Skin in the Game: How Much GP Co-Investment Is Meaningful
A sponsor contributing five percent of the equity sounds aligned until you ask where the five percent came from, and on what terms it sits alongside yours.
"The sponsor has skin in the game" is the most common alignment claim in this industry and one of the least examined. It is usually true in some sense and the sense matters.
The percentage is the wrong measure¶
A sponsor contributing five percent of the equity in a deal raising $2,500,000 has contributed $125,000. Whether that means anything depends on facts the percentage does not contain.
Against what? $125,000 from somebody whose net worth is $500,000 is a serious commitment. The same $125,000 from a firm managing several hundred million is a rounding entry. The percentage of the raise is identical in both cases and the alignment is not.
From where? If the acquisition fee is $200,000 and the co-investment is $125,000, the sponsor has contributed nothing from outside. The fee came from the offering proceeds — that is, from the investors — and the co-investment recycled part of it. The sponsor's genuine downside exposure is the difference, and here there is none.
On what terms? A contribution in the same class as yours, with the same preferred return and the same position on liquidation, is aligned. A contribution that carries a priority, or that sits in a separate class, is ahead of you rather than beside you.
What co-investment is actually supposed to do¶
It aligns the sponsor's incentive on the downside, and only there.
On the upside a sponsor is already aligned, powerfully: the promote means a good outcome is worth far more to the sponsor per dollar of contributed capital than to anybody else. That alignment needs no reinforcement.
The problem co-investment addresses is different. Without it, a sponsor faces a payoff that is asymmetric in the wrong direction: substantial upside from the promote, fee income regardless, and no personal loss if the deal fails. Co-investment introduces a cost to failure.
Which is why the source matters so much. Recycled fee income introduces no cost to failure at all; it simply relabels money that already moved from the investors to the sponsor.
Where alignment can come from instead¶
A sponsor without much capital can still be aligned, and it is unfair to treat co-investment as the only route. Three alternatives, each of which is written into documents rather than asserted:
A subordinated disposition fee, payable only after the limited partners have received capital and preferred return. This converts a transaction fee into a performance fee and costs the sponsor money in precisely the outcomes where investors lose.
An asset management fee charged on distributions rather than on revenue, so the fee stops when the distributions do.
A fee deferral during suspension, under which the sponsor stops drawing while investors are receiving nothing.
Each of these is rarer than co-investment and each is stronger evidence, because each has a defined cost in a bad outcome rather than a notional one.
Where co-investment sits in the stack¶
One further question, easily missed: is the sponsor's contribution in the same class as yours?
A contribution in the same class, with the same preferred return and the same position on liquidation, is beside you. A contribution in a class with a priority is ahead of you, which inverts the alignment the co-investment was supposed to demonstrate.
The sources and uses shows the amount; the class definitions in the operating agreement show the terms. Both take a minute to check and the second is the one nobody checks.
What to actually do¶
The purpose is not to catch anybody out. Recycling a fee into a co-investment is legal, disclosed and common, and a sponsor doing it is not doing anything wrong. The purpose is to know what the alignment actually consists of, so that "skin in the game" describes a quantity rather than a feeling.
The phrase is not the thing¶
Almost every offering asserts alignment and almost none quantifies it. That gap is the whole subject of this article, and closing it takes four numbers rather than a judgment: the dollar amount contributed, where the money came from, the class it sits in, and the acquisition fee it should be compared against.
All four are in documents you already have. None of them requires the sponsor's cooperation to find, and together they convert a claim into a measurement — which is the only form in which alignment is worth anything.
Primary sources
Every factual claim above is traceable to a filing, a rule or an agency publication. These are the ones this article relies on.
Questions readers ask
How much should a sponsor invest in their own deal?
There is no citable market standard and this site will not invent one. The useful questions are how much it is in dollars, what proportion of the sponsor's own capital that represents, where the money came from, and whether it sits on identical terms to yours.
What does it mean if the co-investment is funded from the acquisition fee?
That the sponsor has not contributed outside capital. The fee was paid out of the offering proceeds, so the money originated with the investors, and the sponsor's downside exposure is correspondingly smaller than the percentage suggests.
Is a sponsor with a small co-investment automatically a problem?
No. A sponsor early in its career may genuinely lack capital, and the alignment can come from elsewhere, including subordinated fees. What matters is that the alignment is somewhere and that you can point to it.
What terms should the co-investment be on?
The same as yours, in the same class, with the same preferred return and the same position on liquidation. A co-investment holding a priority is not aligned with you; it is ahead of you.
How do I verify it was actually funded?
Ask for confirmation that the contribution was made in cash at closing and appears on the closing statement. It is a reasonable request and an easy one to satisfy.
Read next
- SponsorsHow to Evaluate a Sponsor Before You WireIn a passive investment the operator matters more than the asset, because you are buying their judgment for years. Most of the work is documentary.
- SponsorsReading a Track Record: Full-Cycle Deals vs Deals Under ManagementA record of twelve deals with two completed exits is a record of two deals. The other ten are estimates produced by the person asking you for money.
- SponsorsThe Fee Stack: What a Sponsor Earns Before You Earn AnythingIndividually each fee in a syndication looks reasonable. The question worth answering is what the sponsor earns from a deal that merely returns your capital.