US venture AUM has grown substantially, but most of it remains in portfolio value. Only a smaller share is deployable dry powder. US venture capital AUM components from the NVCA 2026 Yearbook public data pack. 2025 values are $299.3B of dry powder and $1,077.7B of remaining value.
US Venture AUM: Dry Powder Versus Remaining Value
US venture AUM has grown substantially, but most of it remains in portfolio value. Only a smaller share is deployable dry powder.
View chart data and assumptions
| Category | Dry powder | Remaining value |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 100.73$B | 278.37$B |
| 2018 | 131.66$B | 378.01$B |
| 2020 | 171.93$B | 625.95$B |
| 2021 | 225.2$B | 1014.58$B |
| 2023 | 318.21$B | 908.68$B |
| 2025 | 299.32$B | 1077.66$B |
What Obligation Must the Portfolio Meet?
Venture creates a long-term claim on an institution's cash. Funds often call money before returning it, while pensions, endowments and foundations continue to pay benefits, grants or other bills. The commitment schedule and cash plan connect those competing demands through strong and weak markets.
Funds, co-investments, secondaries and direct stakes create different kinds of work. All use the same pool of cash and staff time, so the institution's capacity affects the mix it can sustain.
Why One Fund Commitment Is Only the Beginning
CalPERS' 2026 Private Equity Annual Program Review examines the programme as a whole and uses fund-level results as inputs. That is the useful perspective. An attractive manager may add little when the institution already owns the same stage and companies through other relationships.
Reporting makes the combined view difficult. CalPERS notes that GP reporting can arrive 120 days after quarter-end. The institution needs systems that can reconcile old valuations with newer cash flows and still explain the resulting portfolio to its committee.
Who Can Use Venture Capital?
Eligibility determines whether an institution can invest; cash needs and staff capacity affect whether the investment fits. The SEC's accredited-investor rules, for example, include several entity types with more than $5 million of assets or investments.
Each type of institution faces its own constraints:
- Endowments and foundations balance long-term commitments with spending plans and grants.
- Pension plans have benefit payments and formal approval processes. Venture sits within their wider effort to match assets with future bills.
- Insurance companies may face extra rules on capital and how assets match future payments.
- Sovereign and government-linked investors may combine financial goals with public policy and detailed governance rules.
- Smaller institutions may use a fund of funds, outsourced investment team, or specialist manager when they cannot build a large internal venture team.
These differences shape what can work. A large endowment team may manage a fund easily. A smaller institution may struggle with the same fund even if both meet the legal tests.
Venture Capital Requires Patient Capital
Cambridge Associates describes private capital as commonly tied up for 10 years or more. Extensions can add to the wait. Bills due during that period limit how much money the institution can leave in these funds.
Early returns may look weak because fees start before companies have had time to grow in value. Later marks may rise without producing cash. NAV and liquidity therefore tell different stories about the same portfolio.
Why Capital Calls Can Outlast Expected Distributions
A commitment is a promise to provide capital when the manager calls it. At year-end 2025, Carta reported that funds in its dataset still held 72% of 2025-vintage capital as dry powder. The share was 53% for the 2024 vintage and 35% for the 2023 vintage. The exact pace varies by manager and market, but the figures show how gradually a commitment may be invested.
Calls, payouts, unpaid commitments and likely re-ups follow different schedules. A combined cash forecast shows whether the LP can keep funding them through years with little cash coming back.
More Managers Can Still Leave Hidden Concentration
The manager list can look broad while the underlying companies remain concentrated. The NVCA reported that 487 megadeals represented 3.2% of deal count and 67% of value in the 2025 US market. When large financings absorb much of the market's capital, several managers can end up owning the same companies or relying on the same exit environment.
Company holdings, where disclosed, reveal overlap beneath the fund names. Stage and vintage totals show further shared risks. That view connects funds and secondaries held in separate legal vehicles to the same economic exposures.
Emerging and Established Managers Solve Different Problems
An established firm may bring a longer record and a mature reporting platform. An emerging manager may offer a narrower strategy and direct involvement from the senior investors. The portfolio's needs determine which advantage matters more.
For either type of manager, the people behind earlier returns matter, as does whether they remain on the team. The proposed fund size may change how well their sourcing works. Specific accounts from references can support that case more strongly than general praise.
Governance and Reporting Are Part of the Investment
The way a manager approves deals, reviews marks and handles conflicts shows how the firm works. It reveals who owns each task more clearly than a list of outside providers.
After commitment, reports explain changes in cash, cost and value. A price from a new funding round provides different evidence from a mark based on the manager's own model. Making the source clear helps the LP understand what changed and why.
The Investment Beneath the Vehicle
The company's prospects and the security's rights determine much of the investment's value. Entry price and future funding needs affect the return and possible dilution. The vehicle then shapes how those results reach the LP over the years it holds the stake.
This work applies to a conventional fund as well as an SPV. It remains necessary for a co-investment, growth investment or secondary transaction. The structure changes the investor's costs and rights, then affects reporting and concentration. Understanding the company remains the foundation of every route.
CalPERS: Changing the Allocation Before Changing the Deal Flow
In March 2024, CalPERS approved an increase in its total private-markets target from 33% to 40% of plan assets. Private equity moved from a 13% target to 17%.
The new target covered private equity, private debt and other private assets.
The committee raised the private-equity target from 13% to 17%.
CalPERS cited this historical private-equity result as part of its rationale.
The figures belong to CalPERS. They illustrate how strategy ranges and approval rules give manager choices a common basis. Co-investments and single-company stakes then sit within that wider plan.
Primary source: CalPERS, private-markets decision (2024). This public example makes no claim about a Frontierspace investment outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can smaller institutions invest in venture?
Smaller institutions can invest through routes that fit their cash and staff capacity. Direct funds, a fund of funds, an outside investment team or a specialist manager can provide different forms of support. Each still creates approval, monitoring and funding work through a slow exit market.
What is usually the hardest part of evaluating a venture manager?
The hardest question is often whether earlier success can be repeated. Sourcing and investment decisions show how the claimed advantage worked, while ownership and follow-on choices show how it affected returns. Net results complete that account. Brand names and company logos provide less evidence on their own.