This article offers a practical decision frame against selling for cash or using NAV financing, with a focus on fund economics, LP after-cost proceeds, and simple governance steps that keep the process clean.
Market context
Exit markets stayed muted through 2023 as buyout exit value dropped from 2021–2022 levels, with IPOs the weakest route and Buyout-backed IPOs a small share of overall exits; a partial reopening in 2024 arrived unevenly by sector and region, leaving DPI lagging while TVPI held up on public comps.
Funds faced a straightforward trade-off: sell into thin liquidity and absorb bank fees, or distribute shares in kind, shift execution and tax to LPs, and crystallize fund-level economics at fair value.
From 2024 into 2025, GPs leaned on four liquidity levers: sponsor-to-sponsor sales, GP-led secondaries, NAV facilities, and in-kind distributions; with NAV financing scaling when public liquidity looked unreliable. For more details on private equity exit strategies, check out my article on the current exit mix.
In-kind distributions were most visible after sponsor IPOs with tight floats or limited bank appetite for large blocks; venture funds used them to avoid realized losses, and buyout funds used them where LPs could execute more efficiently or at lower cost.
What an in-kind distribution is
A fund distributes marketable securities to LPs pro rata instead of cash, typically permitted by the LPA at the GP’s discretion subject to “marketable” status, pro rata allocation, and applicable law.
The fund values the distribution at fair market value on the distribution date to set DPI and carried interest under the LPA, and delivers through DTC or custodians net of fund-borne distribution expenses.
Variants include partial in-kind with later sales, staged distributions to manage float, and registered versus restricted shares, with restrictions driving both the timing and the cost.
If you want to learn more about the roles and responsibilities of LPs and GPs, you can read my article on this topic.
Investment test and decision framework
Treat this as an expected value and governance decision. Apply three tests: fund-level economics, LP-level after-cost outcome, and governance risk.
Fund-level test
- Compare net proceeds today from a banked sell-down to the value of distributing and crystallizing fund economics at FMV.
- Inputs:
- Execution costs for a block or marketed secondary. Include discounts and fees.
- Market impact versus expected VWAP given float and ADV.
- Lockup status and legends. If restricted, distribution is often impractical until freely tradable.
- Carry crystallization. Does the LPA crystallize carry on in-kind at FMV on the distribution date? Model clawback risk if price declines. Check out this article on carried interest mechanics for more information.
- Preferred return and hurdle. Will deferring a cash sale impair or help meeting the hurdle? Read my articles on distribution waterfall and preferred return for.
- Recycle capacity. Cash sales enable recycling. In-kind makes recycling difficult.
LP-level test
- Estimate LP total cost and constraints. This often drives LPAC feedback.
- Inputs:
- Commission, slippage, and market impact to liquidate at scale. Many LPs are price takers in thin floats.
- Hedging and borrow availability if staging sales or using collars. Borrow can be scarce and expensive post-IPO.
- Tax profile. Cash sale at the fund produces distributed capital gain. In-kind shifts timing and sometimes character. Cross-border withholding and filings can be material.
- Compliance constraints. Some LPs cannot hold single-name equities. ERISA and ESG screens can force sales.
- Operational friction. Custody setup, fractional share handling, and settlement exceptions are common.
Governance test
- If the GP has a board designee, MNPI and blackout risk can restrict LP trading after receipt. Align with registration rights and issuer calendars. If the LPA requires LPAC consultation, run that process. See LPAC roles.
Core strategies: when and how to distribute
1) IPO-and-distribute
- Pattern: sponsor IPOs the asset, holds a large post-IPO position, then distributes after the lockup when shares are freely tradable.
- Works when:
- Valuation is high and float is fragile. A large sell-down would move price. Distribution spreads execution across LPs and time.
- The fund wants DPI and carry crystallization now. Carry is set at FMV on the distribution date.
- The LP base can handle block liquidations and hedging.
- Operational essentials:
- Distribute only freely tradable shares or ensure a clear Rule 144 path.
- Coordinate with the issuer to avoid blackout periods and minimize insider complications for LPs.
- Provide a clear packet: CUSIP, legend status, share count, and delivery schedule.
2) Partial sell-down plus in-kind residual
- Pattern: execute a marketed secondary for a portion, then distribute the residual pro rata.
- Works when:
- Bank appetite is limited. Blending reduces overhang without breaking price.
- LPs can execute the residual with bank liquidity support.
- The GP wants partial cash to de-risk carry and hurdle while passing remaining execution to LPs.
- Execution notes:
- Use shelf registration for selling holders to maximize LP flexibility post-distribution.
- Facilitate 10b5-1 plans where possible to reduce timing risk.
