The Latest
SPVs vs. Direct Investment. Tailoring Your Approach to Venture Capital Deal Flow
For family offices building exposure to venture capital and growth-stage companies, one of the most fundamental decisions involves how to structure participation. Should you invest directly, acquiring shares in your own name and managing positions individually? Or should you participate through Special Purpose Vehicles that pool capital from multiple investors? The answer, as with most sophisticated investment questions, isn't universal—it depends on your specific circumstances, objectives, and resources.
Understanding the trade-offs between direct investment and SPV participation, and knowing when each structure makes sense, has become an essential competency for family offices navigating private markets. The optimal approach often involves using both structures strategically, selecting the right vehicle for each opportunity based on its specific characteristics and your broader portfolio objectives.
Understanding Special Purpose Vehicles
A Special Purpose Vehicle is a legal entity created for a specific, limited purpose—in this case, to hold an investment in a particular private company. Multiple investors contribute capital to the SPV, which then makes a single investment into the target company. From the company's perspective, they have one shareholder (the SPV) rather than many individual investors, simplifying their cap table management.
SPVs typically take the form of limited liability companies or limited partnerships, with a manager or general partner handling administrative responsibilities. The SPV doesn't conduct business in any traditional sense—it exists solely to hold the investment, receive any distributions or proceeds, and pass them through to the underlying investors.
This structure has become increasingly common in venture capital deal flow for several practical reasons. Companies prefer limiting the number of shareholders on their cap tables, particularly for smaller investors who might individually fall below minimum check sizes. SPVs aggregate these smaller commitments into a single, larger investment that meets company minimums while giving the company a single point of contact for administrative matters.
For investors, SPVs provide access to opportunities that might otherwise be unavailable. Many of the most sought-after private companies set minimum investment thresholds—often $250,000, $500,000, or even $1 million—that exceed what many family offices want to commit to a single position. SPVs allow participation at lower commitment levels while still gaining exposure to these premium opportunities.
The Case for Direct Investment
Despite the proliferation of SPVs, direct investment remains the preferred structure for many family offices, particularly those making larger commitments or prioritizing control and simplicity.
Simplicity and Control: Direct investment means you own shares directly, with no additional legal entity between you and the company. This directness simplifies everything from understanding your position to managing tax reporting to executing exit transactions. You control decisions about if and when to sell, without requiring coordination with other SPV investors or manager approval.
Information Rights: Direct shareholders typically receive information rights directly from the company—annual financial statements, operational updates, and potentially board observer rights or other governance participation. These information rights flow to you personally rather than being mediated through an SPV manager who may or may not pass through all information promptly.
Cost Efficiency: Direct investment eliminates the costs associated with SPV formation and management. While these costs may be modest in percentage terms, particularly for larger investments, they're nonetheless an additional expense that direct investment avoids. Over multiple investments, these saved costs compound meaningfully.
Exit Flexibility: When liquidity opportunities arise—whether through secondary market sales, company tender offers, or eventual IPOs—direct shareholders can act independently. SPV investors must coordinate through the vehicle's manager, which may constrain timing or create friction in capitalizing on favorable exit opportunities.
Tax Simplicity: Direct ownership creates cleaner tax reporting. You receive tax documents directly from the company, file based on your individual circumstances, and don't deal with the additional complexity of pass-through entities. For international investors or those with complex tax situations, this simplicity can be particularly valuable.
Relationship Development: Direct shareholders build direct relationships with company management and fellow investors. These relationships can create opportunities for follow-on investment, access to founder networks, and deeper understanding of the company's evolution. SPV participation, by contrast, creates distance between you and the company.
The Case for SPV Participation
While direct investment offers clear advantages, SPVs solve specific problems that make them the superior choice in many circumstances.
Access to Premium Opportunities: The most fundamental advantage of SPVs is access. Many high-quality private companies simply won't accept investments below certain thresholds—they want to limit cap table complexity and prefer working with fewer, larger investors. SPVs enable participation in opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable, which matters enormously when the best companies generate outsized returns.
Diversification at Scale: For family offices wanting exposure to venture capital but unwilling to concentrate capital in individual positions, SPVs enable portfolio construction that direct investment makes difficult. You might participate in ten different SPVs at $100,000 each rather than making two direct investments at $500,000 each, achieving significantly broader diversification for the same capital commitment.
Risk Management: Committing $1 million directly to a single early-stage company creates substantial concentration risk. Contributing $100,000 to each of ten SPVs investing in different companies provides the same aggregate exposure with dramatically lower single-company risk. For risk-conscious family offices, this diversification may be more important than the control benefits of direct investment.
Professional Management: Quality SPV managers handle administrative complexities, tax reporting coordination, and ongoing company communication. While this management comes with fees, it also provides expertise and time savings that family offices may value highly, particularly when managing portfolios with dozens of positions.
Reduced Administrative Burden: Direct investment in multiple private companies creates substantial administrative complexity—tracking multiple cap tables, managing varied tax documents, coordinating with different transfer agents, and monitoring various information flows. SPVs consolidate much of this complexity, with the SPV manager handling company-facing administration while providing consolidated reporting to investors.
Access to Co-Investment Networks: Participation in well-managed SPVs often provides access to deal flow networks and co-investment opportunities that individual family offices might struggle to access independently. The SPV manager's relationships become your relationships, at least indirectly.
Factors Driving Structure Selection
Given the distinct advantages of each approach, sophisticated family offices think systematically about which structure suits which opportunities.
