Public research

Insights

Short write-ups on how we think about PE pricing — free to read, no account required. For the full platform documentation and methodology papers, see Docs (free once you register).

Why most PE pricing models fail out-of-sample

Insight

The industry-standard age-curve model looks reasonable in-sample -- and fails the same overfitting test quant funds run before trusting a strategy with real capital.

Read →

Where our pricing accuracy is strongest -- and where to lean on the range

Insight

One aggregate verdict hides real variation. A published, fund-group breakdown of held-out accuracy, and why two specific groups deserve extra caution.

Read →

How we measure whether a fund actually beat the market

Insight

TVPI and IRR alone don't say whether a fund beat public markets over the same dated cashflows. KS-PME and Direct Alpha do -- here's what they are and how we compute them.

Read →

How accurate is Buyout pricing at year 4-6, specifically?

Insight

Our published Buyout accuracy blends ages 4-9. Split out just the youngest slice -- the age band with the least realized track record, and the one most secondaries deals actually happen in -- and both models get measurably harder to trust.

Read →

What our Buyout price says at year 4, 5, and 6 -- checked against the dealer desks

Insight

Secondaries intermediaries publish an average Buyout clearing price twice a year. We priced the same snapshot at the youngest ages and lined our two models up against it.

Read →

A real $300m Buyout secondary, priced our way

Insight

A FTSE 250 PE vehicle disclosed the exact price it sold young Buyout fund stakes for. Here's how that real transaction compares to the published survey and to our own models.

Read →

How accurate are our models, really?

Insight

There isn't one accuracy number -- there are four, one per pricer, each earned a different way. Out-of-sample verdicts, AEPC, Welch's t-tests on whether one model is actually statistically more accurate than another (per-fund and portfolio-level), and the calibration story behind Equisect Ledger.

Read →

Does the projected J-curve actually look like history?

Insight

A real pricing edge and a well-shaped projection are different claims. Four path- and distribution-fidelity checks, scored across all five models on the same held-out funds -- and no model wins on all four.

Read →

What CalPERS, UC, and Oregon's own numbers say about beating a PE benchmark

Insight

Three of the largest institutional PE programs in the country publish their own value-added-vs-benchmark numbers. They don't agree with each other -- and one openly admits to 25 years of underperformance before a strategy overhaul.

Read →

What required return should you actually enter?

Insight

The input that moves your price more than any model choice does -- and the one number we can't pick for you. Paying full NAV earns the median fund roughly 0% a year, so the question was never whether to discount, only how much.

Read →

Pricing Revolut's ELTIFs: replica portfolios vs the 1.00x NAV quote

Insight

Revolut's four evergreen ELTIFs quote at 1.00x NAV -- a manager's mark, not a market price. We rebuilt each one sleeve by sleeve from its disclosed private/liquid mix, priced the private sleeves from real warehouse funds, and published the P25-P50-P75 band: 0.40-0.85x, with Ares reported as out of model coverage.

Read →