Fund Structure Decisions That Make Venture Secondaries Buyers Engage or Walk Away
| Buyers Engage ✓ | Buyers Walk Away ✗ |
|---|---|
| Consistent, documented valuation policy applied uniformly across all holdings | Inconsistent marks with no clear methodology or basis documentation |
| Clean quarterly LP updates with portfolio company data | Lapsed communication with portfolio companies; stale data |
| Information rights secured at time of investment | Positions carried above zero without supporting documentation |
| 7-year fund term with structured LP-voted extensions | Open-ended or ambiguous fund term provisions |
| Audited financials and organized data room ready for diligence | Incomplete records; high information asymmetry creates discount pressure |
Framework: Aman Verjee, Practical VC
Venture secondaries transactions do not happen in isolation from fund administration quality. Verjee is specific about what makes a fund easy or difficult to acquire from a buyer’s perspective in any venture secondaries context. The most important factor is whether the fund has a clearly documented and consistently applied valuation policy. Buyers need to understand why each holding is being carried at its current mark, what the basis for that mark is, and whether the methodology is applied uniformly across the portfolio.
Quarterly reporting is the second major factor Verjee identifies when evaluating venture secondaries readiness. Funds that maintain regular communication with portfolio companies, secure information rights at the time of investment, and produce clean quarterly updates for LPs are dramatically easier to analyze for venture secondaries purposes. Conversely, funds that have allowed communication with portfolio companies to lapse, or that carry positions at above-zero marks without supporting documentation, create diligence burdens that secondary buyers price into their discount demands.
Verjee also addresses the structural terms that GPs can use proactively to address LP liquidity concerns before a venture secondaries transaction is even necessary. In the episode, he describes his own fund structure as a seven-year term with two one-year extensions, requiring LP majority vote for any further extensions. This structure gives LPs a degree of control over the fund’s terminal timeline, which Verjee presents as a credible commitment mechanism that reduces LP anxiety about the venture secondaries liquidity timeline from the outset. The SEC’s guidance on private fund disclosure requirements reinforces why clear documentation of these structural provisions matters both for regulatory compliance and for LP relationship management.
Using Venture Secondaries to Turn the LP Liquidity Question Into a Competitive Advantage
Venture secondaries are increasingly coming up before an LP even commits to a fund, according to Verjee’s observations. Family offices in particular are asking about liquidity pathways at the initial meeting, and fund managers who arrive without a considered answer are at a competitive disadvantage relative to those who have already mapped out a secondary liquidity framework. Verjee recommends that managers address this proactively by assessing each LP’s actual liquidity timeline requirements at the outset of the relationship.
For LPs who express a need for liquidity within five to ten years, Verjee describes a specific communication framework built around venture secondaries options. The manager should be able to identify which holdings in the portfolio are likely candidates for secondary transactions, name the two or three secondary buyers they are already in conversation with, and describe the mechanics of how a strip sale or LP position transfer would work if needed. Presenting venture secondaries as a planned option rather than an emergency measure signals organizational maturity and LP alignment.
Verjee is also candid about the pricing reality of venture secondaries as a liquidity mechanism. In the episode, he notes that a secondary sale may return 80 cents on the dollar rather than par, and that this should be communicated transparently with LPs who are considering the exit option. According to the Wall Street Journal’s reporting on private market secondary transaction pricing, discounts to NAV in venture secondaries have ranged widely depending on asset quality, fund vintage, and market conditions, reinforcing the importance of setting realistic LP expectations on pricing outcomes.
Venture Secondaries, Portfolio Flexibility, and What AI Disruption Means for Buyers Today
Venture secondaries buyers are not evaluating a static snapshot of a portfolio, they are assessing how that portfolio will perform under evolving market conditions, and in the current environment, AI disruption is the dominant variable. Verjee describes Artificial Intelligence as affecting portfolios in two simultaneous directions: companies that are accelerating because of AI adoption, and companies that are being displaced or eliminated by AI-native competitors. Both dynamics affect venture secondaries valuations.
Verjee uses his own fund’s experience to illustrate how portfolio flexibility determines whether a manager can capture the upside of a shifting market. His fund began with a stated focus on SaaS, fintech, and e-commerce, but retained document-level flexibility to move off that strategy. That flexibility allowed the fund to enter SpaceX, Anduril, and Canva, positions that Verjee describes as the likely primary drivers of fund returns, even though none of those companies fit the original stated thesis. Venture secondaries buyers who examine a fund’s documents for evidence of strategic rigidity or flexibility are assessing exactly this dimension of portfolio construction quality.
