How Purpose and Team Capacity Shape the Mix
Each route addresses a different part of the work. A direct fund leaves company selection with its manager. A fund of funds can widen manager access and combine reports and administration. Co-investments add exposure to known companies. Programme size and team capacity influence how these routes fit together.
Many family offices already hold a large share of their portfolios in private investments. The Goldman Sachs 2025 Family Office Investment Insights Report shows how significant that share can be.
Goldman found that alternatives were 42% of surveyed portfolios in 2025, with private equity at 21%. Venture adds to those wider private holdings, so its size affects the family's total exposure as well as the venture programme itself.
Three Routes, Three Different Responsibilities
Direct funds give the family manager-led selection. Funds of funds can widen access and consolidate administration. Co-investments allow company choice and may lower blended fees, but they demand faster work and create concentration.
An established programme may use all three, provided each route has a defined role. Otherwise, the structures simply compete to absorb whichever capital is currently available.
| Route | What the family gets | What the family must provide |
|---|---|---|
| Direct funds | Manager skill, portfolio diversification, and a long-term relationship | Fund diligence, re-up decisions, and capital-call planning |
| Fund of funds | Broader manager access and consolidated administration | An extra fee layer and look-through review |
| Co-investments | Company choice, larger stakes, and often lower fees | Fast company diligence and concentration control |
At $10 Million, Every Cheque Shapes the Programme
A small allocation cannot support many direct relationships at meaningful size. A pooled route or a focused group of funds may provide more useful diversification. A single $10 million co-investment, by contrast, would make the entire programme dependent on one company.
At $50 Million, One Deal Can Compete With the Core
The family can spread commitments across years and leave some cash for SPVs. A large single deal may use money intended for the core managers. A deal limit and a combined record of company holdings make that trade-off visible.
At $250 Million, Scale Justifies Specialisation
A larger programme can back core managers and specialists, buy secondaries and make co-investments. It may also cover the cost of an internal team. These resources can improve access, though bigger stakes in the same firms still increase concentration.
How the Routes Work Together
- Funds can form the base when the programme relies on a manager's repeated selection of companies.
- Pooled access can widen the choice of managers when their direct minimums are too high for the family's budget.
- Co-investments add companies the family has a strong reason to own, while company and sector limits constrain the resulting concentration.
- Secondaries can change timing and valuation risk by allowing entry later in an investment's life.
- Calls from funds, pooled vehicles and co-investments draw on the same family cash. A combined schedule reveals when those demands overlap.
The family's team, cash needs and generational investment horizon shape the mix. Each added route also creates holdings that the office has to understand within one programme.
Suppose a family builds $50 million over three years. It could begin with two fund commitments of $10 million and add a specialist in year two. The remaining capital preserves a later vintage or a selected SPV.
Broad fund holdings and single-company stakes create different risks. Future commitments to existing managers add another demand on cash because a strong manager may raise again before its first fund returns much money.
What the Programme's Dollar Size Makes Possible
With a $10 million fund minimum, a $10 million programme supports 1 relationship. A $50 million programme supports 5, while $250 million supports 25 equal commitments before any reserve or co-investment allocation.
Goldman reported 42% alternatives exposure among surveyed family offices in 2025. Venture shares that pool with other assets, which affects how much room it has to grow.
A 20% co-investment share of a $250 million venture programme provides a $50 million company budget. At $10 million each, it supports 5 positions before follow-ons. The remainder can be spread across funds.
Portfolio Size and Structure Choice
As the portfolio grows, the family can hold funds and choose some deals on its own. More staff and clearer roles help it manage that mix.
View portfolio structure assumptions
| Portfolio size | Equal $10M allocations | Illustrative structure question |
|---|---|---|
| $10M | 1 | Which specialist fund, SPV, or specific transaction best matches the investment plan? |
| $50M | 5 | How do manager-led funds combine with access to individual investments? |
| $250M | 25 | What different roles do funds, SPVs, secondaries and co-investments serve? |
SPVs and secondaries are routes to exposure. The real investment lies in the company and security underneath. After closing, reporting rights and transfer limits determine how usable the structure remains.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a $10 million venture portfolio use co-investments?
Co-investments can give a $10 million portfolio focused exposure to one company. Smaller deals or pooled funds can spread that capital more broadly.
When does a fund of funds help?
A fund of funds helps when access to managers and combined administration matter more than controlling each relationship. It can also sit beside selected direct funds.