Evaluating Private Equity and Venture Capital as Institutional Asset Classes

Abstract

Private equity and venture capital are widely treated as asset classes within institutional portfolios, providing a convenient framework for allocation, reporting, and benchmarking. However, this classification masks substantial variation in underlying exposures, liquidity characteristics, and governance requirements across strategies. While institutional investors are generally aware of this heterogeneity, allocation and evaluation frameworks continue to rely on simplified labels, creating a persistent gap between how capital is categorized and how it behaves in practice.

This paper examines whether private equity and venture capital function as coherent asset classes, or whether they are better understood as implementation channels through which distinct exposures are accessed. By analyzing risk, return dispersion, liquidity constraints, and governance demands, the paper shows that outcomes in private markets are driven less by the asset-class label and more by strategy selection, manager access, and institutional capability.

Reframing private equity and venture capital as implementation channels provides a more precise foundation for portfolio design. It shifts the focus from category-based allocation toward exposure-based decision-making, improving alignment between investment objectives, portfolio construction, and realized outcomes. The paper concludes that while asset-class labels remain useful for communication and governance, effective institutional investing requires a more explicit understanding of the exposures they represent.

Key Implications

• Asset-class labels do not map cleanly to underlying exposures
  Private equity and venture capital are treated as coherent categories, but in practice encompass strategies with materially different risk drivers, liquidity profiles, and governance requirements.

• Variation within private markets is structurally significant, not incidental
  Differences across buyout, venture, growth, and distressed strategies can exceed differences between traditional asset classes, making aggregate allocation labels analytically incomplete.

• Manager selection and access drive realized outcomes
  Dispersion in private market returns is substantial, and access to top-performing managers is uneven across institutions, limiting the usefulness of asset-class level return expectations.

• Illiquidity is multi-dimensional and strategy-dependent
  Liquidity risk arises from duration, cash flow uncertainty, and exit timing variability, which differ meaningfully across strategies and are not consistently compensated.

• Governance capacity is a primary determinant of performance
  Outcomes in private markets depend on institutional capabilities, including manager selection, pacing, and portfolio construction, rather than asset-class exposure alone.

• Private equity and venture capital function as implementation channels
  These structures package different underlying exposures, and should be evaluated based on the exposures they deliver rather than the categories they represent.

• Portfolio construction should shift from categories to exposures
  Defining target exposures first and selecting implementation strategies second improves alignment between allocation decisions, portfolio behavior, and realized outcomes.

Keywords

Private equity; venture capital; institutional asset allocation; portfolio construction; illiquidity; governance; manager selection; return dispersion; investment strategy; asset classes; portfolio design; institutional investing

Recommended citation: Sing, C. H. (2023). Evaluating private equity and venture capital as institutional asset classes: Risk, liquidity, governance, and institutional portfolio design. Working paper.
Download Paper