Verjee’s 90-day recommendation for every fund manager is to build AI literacy into every layer of the investment process, including how portfolio companies are evaluated, how management teams are assessed, and how the manager themselves operates day to day. He describes a specific diligence question for evaluating CTOs and COOs at portfolio companies: whether the candidate has deployed an AI agent at a previous company to materially change a business process. According to Forbes coverage of AI-native company formation trends, the distinction between AI-enabled and AI-native business models is becoming a primary valuation differentiator in venture secondaries transactions, as buyers increasingly discount portfolios with concentrated exposure to categories being disrupted by foundation model applications.
Sourcing Venture Secondaries Deals and Building the Relationships That Make It Work
Venture secondaries sourcing has no centralized exchange, and Verjee is direct about what that means for fund managers on both the buy side and the sell side. For managers seeking to buy into venture secondaries positions, the deal flow is a function of network depth, relationships with GPs who know that when an LP needs liquidity, there is a reliable and informed buyer available. Verjee describes how his firm receives deal flow from funds like Founders Fund and Andreessen Horowitz through relationships built over two decades of co-investing across the 500 Startups global network.
For managers looking to sell or provide LP liquidity through venture secondaries, the sourcing dynamic is symmetrical. The fund managers who attract the best bids from secondary buyers are those whose names and portfolios are already known in the secondary community before a transaction is ever proposed. Verjee names specific platforms including Forge, Hiive, and Techities as venues where individual company positions can surface, while fund-level venture secondaries transactions remain entirely relationship-driven. There is no substitute for building those relationships during the early years of a fund’s life.
The broader lesson Verjee draws from his sourcing experience is that venture secondaries, like most aspects of institutional alternative assets management, reward consistency of reputation over time. Buyers return to managers who provided clean data rooms, honored timelines, and communicated honestly about portfolio performance. Sellers earn repeat access to quality buyers by making the diligence process efficient and transparent. Investopedia’s definition of secondary market mechanics frames this dynamic in terms of information efficiency, in markets where information asymmetry is high, reputation functions as a pricing mechanism, and fund managers who invest in their venture secondaries relationships are building a structural advantage that compounds over time.
For Fund Managers Raising $10M to $500M+
The Room You Have Been Trying to Get Into
The fund managers closing institutional LPs are not smarter than you. They are better positioned. Fund Raise Capital works exclusively with alternative asset managers who are serious about building a capital raising machine — not guessing their way through LP conversations.
This is not a course. This is not a community. This is direct access to the frameworks, relationships, and infrastructure used by fund managers operating at the highest levels of the alternative asset industry.
About the Guest
Aman Verjee is the co-founder of Practical VC, a venture secondaries fund that acquires fund positions and direct company stakes in the private markets. His career includes serving as CFO of eBay and Sonos, writing the first draft of PayPal’s S1 filing, and serving as COO of 500 Startups where he oversaw an investment committee managing $500 million in AUM across more than 50 countries. He holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and an undergraduate degree in economics from Stanford University.
Verjee also co-hosts the Trading Places VC podcast, a weekly program focused on venture secondaries, private company valuations, and secondary tender offer activity, available on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and distributed as short-form content on LinkedIn, Facebook, and TikTok. His forthcoming book, A Brief History of Financial Bubbles, is available at bigbubbletrouble.com.
Questions Answered in This Article
How do venture secondaries solve the 12-year LP liquidity trap?
Venture secondaries provide a structured mechanism for LPs to exit fund positions before the natural end of a fund’s lifecycle, which has extended to 12 years or more as companies remain private longer. Rather than waiting for an IPO or acquisition that may not materialize on a predictable timeline, LPs can transfer their interests to secondary buyers who are willing to hold for the remaining duration. This creates a functioning market for fund interests that would otherwise be illiquid for a decade or longer.
Hear the full breakdown on Making Billions with Ryan Miller — and fund managers ready to implement join the Fund Raise Capital community of fund managers and deal syndicators learning first-hand from Ryan Miller, The Wolf of Alt Street.
What separates fund managers who retain LP trust from those who lose it?
Fund managers who retain LP trust are proactive about communicating portfolio realities, including honest timelines for distributions and any structural challenges within the fund. Those who lose trust tend to allow LPs to discover liquidity problems on their own, which damages the relationship and makes re-commitment to future funds far less likely. Transparency around DPI, fund structure, and exit timelines is the clearest differentiator between managers who build long-term LP relationships and those who do not.
Hear the full breakdown on Making Billions with Ryan Miller — and fund managers ready to implement join the Fund Raise Capital community of fund managers and deal syndicators learning first-hand from Ryan Miller, The Wolf of Alt Street.
How can LPs exit venture fund positions before the fund lifecycle ends?
LPs can exit early by selling their fund interests on the secondary market to institutional or individual buyers who specialize in acquiring these positions, often at a discount to net asset value. This process transfers both the remaining capital obligations and the future upside potential to the new buyer, providing the original LP with immediate liquidity. The secondary market for LP interests has grown significantly as the gap between fund formation and final distributions has widened.
