Alex Ambroz

And so the conservative marking into the continuation vehicle is in many regards beneficial to the private asset fund manager because then it can only go up.

If you are too positive when you push it into the continuation vehicle, it may help out in the short term, but it may hurt in the long term.

The key for the allocators though, is that, and then I've seen this myself and I've participated in this, is that you trusted, you committed, you backed this private asset firm

And specifically this fund that you committed to because of the quality of the analysis, the capability of the team that's investing, that's picking these underlying private asset companies.

And if they tell you, we think there is unrealized value that we want to hold on to.

We think there's more we can do here.

That's tough to argue with because you as an allocator are not a securities analysis.

It's a great analogy for it of we trust this fund, we trust this firm, we trust this team.

They've done great before.

The flip side, and this is where the love and hate for it is great.

We trust that there's more value that you as a private asset firm can wring out of this company.

And you're telling us what you sincerely believe is the reason for pushing it into this continuation vehicle.

But the other side of it is we could really use those distributions.

That's the other thing too, is that some of the larger brand name firms may say, you know, commit to the CV vehicle because this is part of our firm ecosystem.

And you're either with the firm ecosystem and everything that we're doing, or you're not.

And that can be very difficult when maybe the firm has a great brand and a great reputation, and they have that great reputation for a reason.

Extremely well said.

And that's exactly right.

And so therefore, it's very rare to see an LP suing a GP firm.

It usually only occurs if they think there's something egregious and where you knowingly give up future access.