A price set by the party who benefits from it being higher is not automatically wrong. What determines whether it can be trusted is whether anything independent was allowed to test it.
A perspective from Open Doors Partners
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A continuation vehicle is priced by the same sponsor who managed the fund the assets are moving out of. The general partner setting the valuation for the new vehicle is, in most cases, the same general partner whose track record that valuation will reflect. This is not a flaw in the structure. It is the structure, and serious capital has spent the past several years building the governance that makes it trustworthy rather than treating the circularity itself as the risk to solve.
Continuation vehicles have become one of the fastest-growing instruments in private markets, with sponsors using them to hold high-conviction assets longer while giving existing investors a path to liquidity. The mechanism is elegant precisely because it is circular. The GP knows the asset better than any external buyer could, prices it accordingly, and offers existing limited partners the choice to roll into the new structure or exit at that price.
Late-stage venture rounds share the same underlying shape, though with less formal architecture around it. A markup is set, in practice, by whichever investors are already close to the company, often the same investors who priced the prior round. The number becomes the reference point for every other position on the cap table. Neither structure is dishonest. Both simply require the same question to be answered well: who is setting the price, and what keeps that price honest when the person setting it also benefits from it being higher.
The private markets that have handled this well have not tried to eliminate circularity. They have surrounded it with independence. Continuation vehicle transactions that institutional investors now trust are the ones with independent fairness opinions, competing bids from external buyers who can validate or challenge the sponsor’s price, and advisory committees empowered to reject terms that favor the sponsor over the fund. The circularity remains. What changes is whether an outside check exists at the moment the price is set, rather than only after it.
This is the distinction Open Doors Partners applies when examining any transaction where the party pricing an asset has a continuing stake in that price. The firm’s approach, documented in how the firm works, treats independent verification as a structural requirement rather than a courtesy extended when convenient. Governance and structure, examined before capital moves, is where a self-priced transaction is separated from one that has simply been marked by consensus among people with reason to agree.
Independent valuation firms, advisory committee approval requirements, and competing-bid processes for continuation vehicles did not emerge from regulation. They emerged because sophisticated limited partners insisted on them, and sponsors who wanted access to that capital built the discipline to match. A continuation vehicle priced through a competitive process with an independent fairness opinion carries a fundamentally different risk profile than a valuation arrived at quietly among a small group of aligned parties, even when the two numbers happen to be identical. The difference is not visible in the price. It is visible in the process that produced it.
The relevant question, when any valuation is set by a party with a continuing interest in the outcome, is not whether that party is trustworthy. It is what independent mechanism exists to test the number regardless. A continuation vehicle with a real competitive process for external capital answers that question. A late-stage round priced entirely within an existing syndicate, without any external participant conducting fresh diligence, does not, whatever the quality of the underlying business.
Open Doors Partners applies this lens consistently, whether the transaction in question is a GP-led secondary, a late-stage primary round, or a structure further from either. The considerations that shape how the firm reads private markets are described in access is not ownership, and the discipline of holding a position through a full cycle is described further in the institutional mindset. Neither substitutes for reading the specific documents in front of the firm at the point capital is committed. Both describe why that reading matters as much as it does.
The circularity in a self-priced market is not something private capital has failed to solve. It is something a meaningful part of the industry has spent the past several years solving in public view, through governance that most participants outside the asset class rarely see.
A number no one outside the room can test is not a price. It is an assertion wearing one.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why is a continuation vehicle priced by the same sponsor who managed the original fund?
The general partner running the continuation vehicle knows the asset better than any external party could, which is exactly why the transaction requires independent verification rather than reliance on the sponsor’s own valuation.
What independent checks exist to keep a continuation vehicle’s pricing honest?
Industry guidance calls for an independent fairness opinion from a separate financial advisor, a competitive process soliciting bids from multiple qualified secondary buyers, and formal review and approval by the fund’s Limited Partner Advisory Committee before the transaction closes.
How does late-stage venture pricing carry the same structural risk as a continuation vehicle?
Both are priced, in large part, by parties who already hold a position and benefit from the number being higher. The difference is architectural: continuation vehicles have developed formal external checks over the past several years, while late-stage rounds priced entirely within an existing syndicate typically have not.
Does a self-priced transaction structure indicate a governance failure?
Not inherently. The relevant question is whether an independent mechanism exists to test the price at the point it is set. A continuation vehicle with a competitive process and a fairness opinion answers that question differently than one priced quietly among aligned parties, even if the resulting numbers are identical.
Open Doors Partners LLC is an investment adviser operating as an exempt reporting adviser. It files reports with the SEC as an exempt reporting adviser and is not registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. Read full disclosures here.
Open Doors Partners LLC does not publicly offer or solicit investment opportunities. All investments are made through private placements under Rule 506(b) of Regulation D. Accredited investors only. Past performance is not indicative of future results.