Single or multi-asset? Choosing the right route into continuation investments
As investors gain more choice over how they access the rapidly evolving continuation market, the distinction between single- and multi-asset investments is becoming increasingly important for risk, alignment and long-term returns.
Authors
Continuation investments have evolved rapidly from a niche liquidity solution into one of the fastest growing and most dynamic segments of private equity.
Once viewed – and still too often derided in some quarters – primarily as a way for fund managers (General Partners, or GPs) to generate exits for their portfolios in more challenging markets, continuation vehicles are increasingly becoming an established part of the private equity value creation toolkit.
At their best, they allow high-quality companies to remain under consistent private equity ownership for longer, while giving existing fund investors (Limited Partners, or LPs) a liquidity option. At the same time, they enable both new investors and existing LPs who roll over their interest to access high-quality businesses with proven growth stories and additional upside growth potential.
But the continuation investment market is not a single, uniform opportunity set. Investors can choose from a range of access points, each with different objectives, underwriting characteristics and portfolio construction implications.
An important distinction is between multi-asset continuation vehicles and single-asset continuation vehicles. Both can play a valuable role, but they are designed to solve different problems and, as a result, offer different risk-return characteristics.
For investors, the question is no longer simply whether continuation investments deserve a place in a private equity portfolio. It is increasingly how best to access them.
Structure matters
The growth of continuation investments has accelerated materially. Total transaction volume reached a record $109 billion in 2025, according to Schroders Capital analysis of intermediary reports. This was ahead of previous expectations – and our latest analysis suggests this momentum is likely to continue, with our base case showing total investment volume more than tripling to more than $330 billion over the next decade.
Continuation investment market to triple in size by 2035
Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. Source: Preqin, Pitchbook, Jefferies, Greenhill, Evercore, Lazard, PJT, Schroders Capital, 2026. Includes buyout and growth strategies globally, excludes structured transactions and unfunded commitments (assumed 20%) in continuation vehicles. Forecast values calculated by forecasting buyout and growth NAV over time, then applying distribution rate assumptions, then applying the structural forecast estimates of continuation investments as % of PE exit value, fitted on values adjusted for market cyclicality using a sigmoid curve with saturation point at 13% in 2045. Preqin and Pitchbook Q3 2025 YTD data used to estimate 2025 buyout and growth NAV values. Assumptions: 50% of Preqin’s forecast NAV annual growth until 2030 (50% of Preqin’s forecast CAGR thereafter), distribution rate of 18% in 2026, then 20% from 2027 onwards. Forecasts and estimates may not be realised. The views shared are those of Schroders Capital and may not be verified.
This growth is sometimes described as a cyclical response to a weaker exit environment. That is only part of the story – in fact, our data suggests that it contributed just 9% of the record transaction volume in 2025. The longer-term trend is structural.
Private equity has always relied on extended ownership to realise value. Historically this meant sponsor-to-sponsor secondary buyouts, whereby one fund and fund manager sells a company to another. Continuation investments change that dynamic. They allow existing managers to retain ownership of businesses they know well, while bringing in fresh capital and offering liquidity to investors who want it.
This creates a more flexible ownership model. It can support a further phase of growth for portfolio companies, provide liquidity for existing investors without forcing a full sale, and potentially reduces the disruption that can come with a change of control.
As the market matures, however, structure matters more. Multi-asset and single-asset continuation vehicles may sit under the same broad umbrella, but they are not interchangeable. The table below highlights the key differences, which we will expand on in the coming sections.
Multi-asset | Single-asset | |
Primary objective | Portfolio-level solution | Extend ownership of a standout asset |
Underwriting focus | Portfolio companies | Individual company |
Diversification | Higher | Concentrated |
Quality of assets | Can be mixed, combining star companies with lower-quality assets | Typically high |
Liquidity profile | Typically earlier distributions | Greater focus on longer-term value creation |
Return profile | More diversified, often earlier DPI | Higher overall upside potential in selected assets |
Risk profile | Low, due to continued ownership and diversification | Low, due to continued ownership, quality of assets and alignment with fund manager |
GP alignment | Portfolio-level | Highly asset-specific |
Multi-asset: portfolio solutions with earlier liquidity
Multi-asset continuation vehicles are typically portfolio-level solutions. They are often used for so-called ‘tail-end’ funds nearing the end of their term with a small number of remaining companies in which there is meaningful residual value, or for funds that are in their value-harvesting phase but that have generated a relatively low rate of distributions back to investors. Managers use these deals to accelerate liquidity to existing investors, while extending their value creation runway.
The rationale can be attractive. By transferring several companies into a new continuation vehicle, the manager can create a larger liquidity event than might be possible through a single company transaction. The structure can also help manage portfolios where some assets may be closer to exit, while others require more time.
For new investors, a key benefit is diversification. Exposure is spread across several companies, reducing single-company concentration risk – and, crucially, increasing the likelihood that at least one asset may be realised earlier.
The numbers prove the theory. Given the mature profile of the portfolios and the fact there are more underlying portfolio companies, multi-asset continuation vehicles have tended to generate distributions sooner than single-asset vehicles.
