$10 Million, $50 Million and $250 Million Venture Programmes: Direct Funds, Fund-of-Funds or Co-Investments?
The Goldman Sachs 2025 Family Office Investment Insights Report shows continuing interest in private equity exposure. Family offices remain active allocators to alternatives and private equity, even as allocations shift modestly. Portfolio structure should be planned because private-market investing is no longer a casual side pocket for many families.
Goldman reported alternatives at 42% of surveyed family-office portfolios in 2025, with private equity at 21%.
Funds, Funds of Funds, and Co-Investments Do Different Jobs
Direct funds, funds of funds, and co-investments solve different problems. Funds provide manager-led selection. Funds of funds provide broader access and administration. Co-investments give the family a choice at company level and may reduce fees, but they add concentration and require faster work. Most established family offices use a mix rather than forcing the full programme into one route.
| 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 exposure, and often lower economics | Fast company diligence and concentration control |
The $10 Million Programme
A small programme may be too limited to build many direct fund relationships at meaningful commitment sizes. A pooled vehicle or a small number of direct funds may provide better diversification. Co-investments should be selective because one $10 million company position could equal the entire planned programme.
At this scale, the family can spread commitments across several vintages and managers while reserving some capital for SPVs or co-investments. The main work is protecting the core fund programme from being crowded out by attractive one-off deals. The policy should set a limit for transaction-level positions and require look-through company reporting.
A larger programme can support direct manager relationships, specialists, secondaries, and a dedicated co-investment budget. It may also justify internal staff or an external adviser. Scale should be used to improve access and terms, not to write larger cheques into the same small set of companies.
How to Combine Them
- Use funds as the base: They provide repeated selection across companies.
- Use pooled access where it adds reach. Especially when direct manager minimums are too high.
- Use co-investments to add conviction: Keep company and sector limits.
- Add secondaries for timing: Later entry can change cash-flow and valuation risk.
- Set one cash plan: Combine calls from every route.
The structure should match the family's team and liquidity. More routes are helpful only when the office can compare and manage them as one programme.
Suppose a family wants to build a $50 million programme over three years. It might begin with two $10 million fund commitments, add a specialist manager in the second year, and keep the remaining capital available for a later vintage, an SPV, or a secondary purchase. The exact mix is less important than deciding in advance which part of the programme is meant to provide broad manager-led exposure and which part can be used for individual companies.
The plan should also anticipate re-ups. A successful fund relationship may return with a successor vehicle before the first fund has distributed much cash. If every new commitment is treated as a separate opportunity, the family can use the entire programme on re-ups and one-off transactions before it has built the diversification it originally wanted.
Match Structure to Portfolio Size
The calculation shows how the issue works in practice. At a $10 million minimum commitment, a $10 million portfolio can make 1 fund commitment, a $50 million portfolio can make 5, and a $250 million portfolio can make 25 before reserves or co-investments.
Goldman reported 42% alternatives exposure across surveyed family-office portfolios in 2025, so the structure question sits inside a larger alternatives decision.
A $250 million venture portfolio with 20% in co-investments or SPVs creates a $50 million deal-specific allocation. At $10 million per company, that supports 5 carefully selected positions before follow-ons, alongside the portfolio's fund and secondary exposure.
Portfolio Size and Structure Choice
As portfolio size rises, a family office can combine manager-led and access to individual investments within a more developed structure.
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 should manager-led and access to individual investments be combined? |
| $250M | 25 | How should funds, SPVs, secondaries, and co-investments serve different roles? |
SPVs, co-investments, and secondaries are routes to exposure. The real investment is the company, share class, rights, and economics underneath. Reporting, tax documents, reserves, transfers, and distributions can decide how usable the structure feels after closing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a $10 million venture portfolio use co-investments?
Yes, when the investment plan is intentionally focused: A single $10 million SPV or co-investment can provide substantial exposure to a specific company; a family seeking broader diversification can combine it with pooled funds or expand the portfolio over later vintages.
When does a fund-of-funds help?
When diversified manager access and external review are priorities: It can complement direct funds, SPVs, and co-investments within a broader family-office portfolio.
Related Reading
fund-of-funds vs direct funds, co-investment portfolio plan, and scale and allocation mix.