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 mandate-specific 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
Insurer general-account and separate-account portfolios with private markets allocations, structured to regulatory capital and duration requirements.
Development finance institutions
DFI portfolios deploying direct capital alongside the firm in investments
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 investments. 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-investment 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 investments, underwrites them, structures them, and takes its own principal position before any external capital is invited. Institutions invest on the same economic terms as the firm or on structured terms tailored to the institution's internal guidelines, agreed per investment.
Access and minimums.
Institutional commitments begin at $1M per investment 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 specific 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 investment with the firm, the engagement typically begins with a structured diligence pack on the firm itself track record, team, principal ownership rationale, governance, compliance framework before investment-specific materials are shared. This is the institutional onboarding sequence; it precedes any investment commitment.
Access at scale
SPV syndication
$1M+ floor for institutional
Direct cap-table
$10M+ typical
Direct position in underlying asset
Mandate-specific structuring per investment
Onboarding
Firm-level diligence pack precedes investment-specific materials
Mandate-specific structuring.
Institutional allocators bring specific structural requirements that the firm accommodates per investment. 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 mandate-specific voting arrangements are standard. The firm's broader capabilities bench international structuring, tax, governance engages on these structures alongside the investment underwriting itself; the structuring is not an external delegation.
Allocator type
Typical commitment
US public pension
Delaware LP or direct
$5M – $25M
Sovereign wealth
Direct or Cayman feeder
$10M – $50M+
European institutional
Luxembourg SCSp or direct
$5M – $25M
Asian institutional
Singapore VCC, Cayman, or direct
$5M – $25M
Insurance company
Custom per regulatory framework
$2M – $15M
University endowment
Direct or Delaware LP
$2M – $15M
Charitable foundation
Direct or charitable trust feeder
$1M – $10M
DFI
Direct or charitable trust feeder
$5M – $50M+
MFO acting institutionally
SPV or direct
$1M – $10M
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, investment-
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 investment with the
firm; subsequent investments move faster as the firm-level diligence is already in place.
Reporting and administration.
Reporting and administration.
Institutional reporting requirements are structured into each investment'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.
Institutional reporting
ILPA-aligned quarterly reporting
GIPS-compatible performance data
Annual audited financials
Audit cooperation with institutional teams
Tax reporting per allocator domicile
US K-1 and equivalent partnership reporting
Withholding tax statements
FATCA, CRS compliance
ESG and impact reporting where mandated
Regulatory reporting cooperation
Form ADV, AIFMD, and others as required
The firm's economics.
The firm invests in every opportunity it brings. We do not bring what we would not own.
Its position takes one of three forms. The first is cash co-investment alongside investors on pari passu terms, with the firm's capital at risk on the same basis as the investor's. The second is equity at the cap table, directly in the underlying asset, on terms structured for the investment. The third is carried economics, a share of investor returns above an agreed hurdle, paid only when investors receive returns beyond the threshold.
The firm does not charge placement fees, ongoing management fees, or other event-based fees that are structurally common
in fund and agency models. The economic alignment is structural the firm earns when the investor earns, on the same basis.
The principles behind this approach are set out in Why We Own.
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 investments. Investment-specific materials follow once the firm-level engagement is established. .