Multi-asset continuation investments exhibit earlier DPI
Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. Source: Evercore, independent continuation fund performance study by Professor Oliver Gottschalg’s team at HEC Paris. Returns shown reflect 1st quartile continuation funds. 1Preqin as of June 2026; includes North American and European buyout funds with available performance data.
This earlier liquidity can be valuable, particularly for investors seeking a shorter path to distributions. Multi-asset continuation vehicles can therefore be a useful portfolio construction tool, especially where the objective is to gain diversified exposure to seasoned private equity assets.
But diversification also brings trade-offs. Investors are underwriting a portfolio rather than one specific business. That means the investment case depends not only on the strongest company in the vehicle, but also on the quality, maturity and exit prospects of the other companies included.
In this respect, multi-asset continuation vehicles can share some characteristics with traditional LP secondaries. Investors may gain access to attractive assets, but they may also receive exposure to companies they would not necessarily choose to own on a standalone basis.
The underwriting exercise is therefore more portfolio-driven. It requires an assessment of the interaction between different companies, sector exposures, relative valuation, expected exit timing and the extent to which one or two stronger assets may be driving the overall return case. That can be attractive, but it is a different proposition from taking a concentrated view on a single, high-conviction company.
Single-asset: extending ownership of exceptional businesses
Single-asset continuation vehicles are built around a different investment thesis.
Rather than solving for a portfolio, they are designed to extend ownership of one company that the manager believes still has significant unrealised value. In the strongest cases, the company is not a residual asset that has not yet found an exit. It is a standout business for which the manager wants more time, and often more capital, to continue an established value creation plan and realise its transformational return potential.
This distinction is important. The traditional private equity fund model typically assumes a value creation period of four to six years. For some businesses, particularly those pursuing consolidation strategies, international expansion, product development or operational transformation, it may not be long enough to realise the full opportunity.
Our analysis of around 2,600 realised buyout investments suggests that more than 30% of buyout portfolio companies could be suitable candidates for continued ownership and value creation. This reflects the volume of investments that generated sponsor-to-sponsor secondary buyout-like returns in excess of 2x, with a return profile in line with continuation investments.
In other words, a meaningful share of private equity-backed companies may not require a new owner to continue growing. They may simply require additional time, capital and continuity.
That is why single-asset continuation vehicles are closer to direct buyouts than to traditional secondaries. Investors are underwriting one company, one management team and one value creation plan. The difference is that the asset is already known. The GP has owned the company for several years. The management team and sponsor have an established relationship. The operating track record under private equity ownership can be assessed. The next phase of the growth strategy is usually already underway.
This creates a distinctive underwriting proposition. Investors can conduct detailed, bottom-up analysis of the company and decide whether they want exposure to that specific business. They are not accepting a basket of assets.
Single-asset continuation vehicles can also create stronger alignment. The success of the transaction depends on one company rather than a collection of assets. The GP cannot rely on portfolio effects to offset weaker performance elsewhere, nor can it lock in the IRR hurdle through an early exit of one company while retaining others for longer. The manager’s conviction is concentrated in the same place as the investor’s capital.
Industry data increasingly reflects this distinction. While multi-asset continuation investments may generate earlier distributions, overall performance potential of single asset continuation investments is greater, with more mature vintages showing higher return multiples.
Single-asset CVs showing stronger upside potential than multi-asset CVs
Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. Source: Evercore, independent continuation fund performance study by Professor Oliver Gottschalg’s team at HEC Paris. Returns shown reflect 1st quartile continuation funds. 1Preqin as of June 2026; includes North American and European buyout funds with available performance data.
Buyout-like returns with secondaries risk
This all suggests that single-asset continuation investments occupy a distinctive position between traditional buyouts and broader secondaries portfolios.
On the one hand, investors gain exposure to a single company with buyout-style return potential. On the other, they are not acquiring an unknown business. Its performance, management team and value creation plan can all be assessed with a level of visibility that is often higher than in a traditional buyout.
This is one of the most important risk mitigants in secondaries investing. Investors are backing a known asset, with an incumbent GP and an established management team, rather than underwriting a new control transaction where the future relationship between sponsor and management still has to be proven.
Or, to put it another way, continuation investments in general – and single-asset continuation investments in particular – can offer buyout-like returns, with secondaries risk mitigation.
That can contribute to more predictable outcomes. Schroders Capital data on realised, continuation investments suggests that they have more normally distributed returns and a smaller tail-risk profile than traditional buyouts – and with significantly lower loss ratios.
Conclusion
Continuation investments are becoming an increasingly important part of private equity portfolios. But as the market expands, not all continuation vehicles should be viewed through the same lens.
Multi-asset continuation vehicles remain an important portfolio solution. They can offer diversification, earlier distributions and a practical way to provide liquidity across mature private equity portfolios. For investors seeking broader exposure and faster DPI, they can play a valuable role.
Single-asset continuation vehicles offer something different. At their best, they provide access to exceptional companies that managers know well and want to own for longer. They allow investors to underwrite one business, one management team and one value creation plan, while benefiting from the visibility that comes with an existing private equity ownership history.
That is why we believe carefully selected single-asset continuation investments represent one of the most compelling ways to access the next phase of private equity value creation. For investors seeking high-conviction exposure to high-quality businesses, with strong alignment and meaningful long-term upside potential, the route into the continuation investment market matters.
Authors
Témák