Alex Ambroz

And that seems to be sticking to history.

So for the last 25 years or so, it's had approximately a decent, you know, 24% distribution yield.

And for the last couple of years, it's still around 22, 24%.

This is in stark contrast to private equity buyouts and to venture capital, where the distribution yield has dropped to low double digits, if not high single digits.

So number one, for all allocators, adjust the models to acknowledge the fact that the illiquid part of your portfolio is going to remain illiquid for longer than you thought.

100%.

And I would just summarize that to something you hinted at, which is why?

Why go public?

In the past, private firms would go public to raise capital, to help with their expansion needs, to help recognize the entrepreneurs that started the company financially.

But if you can get that in a secondaries market, because you're doing another series round for your private investment firm or your private company, and you can raise the capital and all the capital that you need on the private markets, then why deal with the hassle publicly?

As long as they demand it.

So if your assets are going to be illiquid for longer, then this illiquidity premium historically was based on a given understanding of a capital call and distribution schedule.

But if that distribution schedule is going to be pushed out longer and longer, well, then we should get a greater and greater return from it.

Otherwise, our IRRs are going to deteriorate over time.

Talk to me about private marks.

Oh, very controversial.

Very controversial.

Thankfully, most firms have very serious third-party valuation processes that they use.

And a lot of times, something that we see with a lot of allocators is they have a good understanding of the private investment company.

So the underlying companies with which they're invested in a venture capital or private equity fund, sometimes there's investments from other firms.