0.65% and 10% is cheap for a buyout fund. New Hampshire is not buying a buyout fund.

New Hampshire committed $150 million in December 2025 to a co-investment vehicle run for it alone, at 0.65% on committed capital and 10% carried interest. Its consultant's report calls that "significantly below the industry standard of 2% for direct primary commitments", and the staff memo repeats it. A direct primary fund is a different vehicle. The same consultant's own published study puts fund-of-funds vehicles at 0.76% and says the secondaries and co-investment sleeves charge 5% or 10% carry. The terms are good for their type. What sits around them is where the report gets more interesting.

Key numbers, and what they mean

0.65%

On committed capital during the investment period, then declining annually to 75% of the prior year's rate, with 10% carried interest over an 8% compounded preferred return. Terms for the 2026 series, dated 1 December 2025.

0.76%

The average investment-period management fee for fund-of-funds vehicles in the same consultant's 2024 fees and terms study of 413 partnerships, published fifteen months earlier. That study gives no separate management fee for co-investment vehicles, so this is the nearest published comparable rather than an exact one.

19.5x

The average entry multiple of EBITDA in the 2021 series, against a PitchBook median of 6.4 times. The consultant flags the gap. What a manager pays going in moves a co-investment result further than seventy basis points of fee ever will.

0% to 14%

The share of capital placed in BlackRock's own funds across the three prior series. The consultant suggests New Hampshire consider restricting it. Net internal rate of return ranked third quartile in all three of those series.

Asset mix, June 2025

Global equity49.7%

Fixed income23.0%

Alternative investments17.3%

Real estate8.3%

Its own labels, from the allocation table in its annual investment report. The four lines sum to 98.3% rather than 100%, and the report does not say what the remaining 1.7% is. Infrastructure carries a 5% target and stands at zero.

The read-through

From the report

Takeaway: how to apply it to a portfolio

The consultant's December 2025 report: the fee is "significantly below the industry standard of 2% for direct primary commitments. Additionally, carried interest is 10% or half of the industry standard". Its own August 2024 study of 413 partnerships: fund-of-funds management fees average "0.76% during the investment period", and "the secondaries and co-investments sleeves will charge 5% or 10%".

When you are told a fee is below market, ask which market, and make them name the comparable vehicle type in writing. A co-investment vehicle measured against a buyout primary will always look cheap. Measured against the nearest published comparable, a fund-of-funds average rather than a co-investment one, 0.65% is about eleven basis points better, and 10% carry sits at the top of the range that study gives for co-investment sleeves.

The same report gives the general partner catch-up twice and differently: not applicable in the one-page terms box near the front, and 100% in the summary of key terms thirty pages later. The partnership agreement was still to be negotiated when the committee voted, so neither figure was final.

A terms summary is not the agreement, and where two summaries of the same fund disagree, neither of them is the term. Ask which document each figure came from, ask which terms are still open at the moment you are asked to commit, and get the executed clause afterwards. A 100% catch-up means the manager takes everything above the hurdle until it has reached its full share, which is ordinary rather than generous, and it is the difference between a waterfall worth having and one worth very little.

The management fee offset is zero, so deal fees the manager receives are not credited back. The consultant flags average entry pricing of 19.5 times EBITDA in the 2021 series against a PitchBook median of 6.4 times, notes the share of capital placed in BlackRock's own funds rising from zero to 14% across the three series, and suggests considering a restriction. Net internal rate of return ranked third quartile in all three.

Fee-efficient is a claim about one layer, and the layers beside it move a result further. Ask three things the fee schedule will not answer: whether deal fees the manager receives are credited back to you, what multiple it is paying at entry against the market for the same period, and what share of your capital it may place in vehicles it also manages. Then ask for the quartile ranking, because a good fee on a third-quartile result is not a saving.

The Argus lensA fee rate is one cell in a table, and in this report one of the other cells is printed two different ways. The vehicle type, the offset, the price paid at entry and the conflicts policy decide what you actually keep. Reading the whole table, benchmarking it against comparable funds rather than against folklore, and then reading the agreement behind it, is the work we do. Benchmark your deals in the Portal →

About the source

The terms come from the consultant's report of 1 December 2025 and the chief investment officer's memo of 8 December 2025, both in the public materials packet for the Independent Investment Committee meeting of 16 December 2025, at which the committee voted the $150 million commitment subject to contract and legal review. The report carries the terms twice, in a one-page box near the front and in a fuller summary of key terms later, and the two do not agree on the catch-up. The entry pricing, the affiliated-fund share and the quartile rankings are from the same report. The market comparison figures come from the same consultant's 2024 private equity fees and terms study, published 27 August 2024 and covering 413 partnerships representing fund offerings in the market from 2018 to 2024. Plan size and the asset mix are from the comprehensive annual investment report for the year ended 30 June 2025.

View the source →