Private-Fund Access Is Uneven. Relationships and Preparedness Shape Who Is Invited.

Access is a relationship, not a ticker

In public markets, a qualifying investor can usually buy a listed share through a brokerage account. In private funds, an invitation is typically required, documents are delivered privately, and the manager decides whom to accept.

Concentration of fundraising is one way that this becomes visible. In 2024, Bain & Company reports, the ten largest funds accounted for 36% of buyout capital raised, 98% of buyout capital went to experienced managers, and 40% went to funds of US$5 billion or more. The average fund stayed on the road for about 20 months, compared with about 11 months before the pandemic; 38% of funds took two years or more to close, compared with 9% in 2019. Of those that completed a raise, 85% met or exceeded their target ^[1]. Meeting a target is a description of a completed raise. It is not evidence that a fund was oversubscribed, and it is not a reason to treat any particular fund as scarce or attractive.

Co-investment demand exceeds the invitations on offer

Alongside a fund commitment, limited partners often seek a co-investment: a direct interest in a company that sits beside the fund's own holding, typically with a different fee arrangement. Bain, citing a StepStone survey of 145 general partners conducted in September 2023, reports that co-investment volume had grown by about 30% since before the pandemic, that only about half of limited partners who wanted to co-invest were able to participate, and that general partners prioritise limited partners they already know and who can move quickly. The same survey put co-investment volume at about one-fifth of fund size ^[1].

Family offices, for their part, already use a mix of paths. In the UBS Global Family Office Report 2025, the 21% private-equity weight for 2024 was split between 11% in direct investments and 10% in funds or funds of funds ^[2]. That mix is a record of practice in a surveyed client sample. It is not a recommended split, and it is not a statement that a direct interest is available to any given investor.

Eligibility is necessary. It is not sufficient.

Legal eligibility, such as accredited-investor or professional-investor status under the laws that apply to a given offer, is a threshold, not a ticket. A manager can still decline an investor who is unknown, who cannot complete diligence or legal work on the manager's timetable, or who cannot make a commitment of the size the fund is seeking. For an investor crossing a border, those frictions sit on top of a second legal system, a tax and currency layer, and documents that are usually written for a domestic audience. Crossing Borders into U.S. Private Markets takes up that layer.

Past fundraising patterns are not an indication of future access, and they are not an indication of future investment results. Private-fund interests are typically illiquid for many years, transfer is restricted, and capital can be lost.

Preparedness is the work, not a product shelf

Being in a position to consider a private-fund interest, when one is offered, is a matter of preparation: knowing how a manager invests, being able to review documents with counsel, and having a way to act within a closed process. That preparation is a specialist, cross-border discipline: an adviser fluent in both markets, who reads managers as an owner would, and who can work in the investor's language as well as in the language of the documents.