Investment Size: This is often the most determinative factor. If you're committing $2 million to a single opportunity, direct investment usually makes sense—you're above most minimum thresholds, and the percentage cost of SPV management fees becomes harder to justify. If you're committing $50,000 to $150,000, SPV participation may be your only option for accessing premium companies with higher minimums.
Desired Diversification: Family offices pursuing highly diversified venture portfolios—perhaps 20 to 50 positions—often rely heavily on SPVs to achieve that breadth without committing enormous aggregate capital. Those making concentrated bets on a handful of high-conviction opportunities lean toward direct investment.
Available Management Resources: Direct investment across multiple positions demands time and expertise for administration, monitoring, and decision-making. Family offices with dedicated investment staff and professional infrastructure can manage this complexity. Those operating with limited internal resources may find SPV participation more practical.
Relationship Priorities: If maintaining direct relationships with founders and company management is strategically important—perhaps because you're building a network in a specific sector or geography—direct investment facilitates this better than SPV participation. If relationships are less central to your strategy, this consideration carries less weight.
Tax and Structural Considerations: Different investors face different tax circumstances. International investors, in particular, often find certain SPV structures provide tax advantages relative to direct investment. Consulting with qualified tax advisors about optimal structures for your specific situation is essential.
Liquidity Preferences: If you anticipate wanting to exit positions opportunistically as secondary market opportunities arise, direct investment provides more flexibility. If you're content to hold until company-sponsored liquidity events, SPV participation's reduced flexibility matters less.
The Hybrid Approach
The most sophisticated family offices rarely choose exclusively between direct investment and SPVs—they use both strategically based on opportunity characteristics.
A typical hybrid approach might involve:
Direct investment for largest positions: When committing $1 million or more to high-conviction opportunities in sectors where you have expertise and want direct company relationships, invest directly.
SPV participation for portfolio breadth: Use SPVs to gain exposure to 15-20 additional opportunities at $50,000 to $200,000 each, achieving diversification that would be impractical through direct investment alone.
Structure flexibility based on terms: If a company you're excited about sets a $500,000 minimum and you want $300,000 of exposure, participate in an SPV rather than either over-committing or missing the opportunity entirely.
Relationship-driven exceptions: Make direct investments even at smaller sizes when the relationship opportunity justifies it—perhaps backing a founder you know personally or entering a sector where building relationships is strategically valuable.
This hybrid approach provides the control and simplicity of direct investment for core positions while using SPVs to achieve portfolio diversification and access opportunities that direct investment wouldn't permit.
Selecting SPV Managers
For family offices using SPVs, manager selection is critical. The quality of SPV management varies dramatically, and choosing poorly creates unnecessary risk and friction.
Track Record and Reputation: How long has the manager been forming SPVs? What's their track record across multiple investments? Do they have relationships that enable access to premium deal flow? References from other SPV investors provide crucial insights.
Regulatory Compliance: Is the SPV manager properly registered? For US investments, working with FINRA-registered entities provides regulatory oversight and investor protection that unregistered managers lack. This is particularly important for international family offices unfamiliar with US market practices.
Fee Structure Transparency: SPV fees should be clearly disclosed and reasonable relative to services provided. Setup fees, annual management fees, and any carry arrangements should be explicit and understood before committing capital. Vague fee disclosures signal problems.
Information and Reporting Quality: How frequently and thoroughly does the SPV manager provide updates? Quality managers provide regular reporting on portfolio companies, pass through company communications promptly, and proactively address issues as they arise.
Decision-Making Process: Understand how the SPV manager makes decisions about liquidity events and exit timing. While individual SPV investors typically have limited control over these decisions, understanding the manager's approach helps assess alignment.
Administrative Competence: SPV management requires handling tax documentation, distribution processing, and investor communications effectively. Managers who handle these administrative elements professionally add value; those who struggle with basics create frustration and potential liability.
Looking Ahead - Structure Evolution
The landscape of private market investment structures continues evolving. New vehicle types, from rolling funds to syndication platforms to tokenized securities, are emerging. However, the fundamental tension between simplicity and access, between control and diversification, will persist regardless of how structures evolve.
For family offices, the key is maintaining structural flexibility. As your capital base grows, as your expertise deepens, and as market conditions change, your optimal mix of direct investment and SPV participation will shift. Building relationships with partners who can provide both direct investment opportunities and quality SPV access ensures you can adapt your approach as circumstances warrant.
The goal isn't choosing between direct investment and SPVs—it's using both thoughtfully to construct portfolios that reflect your specific objectives, resources, and risk tolerances.
Customization as Strategy
The question of SPVs versus direct investment reflects a broader principle that applies across alternative investing: there is no universal best practice, only practices best suited to specific circumstances. Cookie-cutter approaches that apply the same structure regardless of situation miss opportunities and create unnecessary constraints.
Family offices that succeed in private markets recognize that structure selection is itself a strategic decision, one that should be made deliberately based on the specific opportunity, your investment objectives, available resources, and broader portfolio context. Sometimes direct investment is clearly superior. Sometimes SPV participation is the only practical path to accessing premium opportunities. Often, the optimal approach uses both structures strategically.
The sophistication lies not in choosing one approach over the other but in understanding when each makes sense and having access to partners who can execute either structure professionally. Whether through SPVs that provide access to sought-after deal flow or direct investments that offer control and simplicity, the goal remains constant: building high-quality private market exposure aligned with your broader wealth strategy.
In private markets, flexibility is strategy. The ability to structure participation optimally for each opportunity—rather than forcing every investment into the same mold—is what separates sophisticated family offices from those still learning to navigate these complex but rewarding markets.