A majority of private fund managers set the clawback limit at 25%, but they calculate the clawback differently depending on fund type.
Limited partner (LP) clawback provisions enable fund managers to call back previously distributed amounts from investors to cover fund liabilities. These provisions become critical when other funding sources — undrawn commitments and partnership-level cash — are exhausted, typically toward the end of a fund’s life when investors are fully drawn and few assets remain.
LP clawback provisions serve distinct purposes from recycling rights, which allow managers to recall distributions for reinvestment. Clawback provisions specifically address scenarios in which the fund faces liabilities, such as claims against the fund, general partner (GP), or manager that trigger partnership indemnity obligations.
Clawback Calculation Methods
Funds employ three primary approaches for determining clawback limits:
- Percentage of commitments only: The clawback limit is calculated as a specified percentage of each LP’s total commitment to the fund.
- Percentage of distributions only: The limit is based on a specified percentage of actual distributions received by each LP.
- “Lower of” both: The clawback limit is calculated as the lower of specified percentages of both commitments and distributions, providing a dual constraint mechanism.
In addition to the percentage limits, funds typically impose time period parameters during which distributions can be recalled (as discussed in the Time Period Parameters section below).
Asset Class Preferences Reveal Investment DNA
Analysis of the Goodwin Terms Database for Private Investment Funds reveals distinct preferences for different calculation methodologies across fund types, with each approach reflecting the underlying economics of different asset classes.
- Private equity and real estate funds predominantly use the “lower of” calculation model, reflecting a conservative approach that provides predictable limits for both managers and investors. This aligns with these asset classes’ focus on mature, cash-generative investments with relatively predictable distribution patterns.
- Venture capital funds tend toward commitments-only models, consistent with the asset class’ high-risk profile in which distributions may be irregular, concentrated in later periods, or nonexistent for failed investments, making commitment amounts more stable reference points.
- Infrastructure funds feature primarily distributions-only calculation bases, aligning with the sector’s focus on long-term, cash-generative assets in which distribution history provides a reliable and relevant metric for potential clawback exposure.
Market Convergence on 25% Standard
Despite variations in calculation methodology, the market has achieved remarkable convergence on percentage limits across all approaches. LP clawback provisions typically allow managers to call back in excess of 25% of commitments or distributions within two to three years of distribution or fund termination.
When clawback limits use the “lower of” approach, 61% of funds set the commitment component at 25%, with the most common specific structure being the lower of 25% of commitments and 100% of distributions.
Time Period Parameters
LP clawback provisions specify defined time periods during which amounts may be called back, typically ranging from two to three years. The calculation of this period varies based on one of two approaches:
- Distribution-based timing: The time period runs from the date of each relevant distribution to LPs.
- Termination-based timing: The time period begins from the fund’s official termination date or the date when the fund is finally wound up.
This timing mechanism represents a key negotiation point between GPs and LPs. GPs typically prefer termination-based calculations, which provide longer effective periods for addressing potential liabilities. Some LPs advocate for distribution-based timing, which creates more predictable and often shorter exposure periods.
Most provisions include protective language allowing a clawback even after the stated time limit expires, provided LPs receive notification of potential claims within the original time period. This accommodation recognizes that litigation and other liability resolution processes often extend beyond standard time frames.
Market Evolution
The data reveals a sophisticated market evolution toward what might be called “intelligent standardization.” The industry has converged when convergence reduces friction — on percentage limits that balance protection with comfort — while maintaining diversity when it reflects genuine economic differences. Each asset class has developed clawback approaches that align with their fundamental business models, suggesting that the market has moved beyond crude homogenization toward economically rational differentiation.
This pattern indicates a maturing private funds market that’s becoming more efficient without sacrificing its economic sophistication — a balance that benefits both managers and investors through reduced negotiation costs and more appropriate risk allocation.
[View source.]
