Companion files

The Evergreen Fund Handbook

Perpetual Capital, Liquidity and the Semi-Liquid Fund

One Excel workbook, and it settles an argument the industry has been having without arithmetic. It is free. Nothing is gated behind a sign-up, and no email address is asked for.

The workbook

Download the ZIP22 KB

Or take the file on its own below.

The other four things it computes

What the sleeve costs. A 20 per cent sleeve earning 4.20 against a private portfolio earning 12.40 drags 164 basis points a year. Nobody collects it, it appears in no expense ratio, and it costs more than the management fee. It is the price of the redemption option, and Chapter 20 is right that it is the figure investors most want and most rarely receive.

What the share class costs. The same portfolio, on the same day: the institutional class nets 8.64 per cent and the retail class 7.55. A gap of 109 basis points, and 22 units of terminal wealth on a stake of 100 over ten years. Note the trap in the fee table — the retail class pays a smaller performance fee, precisely because it earned less.

What the PME hides. The conventional Kaplan-Schoar public market equivalent is 1.45×. Computed on committed capital, where the uncalled drag is visible, it is 1.14×. The standard measure overstates by 0.31 turns — a larger distortion than most of the methodological arguments it gets deployed to settle.

What the volatility hides. A 6.50 per cent standard deviation computed from appraised NAVs, with a first-order autocorrelation of 0.45, unsmooths to 12.96 per cent. The reported figure understates variability by half, and every Sharpe ratio built on it is roughly twice what it should be.

What to try first

Change the cash rate. It moves both sides of the comparison at once — the evergreen sleeve earns it, and the closed-ended investor’s uncalled capital earns it. Drop it to one per cent and the committed-capital argument swings hard back toward the closed-ended fund. Which is exactly what happened to this argument through the 2010s, and why it is a better argument now than it was then. Worth knowing which way the wind is blowing before building a pitch on it.

What the arithmetic does not settle

Two caveats, both of which cut against the evergreen fund, and both of which anyone using this argument will be asked about. A mature allocator does not leave uncalled capital in cash — distributions from earlier vintages fund later calls, and once a programme is self-funding the drag largely disappears; the comparison here describes an investor with one commitment, not a running allocation. And all of it assumes the evergreen fund’s gross return is the same asset return as the closed-ended fund’s. If the need for liquidity pushes it toward larger, more intermediated deals, the comparison shifts before any of the arithmetic begins.

Conventions used throughout

Amber fillan input — you may edit these
Grey filla formula — do not overtype these
Checks sheettwenty-seven controls, each stating its own verdict

Every figure is illustrative, as everything in the book is. What is not illustrative is the shape of the result, which holds for any plausible set of inputs. The workbook was verified by headless recalculation rather than by trusting the formulas as written; all twenty-seven checks pass.

Opening the file

The workbook opens in Microsoft Excel, LibreOffice Calc, Google Sheets and Numbers. It uses no macros and no add-ins, so nothing needs to be enabled or trusted. If your spreadsheet asks to update links on opening, decline — there are none.

Articles on this book

One of the calculations in this workbook, worked out in full. All articles.

Also by Julian R. Sterling

The other books with companion files. The full list of titles is on the author page.

These files accompany The Evergreen Fund Handbook. The book is on Amazon.

If this book helped — or didn’t — a few lines on Amazon are worth more than they look: they are what the next reader goes on. Write a review. The workbook stays free either way.