Revolut put four evergreen ELTIFs in front of 75M users. We rebuilt each one sleeve by sleeve and priced it.
Since late July, Revolut has offered Hamilton Lane, Apollo, Ares and Partners Group ELTIFs from €1 — and the price you see in the app is a NAV, a manager's mark, not a market price. An ELTIF has no exchange, no quote, no last trade. So we asked a different question: what would these funds actually be worth if each sleeve were priced independently, the way we price real warehouse funds? The answer for every fund we can model is a P25–P50–P75 band that sits below the 1.00x NAV quote.
What an ELTIF is made of
Each fund is a blend of private sleeves (direct or fund-level buyout, growth, infrastructure and secondaries exposure, valued on the manager's own books) and a liquid sleeve (cash, money-market and liquid bonds — the one part that actually has an observable price and trades at par). The private/liquid split is disclosed, so a faithful replica preserves it:
| Fund (ISIN) | Private assets | Liquid sleeve | Disclosed sleeve mix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hamilton Lane Private Market Access (LU3008566245) | 80% | 20% | Buyout 40–70%, Growth/VC 15–30%, Infrastructure 10–30%, Opportunistic 0–20%; direct/co-invest 30–60%, secondaries 20–40% |
| Apollo Global Private Markets (LU3170240538) | 85% | 15% | ~85% in target investments (secondaries + co-investments), balance as liquidity reserve; Buyout ~80% / other ~20% |
| Partners Group PE Opportunities (LU2716886796) | 85%1 | 15%1 | Direct investments + secondary fund investments, Europe & North America |
| Ares European Strategic Income (LU3227875377) | ~70–80% | ~20–30% | Private credit: directly originated senior-secured floating-rate loans (70–80%), rest high-yield bonds + liquidity |
1 Partners Group doesn't publish an explicit liquid share; ELTIF 2.0 requires ≥55% eligible investment assets and comparable evergreen PE ELTIFs hold a ~10–20% redemption buffer, so we assume 15% liquid / 85% private and flag it as an assumption.
How the replica is built
For each of the three funds we can price, every private sleeve is populated with real, named, mid-life funds from our warehouse (the same priced-fund table the product ships) — matching the ladder of active vintages an evergreen actually holds. Each sleeve's target weight is that sleeve's share of the ELTIF; the sleeve's published P25/P50/P75 (our standard 15% required-return convention, out-of-sample validated) contributes weight × sleeve price to the whole fund, and the liquid sleeve blends in at 1.0x. A sleeve weight is not a price — Apollo's fund, for example, is 85% private sleeves pricing at 0.62x at P50, so they contribute 0.85 × 0.62 ≈ 0.53x, and the 15% liquid sleeve adds 0.15 at par for a whole-fund P50 of 0.68x.
The bands
| Fund | Private band (P25/P50/P75) | + Liquid at par | Whole-ELTIF price (P25/P50/P75) | vs 1.00x NAV quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hamilton Lane PMA | 0.31 / 0.55 / 0.75 | 20% @ par | 0.44 / 0.64 / 0.80 | −36% at P50 |
| Apollo Global Private Markets | 0.36 / 0.62 / 0.82 | 15% @ par | 0.45 / 0.68 / 0.85 | −32% at P50 |
| Partners Group PE Opportunities | 0.30 / 0.54 / 0.76 | 15% @ par | 0.40 / 0.61 / 0.79 | −39% at P50 |
| Ares European Strategic Income | — | — | Out of model coverage | Not priced |
Bands are model outputs at Equisect's standard 15% required-return
convention, computed from the warehouse funds that stand in for each sleeve. The
P25 figures are the lower edge of the fair-value band; the fair point is P50
(0.61–0.68x). Ares is private credit, which falls outside the cohorts we price —
we report it as out of coverage rather than faking it with an equity proxy.
Reproduce every figure in this table with
python scripts/revolut_eltif_projection.py, which reads the same
shipped active_funds.csv the product prices from.
What this means
The discount lives entirely in the private sleeve: liquid assets genuinely trade at par, so the whole-ELTIF gap is simply the private sleeve's gap scaled by the private share — the more liquid a fund, the closer to 1.0x it prices. That's structural, not a quirk of any one manager.
The 1.00x entry NAV retail buys is not a price discovered by trading; it's an appraisal by the party selling the asset. Institutions pay for independent private fund pricing precisely because nobody trusts a single number from the seller — the retail investors Revolut just onboarded deserve the same check. This isn't an argument that ELTIFs are bad products; it's an argument that access without pricing is access at the seller's price.
Sleeve mixes are representative, documented assumptions consistent with each fund's disclosed strategy — not the funds' actual (undisclosed) holdings. Research and software, not investment advice.
Reproduce these numbers: python scripts/revolut_eltif_projection.py
Every model figure on this page is regenerated by that command from the same
artifacts the product prices from — so it can be checked, not just
cited.