managing-co-investment-reporting

name	managing-co-investment-reporting
description	Structures co-investment reporting with deal-level performance, fee/carry calculations, and co-invest program aggregate analysis. Use when reporting co-invest performance, tracking deal-level returns, or preparing co-invest summaries.
tags	["management","investor-relations-and-lp-reporting","investment"]
metadata	{"author":"casemark","practice_areas":["Investor Relations","LP Reporting","Fund Administration"],"document_types":["Management Report"],"skill_modes":["Management","Coordination"]}

Managing Co Investment Reporting

When To Use

• Preparing quarterly or annual co-investment performance reports for LPs
• Reporting deal-level returns (gross and net) on co-invest vehicles or SPVs
• Calculating fee and carried interest allocations specific to co-investment structures
• Aggregating co-invest program-level metrics across multiple deals
• Responding to LP data requests for co-investment track record or attribution analysis
• Reconciling co-invest capital accounts against the main fund

Inputs To Gather

• Deal data: Investment name, sector, entry date, exit date (if realized), cost basis, current fair value, and valuation methodology per deal
• Capital structure: Each co-investor's committed capital, called capital, unfunded commitment, and distribution history per co-invest vehicle or SPV
• Fee terms: Management fee rate (if any), carried interest percentage, preferred return/hurdle rate, catch-up provisions, and any fee offset or rebate arrangements [VERIFY against co-invest side letter or SPV LPA]
• Waterfall parameters: Whole-fund vs. deal-by-deal carry, GP clawback provisions, escrow percentages
• Valuations: Most recent NAV per deal, valuation date, write-ups/write-downs since prior period, and basis for marks (comparable transactions, DCF, third-party appraisal)
• FX data: Original currency of investment and reporting currency; exchange rates at entry, current period-end, and exit
• Benchmark data: Main fund performance for same deals (to enable co-invest vs. fund return comparison)

Workflow

1. Validate deal universe — Confirm the complete list of active and realized co-investments. Cross-reference against the co-invest register or SPV formation records. Flag any deals missing valuation updates or with stale marks older than one quarter.

2. Build deal-level performance table — For each co-investment, compute:

   • Gross MOIC (total value / invested capital)
   • Gross IRR (using cash-flow dates: calls, distributions, and residual NAV)
   • Realized vs. unrealized breakdown
   • Holding period in years
   • [VERIFY] that IRR calculations use actual cash-flow dates, not approximated quarterly midpoints

3. Calculate fee and carry — Apply the co-invest fee schedule to each deal or vehicle:

   • Management fees (often reduced or zero for co-invests — confirm per vehicle terms)
   • Carried interest allocation using the applicable waterfall (deal-by-deal or whole-program)
   • Preferred return accrual and catch-up computation
   • Net MOIC and net IRR after fees and carry
   • [VERIFY] waterfall mechanics against each SPV's governing documents, as terms frequently differ across co-invest vehicles

4. Aggregate program-level metrics — Roll up individual deal metrics into program totals:

   • Total co-invest capital committed, called, distributed, and NAV
   • Program-level gross and net IRR and MOIC (pooled, not simple average)
   • DPI (distributions to paid-in), RVPI (residual value to paid-in), and TVPI (total value to paid-in)
   • Sector, geography, and vintage year diversification summaries
   • Comparison of co-invest returns vs. main fund returns on the same underlying deals

5. Prepare LP-facing output — Structure the report with:

   • Executive summary of co-invest program performance and key movements in the period
   • Deal-level detail table with standardized columns
   • Capital account statement per co-investor (beginning balance, calls, distributions, ending NAV)
   • Footnotes explaining valuation methodology, FX treatment, and any material assumptions
   • Attribution of period-over-period NAV change (new investments, realizations, valuation changes, FX impact)

6. Reconcile and cross-check — Tie reported figures back to fund admin records and the general ledger. Verify that aggregate co-invest distributions plus NAV equal total value. Ensure net performance figures reconcile with fee and carry calculations.

Output

A co-investment performance report containing:

• Deal summary table: One row per co-investment with cost, fair value, gross/net MOIC, gross/net IRR, DPI, and status (unrealized/partially realized/fully realized)
• Program aggregate section: Pooled gross and net returns, total capital metrics (committed, called, distributed, NAV), TVPI/DPI/RVPI
• Capital account statements: Per-investor breakdown showing beginning balance, contributions, distributions, gain/loss allocation, and ending balance
• Fee and carry schedule: Management fees charged, carried interest accrued or distributed, preferred return status per vehicle
• Co-invest vs. fund comparison: Side-by-side return comparison on overlapping deals
• Period commentary: Narrative on new co-investments, realizations, material valuation changes, and outlook

Quality Checks

• IRR calculations use actual cash-flow dates and are verified against an independent calculator or fund admin output
• Gross-to-net bridge is arithmetically consistent (gross return minus fees minus carry equals net return)
• Capital account balances tie to fund administrator records within an acceptable tolerance
• MOIC and TVPI figures are cross-verified (TVPI should equal DPI + RVPI; MOIC should equal total value / cost)
• All unrealized valuations carry a date stamp and methodology notation
• FX gains/losses are separately identified and not blended into operating returns without disclosure
• Report formatting is consistent with prior-period reports to enable LP trend analysis
• Any deal with a valuation older than 90 days is flagged with [VERIFY]
• Carried interest calculations are tested against at least one worked example from the SPV waterfall