Sovereign wealth funds
National and sub-national sovereign investment vehicles deploying into direct private investments alongside or in place of fund allocations.
Institutional and sovereign.
Direct co-investment with bespoke structuring for institutional allocators, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, endowments, foundations, and insurance portfolios. Commitments at scale, structured to internal guidelines.
Who this is for.
The firm engages with institutional and sovereign allocators across the major categories of professional capital. The common factor is institutional infrastructure internal investment teams, formal allocation mandates, compliance frameworks, and reporting requirements that the firm's structure must accommodate.
Public pension funds
State, local, and municipal pension plans with private markets allocations, including co-investment programmes alongside their fund relationships.
Corporate pension funds
Defined-benefit and defined-contribution plan portfolios with private markets exposure as part of long-duration liability matching.
University endowments
Endowment offices with established private markets programmes, including direct co-investment alongside primary fund commitments.
Charitable foundations and trusts
Foundation portfolios with mission-aligned or mission-neutral private markets allocations.
Insurance company portfolios
Life and general insurance investment portfolios with private markets allocations structured against regulatory capital frameworks.
Development finance institutions
DFI portfolios deploying direct capital alongside the firm in transactions consistent with their mandate.
Multi-family offices acting institutionally
MFOs operating as institutional allocators on behalf of multiple family entities, with allocation processes mirroring institutional frameworks.
Why this fits.
Institutional allocators with private markets programmes typically deploy through three channels: primary fund commitments, in-house direct investment teams, and co-investment alongside trusted sponsors. Each has structural trade-offs and most institutions use a combination.
Primary fund commitments deliver scale and diversification at the cost of a double layer of fees, fund-cycle exit timing, and limited discretion over individual transactions. In-house direct investment delivers full control but requires the team, infrastructure, and deal flow to source and underwrite at scale. Co-investment alongside sponsors sits between the two: direct deal access on a per-transaction basis, with the sponsor's underwriting work and structuring as the foundation, and the institution deciding on each opportunity within its own framework.
Ladd Capital's model is built for institutional co-investment without the prerequisite of a primary fund commitment. The firm originates transactions, underwrites them, structures them, and takes its own principal position before any external capital is invited. Institutions participate on the same economic terms as the firm or on structured terms tailored to the institution's internal guidelines, agreed per transaction.
Access and minimums.
Institutional commitments begin at $1M per transaction and are typically structured at $5M and above. For commitments at $10M or above, direct cap-table positions are the standard approach the institution holds the position directly in the underlying asset alongside the firm, rather than through the SPV syndication structure used for smaller commitments.
The direct cap-table approach suits institutional allocators because it integrates cleanly into existing portfolio reporting infrastructure, supports the institution's own valuation and reporting cadence, and accommodates bespoke structuring requirements that may not fit a standardised SPV. The firm structures direct cap-table positions to align with the institution's internal guidelines on entity exposure, tax treatment, and governance arrangements.
For institutional allocators evaluating their first transaction with the firm, the engagement typically begins with a structured diligence pack on the firm itself track record, team, principal participation rationale, governance, compliance framework before transaction-specific materials are shared. This is the institutional onboarding sequence; it precedes any transaction commitment.
Bespoke structuring.
Institutional allocators bring specific structural requirements that the firm accommodates per transaction. Entity wrappers vary by allocator domicile and tax framework Delaware LP, Cayman feeder, Luxembourg SCSp, Singapore VCC, and equivalent structures across other jurisdictions. Tax treatment considerations include ECI mitigation for US-effective income for non-US allocators, treaty optimisation for cross-border positions, withholding tax planning, and FATCA and CRS compliance.
Governance arrangements are structured to suit the institution. Advisory board observation rights, information rights, side-letter provisions for confidentiality and reporting, and bespoke voting arrangements are standard. The firm's broader capabilities bench international structuring, tax, governance engages on these structures alongside the transaction underwriting itself; the structuring is not an external delegation.
US public pension
Wrapper: Delaware LP or direct
Commitment: $5M – $25M
Sovereign wealth
Wrapper: Direct or Cayman feeder
Commitment: $10M – $50M+
European institutional
Wrapper: Luxembourg SCSp or direct
Commitment: $5M – $25M
Asian institutional
Wrapper: Singapore VCC, Cayman, or direct
Commitment: $5M – $25M
Insurance company
Wrapper: Custom per regulatory framework
Commitment: $5M – $25M
University endowment
Wrapper: Direct or Delaware LP
Commitment: $2M – $15M
Charitable foundation
Wrapper: Direct or charitable trust feeder
Commitment: $1M – $10M
DFI
Wrapper: Direct, structured per mandate
Commitment: $5M – $50M+
MFO acting institutionally
Wrapper: SPV or direct
Commitment: $1M – $10M
Structures shown are indicative. The firm structures each engagement to the institution's specific framework; deviations from typical patterns are accommodated where the transaction supports them.
Diligence and decision process.
Institutional decision processes vary by institution. The firm accommodates the institution's framework rather than imposing a single timeline. Standard institutional diligence packs are prepared on request, including firm-level materials, transaction-specific underwriting, references, regulatory documentation, and side-letter precedents from prior institutional engagements.
The firm supports the institution's investment committee process directly IC presentation materials, principal availability for committee meetings, reference call arrangement with portfolio company management and the firm's prior counterparties, and structured Q&A through the institution's diligence period. Side-letter negotiation is part of the structuring work; common provisions include most-favoured-nation clauses, confidentiality terms, reporting requirements, and governance rights specific to the institution's framework.
Decision timelines accommodate the institution's internal process. Six to ten weeks is typical for a first transaction with the firm; subsequent transactions move faster as the firm-level diligence is already in place.
Reporting and administration.
Institutional reporting requirements are structured into each transaction's documentation. Quarterly reporting is aligned with ILPA reporting standards where applicable; performance data is structured to be GIPS-compatible for institutions that require it. Annual audited financials are provided where the SPV structure requires audit, and the firm coordinates with the institution's internal audit team where institutional audit cooperation is required.
Tax reporting is provided in the formats relevant to the institution's domicile US K-1 for US allocators, equivalent partnership reporting for other jurisdictions, withholding tax statements for cross-border positions, and FATCA and CRS reporting compliance. ESG and impact reporting is provided where the institution's mandate requires it and the underlying asset's reporting infrastructure supports it. The firm cooperates with the institution's regulatory reporting requirements Form ADV, AIFMD, FATCA, CRS, and other frameworks through structured information sharing as required.
The firm's economics.
The firm holds a principal position in every transaction shown. Cash co-investment alongside investors on pari passu terms, equity participation directly at the cap table, or carried economics above an agreed hurdle on investor returns. The form of participation is set per transaction and is documented in the engagement materials. Where the firm holds pari passu, the firm's outcome and the institution's outcome are the same; where the firm holds carry, the firm earns only above the hurdle.
The firm does not charge placement fees, ongoing management fees, or other event-based fees structurally common in fund and placement-agent models. The economic alignment is structural the firm earns when the institution earns, on the basis documented in each transaction.
Engage.
The institutional onboarding sequence begins with a conversation with the firm's Capital team. The first engagement covers the firm-level diligence pack, the allocator's allocation mandate and structural requirements, and the framework under which the institution would consider transactions. Transaction-specific materials follow once the firm-level engagement is established.