Evergreen Funds: Flexible Private Credit Fund Models & Structures
Evergreen funds
Author:
The Carta Team
Learn what an evergreen fund is, how these structures work, and the flexibility they offer for private fund managers and LPs.
What is an evergreen fund?
An evergreen fund is an investment vehicle designed without a fixed end date, allowing for ongoing contributions and redemptions. Unlike traditional closed-end funds, which have a set lifespan and require asset liquidation at maturity, evergreen funds enable ongoing investment and redemption, making them especially attractive in private credit investing and other alternative asset classes.
Investors can make new investments or redeem existing ones periodically, typically transacting at the fund’s net asset value (NAV), which promotes fair pricing and transparency.
Evergreen fund structures
Evergreen funds aim to balance investor liquidity with the long-term nature of private assets. Many evergreen vehicles use NAV-based models, where investor entries and exits are processed at the current NAV, usually calculated monthly or quarterly. However, it's important to note that not all evergreen structures transact at NAV; some series-model funds, for example, may have investors commit capital based on different metrics, similar to a traditional private equity fund.
To maintain stability, these funds often implement redemption limits—such as capping redemptions to a percentage of NAV per period—and may use gating mechanisms during periods of market stress. Some funds also incorporate hybrid features, like side pockets (separate accounts for illiquid assets) or flexible investment periods, to further align liquidity with portfolio needs.
Series model vs. runoff model
Within the wide spectrum of structuring options for private credit, evergreen funds typically operate under one of two models: the series model or the runoff model. These models are both very flexible and customizable, and they have various uses depending on a general partner’s (GP) and their investors’ needs.
In the series model, each individual investor subscription is allocated to a new “series” or tranche, with its own portfolio and performance tracking. This allows for precise attribution of returns and fees but requires more complex administration.
The runoff model, by contrast, pools all investor capital together, blending new and existing assets. This approach simplifies operations but can make it more challenging to connect an individual investor’s returns to the performance of specific investments within the commingled portfolio, as all capital is pooled together.
Comparing evergreen private credit fund models
| Feature | Series model (vintage model) | Runoff model (commingled model) |
| Structure | One legal vehicle with multiple internal vintages, more similar to traditional closed-end funds | One continuous fund without vintages, more similar to a hedge fund model |
| Capital-raising | New series launched over time; investors typically commit once and roll over to future vintages | Fund is always open to new investors who buy in at prevailing NAV |
| Investor onboarding | Investors are treated as subsequent closers within each vintage (pay catch-up interest); investments are typically made based on a predetermined valuation, not necessarily at the fund's prevailing NAV | Investors enter at NAV; no vintage-based treatment |
| Liquidity mechanism | Limited partners can opt out during windows near the end of a vintage’s investment period; withdrawals processed using realized assets and standard waterfall | LPs redeem through a runoff process: assets attributed to them are carved out and capital is paid out as those assets are realized over time |
| Redemption timing | Redemption opportunity limited to near end of investment period of each vintage | Flexible; redemptions processed over longer timeframes to avoid forced sales |
| Valuation needs | Less reliant on continuous NAV calculation; vintages may simplify valuation at entry | Frequent and accurate NAV calculation required for investor entry and exit |
| Administrative complexity | High: Manager must track and report multiple vintages separately within one legal structure | High: Redemptions require identifying and tracking sub-portfolios attributable to departing investors |
| Best-fit investment strategies | Income-generating credit strategies with predictable cash flows (e.g., short-term loans, interest-heavy assets) | Shorter-duration debt strategies or liquid credit markets where underlying assets can be sold or matured in a manageable timeline |
| Similarity | Closer to private equity fund /closed-end fund model | Closer to hedge fund/open-ended fund model |
The growing role of evergreen funds
Evergreen vehicles are increasingly favored by private fund managers and limited partners (LPs) seeking flexibility, ongoing capital deployment, and tailored liquidity. Their open-ended nature allows for continuous investment in private credit strategies.
Potential challenges and drawbacks of evergreen funds
While evergreen funds offer flexibility, they also present unique challenges that can make them difficult to manage.
GPs often face administrative and operational complexities. The continuous churn of LPs making new investments and redemptions requires a robust accounting and administrative infrastructure. This can be more burdensome than managing a traditional closed-end fund with a fixed set of investors.
Evergreen funds, especially those with smaller check sizes, can lead to a higher volume of data requests from LPs. This is because investors need to regularly track their contributions and redemptions, increasing the administrative workload for GPs.
Managing the liquidity of an evergreen fund can be challenging. GPs must balance the need for cash to meet potential redemptions with the desire to be fully invested in illiquid, long-term private assets. This can sometimes lead to suboptimal investment decisions or the need to hold a larger cash reserve.