3) Registered secondary then distribute performance shares
- Pattern: sell most of the position via a registered secondary. Distribute earnouts, contingent value rights, or small residual tranches later.
- Works when:
- Contingent instruments are non-cash and not bankable.
- Positions are small and execution fees would be disproportionate.
- LPs can warehouse residual tails.
- Risks:
- Contingent instruments can strain LP systems. Document terms and timelines clearly.
- FMV at distribution drives DPI and carry. Conservative valuation reduces clawback risk.
4) Use NAV financing instead of in-kind
- Pattern: borrow against NAV at the fund or sub-portfolio level and distribute cash to LPs. No public shares distributed.
- Works when:
- Public liquidity is thin or volatile. Debt cost compares favorably to expected trading costs and price risk.
- The GP wants to avoid crystallizing carry at a volatile public mark.
- The LP base wants cash DPI over equities.
- Risks:
- Fund-level debt adds downside convexity through covenants and amortization.
- Cost of capital must clear the expected cost of public sell-downs over the next 12 to 24 months. You may want to check out this article on NAV financing analysis.
Key risks and cost drivers
Securities law and trading constraints
- Restricted versus freely tradable. Do not distribute restricted stock unless the LPA permits it and LPs can rely on Rule 144. Affiliates face volume limits and manner-of-sale rules.
- MNPI and insider status. Board designees create blackout exposure. Align distribution timing with issuer disclosures and windows.
- Registration rights. Secure a resale shelf to allow LP sales. Without it, large LPs may be forced into Rule 144 dribble-outs with worse economics.
Market microstructure
- Float and ADV. In-kind distributions push inventory across a concentrated LP base. If aggregate LP selling overwhelms ADV, slippage can exceed block fees.
- Lending market. Hedging depends on borrow availability and cost. Borrow is often scarce post-IPO. Option premia can be high in volatile names.
- Concentration. Some LPs will become 5 percent holders. Filing triggers and internal limits can force mechanical selling.
Tax and accounting
- Character and timing. A cash sale at the fund is a capital gain distribution. In-kind transfers shift timing and sometimes character to LPs. Cross-border withholding and filings can be burdensome.
- Basis allocation. Many jurisdictions set LP basis at FMV on receipt. Confirm local rules. Tax lot selection on sale affects realized results and reporting.
- DPI optics versus realizations. DPI rises on distribution while LPs still hold stock. Track DPI-cash separately in monitoring.
Fund governance and documentation
- LPA clarity. Define “marketable securities,” valuation at distribution, carry crystallization, and cost allocation. Tighten GP discretion where needed. See the fee structure and fund life cycle.
- Conflicts. If a board seat or rollover stake remains in another vehicle, disclose and seek LPAC input before distributing.
- Expenses. Define who pays for legal opinions, legend removals, and registration costs tied to distribution.
Operational mechanics
- Custody readiness. Third-party custodians have different cut-offs and onboarding. Plan for exceptions and rejects.
- Fractional shares and rounding. Set and disclose a rounding policy. Reconcile at the LP level.
- Communications. Provide CUSIP, share count, FMV, restrictions, and delivery timeline in a standard notice. Include issuer and bank contacts.
Short decision checklist
For GPs
- Are the shares freely tradable and outside blackout? Are legends cleared?
- What is the modeled cost and price impact of a banked block versus in-kind? Quantify both.
- Does the LPA allow in-kind on these terms? What is the carry and hurdle impact at FMV?
- Have we consulted the LPAC and disclosed conflicts?
- Do we have issuer cooperation and a plan for LP FAQs, custody, and timing?
For LPs
- Are we permitted to hold the security? If not, what is our sale timetable?
- What is our execution plan and all-in cost? Do we have borrow and hedge lines?
- What are the tax consequences in our jurisdictions? How will we track basis and lots?
- How does this affect DPI, liquidity, and reporting to stakeholders?
- Should we coordinate with other LPs or the sponsor for a banked block?
Conclusion
In-kind distributions transfer execution risk, tax timing, and operational burden from fund to LPs, and they can improve outcomes when banked blocks look expensive or illiquid.
Use a strict model: fund economics at fair value, LP after-cost proceeds, and governance risk, with carry crystallization and clawback scenarios included so decisions hold up under pressure.
NAV financing remains a credible alternative when public liquidity is unreliable and debt cost is competitive; choose the path with the highest LP after-cost proceeds and the cleanest governance.
LPs should publish an in-kind policy for their GPs that sets holding constraints, tax points, and preferred timing, and GPs should provide data and lead time so LPs can execute efficiently.
P.S. – Check out our Premium Resources for more valuable content and tools to help you break into the industry.