Hear the full breakdown on Making Billions with Ryan Miller — and fund managers ready to implement join the Fund Raise Capital community of fund managers and deal syndicators learning first-hand from Ryan Miller, The Wolf of Alt Street.
What is a GP-led secondary and how does it create fund liquidity?
A GP-led secondary is a transaction initiated by the general partner, typically to move select portfolio assets into a continuation vehicle, giving existing LPs the choice to cash out or roll into the new structure. This approach allows the GP to retain high-conviction holdings beyond the original fund’s term without forcing a premature sale at an unfavorable valuation. For LPs who need liquidity, the transaction provides an exit point; for those who want continued exposure, it preserves that option without disrupting the underlying company.
Hear the full breakdown on Making Billions with Ryan Miller — and fund managers ready to implement join the Fund Raise Capital community of fund managers and deal syndicators learning first-hand from Ryan Miller, The Wolf of Alt Street.
Why do venture-backed companies now remain private for 12 to 18 years?
Venture-backed companies are staying private longer because the availability of late-stage private capital has reduced the urgency to access public markets for growth funding. Regulatory complexity, short-term earnings pressure from public markets, and the preference of founders to maintain operational control have all contributed to extended private timelines. This shift has fundamentally changed the liquidity math for venture fund managers and their LPs, who now face distribution timelines that far exceed original fund term assumptions.
Hear the full breakdown on Making Billions with Ryan Miller — and fund managers ready to implement join the Fund Raise Capital community of fund managers and deal syndicators learning first-hand from Ryan Miller, The Wolf of Alt Street.
How should fund managers audit their fund structure for liquidity gaps?
Fund managers should systematically review the expected exit timelines of each portfolio company against the remaining term of the fund, identifying positions where a liquidity event is unlikely before the fund must wind down. This audit should also account for LP concentration, meaning whether any single LP has liquidity needs that could create pressure on fund operations if unaddressed. Identifying these gaps early gives managers time to explore secondary solutions, fund extensions, or continuation vehicles before the situation becomes urgent.
Hear the full breakdown on Making Billions with Ryan Miller — and fund managers ready to implement join the Fund Raise Capital community of fund managers and deal syndicators learning first-hand from Ryan Miller, The Wolf of Alt Street.
What is DPI and why does it matter for LP confidence and re-commitment?
DPI, or distributions to paid-in capital, measures the actual cash returned to LPs relative to the capital they invested, making it the most direct indicator of a fund manager’s ability to generate realized returns. Unlike TVPI, which includes unrealized paper gains, DPI reflects money that has actually been returned, which is what LPs need to meet their own liquidity obligations and evaluate manager performance. A low DPI relative to fund age is a signal that causes LPs to hesitate before re-committing to a manager’s next fund, regardless of how strong the unrealized portfolio looks on paper.
Hear the full breakdown on Making Billions with Ryan Miller — and fund managers ready to implement join the Fund Raise Capital community of fund managers and deal syndicators learning first-hand from Ryan Miller, The Wolf of Alt Street.
When should a fund manager consider using venture secondaries for liquidity?
Fund managers should consider venture secondaries when the fund is approaching the end of its term with unrealized positions that are not ready for a traditional exit, or when LP liquidity demands are creating tension within the fund structure. Secondary solutions are also appropriate when a high-value portfolio company needs more time to mature and a forced sale would destroy value that a continuation vehicle could preserve. Acting before the pressure becomes critical gives managers more negotiating flexibility and a wider range of structural options to work with.
Hear the full breakdown on Making Billions with Ryan Miller — and fund managers ready to implement join the Fund Raise Capital community of fund managers and deal syndicators learning first-hand from Ryan Miller, The Wolf of Alt Street.
Topics Covered in This Article
- Venture secondaries as a liquidity planning mechanism for fund managers and their LPs
- The 10 to 12 year DPI timeline problem and how venture secondaries address it structurally
- Step-by-step process for engaging venture secondaries buyers before a liquidity crisis emerges
- Power law dynamics and how venture secondaries buyers concentrate diligence on the top five percent of a portfolio
- Valuation frameworks for pricing venture secondaries positions in assets with no observable market
- The three blind men diligence approach to assembling a complete picture of a private company
- Fund documentation, reporting standards, and valuation policy decisions that attract or repel venture secondaries buyers
- How AI disruption is reshaping portfolio valuations and what venture secondaries buyers are watching in 2025
- Capital structure mistakes emerging fund managers make and how they affect secondary market attractiveness
- Sourcing venture secondaries deal flow through network relationships when no centralized exchange exists
Want More Frameworks Like This?
Every episode of Making Billions Podcast delivers institutional-grade capital raising strategy, fund structuring insights, and LP relationship frameworks used by the top 1% of alternative asset managers. If you are ready to take the next step, the team at Fund Raise Capital is standing by.
