How the venture capital liquidity crisis is redefining liquidity strategies for LPs and GPs

The venture capital liquidity crisis has intensified as extended fund vintages, slower exit markets, and valuation dispersion sharply reduce predictable cash flows for limited partners and general partners, pressuring balance sheets. Funds now routinely run 15 to 20 years before realizing marquee assets. Secondary transactions account for a growing share of distributions. ‘The asset class is just a lot more illiquid,’ investors observe. Therefore, managers deploy secondaries, co-investments, and fee concessions to engineer liquidity. Consequently, institutional allocators reweight toward platform funds and established secondaries specialists, while emerging managers struggle to attract fresh commitments and must compete on fee and access structures. For markets, this means slower capital recycling, higher due diligence, and tactical shifts in portfolio construction by institutional allocators.

Macro effects are visible across valuations, fundraising cadence, and portfolio construction. Because exit markets have slowed, mark-to-market and secondary pricing compress startup valuations materially. For example, a company once valued at 20x revenue received an offer at 2x revenue, a 90% markdown. As a result, limited partners extend fund horizons and model longer lifespans, shifting return timing and cashflow assumptions (TechCrunch reporting). “The asset class is just a lot more illiquid,” investors note, which explains greater secondary engagement.

Key market implications

• Fund lifespans and capital recycling: Funds now run 15 to 20 years, and managers model 18-year fund lives; therefore, LPs expect delayed distributions.

  Source: TechCrunch reporting

• Secondary market expansion: One-third of distributions last year came from secondaries, and secondary volumes surged by 151.3% year over year in H1 2024. Consequently, secondaries are core liquidity tools.

  Source: AVP Capital

• Capital concentration and strategy tilt: Established platform funds and secondary specialists attract disproportionate capital, illustrated by Lexington’s $22.7 billion close. Therefore, emerging managers face fundraising headwinds.

  Source: Lexington Partners

• Makena Capital
  • Response Strategy: Models an 18-year fund life and accepts longer holding periods.
  • Impact on Portfolio: Delayed realizations; willingness to retain marquee assets.
  • Market Implications: Normalizes extended vintages and shifts LP timing expectations.
• Lexington Partners
  • Response Strategy: Acts as a large secondary purchaser and reassesses valuations aggressively.
  • Impact on Portfolio: Accelerates liquidity for sellers but reveals valuation markdowns.
  • Market Implications: Increases price discovery and downward pressure on stale marks.
• Founders Fund
  • Response Strategy: Raised outsized capital and concentrates follow-on capability.
  • Impact on Portfolio: Greater dry powder allows selective follow-ons and reserves.
  • Market Implications: Drives capital concentration toward established managers and platform funds.
• Sequoia and General Catalyst
  • Response Strategy: Expand platform funds and emphasize co-invest and follow-on support.
  • Impact on Portfolio: Stabilizes portfolio companies through funding depth.
  • Market Implications: Encourages LPs to favor platform strategies over smaller funds.
• Emerging managers
  • Response Strategy: Offer fee concessions, co-invests, and court family offices.
  • Impact on Portfolio: Face fundraising headwinds and smaller allocation sizes.
  • Market Implications: Leads to manager consolidation and greater dispersion of returns.

Competitive positioning amid the venture capital liquidity crisis

Market consolidation has accelerated as firms prioritize scale and balance sheet resilience. Consequently, established managers leverage platform scale to offer follow-on capital and secondary liquidity solutions. Therefore, risk management has shifted from pure portfolio selection to active liquidity engineering, including secondaries, co-investment lines, and fee concessions. As a result, LPs reallocate to managers that deliver predictable capital recycling and governance oversight.

Emerging managers face compressed fundraising windows and must differentiate through niche sourcing or fee structures. However, this dynamic creates opportunities for secondary specialists and family office partnerships. “Today, secondaries are most definitely part of the toolkit,” one panelist noted, which underscores strategic normalization. In sum, firms now compete on access, capital durability, and execution cadence rather than solely on early-stage sourcing.

The venture capital liquidity crisis has redefined operational priorities for managers and allocators. Liquidity constraints prolong fund lifespans and compress exit valuations, therefore delaying cash returns to LPs. Consequently, firms now embed secondaries, co-invest structures, and fee concessions into portfolio strategy. Risk management emphasizes capital durability and execution cadence over pure sourcing prowess. Emerging managers must adapt through differentiated access models or strategic partnerships, or they will face fundraising headwinds. However, the shift creates niches for secondary specialists and for platform funds to scale governance and support. Investors should therefore prioritize managers with demonstrable liquidity pathways and operational discipline. Longer-term, market structure will favor funds that integrate liquidity engineering into product design. Prudent stakeholders will monitor valuation transparency and secondary market signals as leading indicators of systemic risk.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)