Sweet Equity: Dead on Arrival.A private equity firm gives a CEO a sliver of company equity and calls it life-changing. For five years, she has worked eighty-hour weeks. Then the math catches up.

Somewhere in a glass-walled conference room, a partner at a private equity firm is explaining to a new CEO why she should be excited about her equity package. He uses the phrase meaningful upside. He does not use the phrase compounding preferred return. He does not explain the distribution waterfall. He does not mention the shareholder debt. He uses the phrase skin in the game and smiles. The CEO smiles back. She has just been handed a lottery ticket with the winning numbers scratched off.

This is not a story about villains. The partner is not lying, exactly. He is doing what everyone in private equity does. He is telling the optimistic version of a mathematical story whose pessimistic version is far more common — and far more interesting.

This is the story of what happened when interest rates went up, hold periods stretched out, and the lottery ticket stopped looking like a lottery ticket and started looking like a receipt.

The Golden Era and How It Ended

For about a decade, private equity was the closest thing capitalism had to a money machine. The trick was not complicated. You borrowed aggressively at near-zero interest rates. You bought a company. You waited for valuations to rise — which they did, almost automatically, because falling interest rates make future profits worth more today. Then you sold. You split the proceeds. Everyone got rich.

The management teams of those portfolio companies were given small slivers of equity — usually called “sweet equity” with a straight face — and told they were partners in the enterprise. Some of them actually got paid. The math worked. The carry was real. The whole system hummed.

Then, in 2022, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates faster than it had in forty years. The Secured Overnight Financing Rate went from basically zero to over 5.3 percent. The cost of debt for private equity deals shot up by roughly 380 basis points above its twenty-year average. In Europe, the cost of a leveraged buyout effectively doubled — from around 4 percent to 8 percent.

The effect was immediate and precise. Higher debt costs meant less free cash flow. Less free cash flow meant lower valuations. Lower valuations meant no exit. No exit meant the hold period stretched. And as the hold period stretched, a clock started ticking. A very expensive clock.

The multiple expansion that drove outsized returns in the vintages leading up to the 2021 market peak stopped being a viable underwriting assumption. The thing that made most private equity returns look like genius was interest rates going down. Now interest rates went up. The genius evaporated. What remained was a very large pile of portfolio companies, a very impatient group of limited partners, and a CEO somewhere quietly realizing that her sweet equity was worth nothing.

The Waterfall, Or: Where the Money Goes Before You Get Any

When a private equity-backed company is sold, the proceeds do not flow equally to everyone who owns a piece of it. They flow in strict order — like water down a series of ledges.

Senior creditors get paid first. Then the private equity firm gets back all the money it invested, plus a compounding annual return of 8 to 12 percent. Then the GP takes a “catch-up” slice of the profits until their share equals the agreed carry percentage. Then — and only then — does the remaining money get split.

Management’s equity sits at the very bottom of the waterfall. It gets wet only if there is water left over. In a rising market with a three-year hold, there usually is. In a stagnant market with a six-year hold, with 8 to 12 percent compounding the whole time, there usually is not.

The math is not subtle. An 8 percent compounding interest rate doubles the amount owed in roughly nine years. A 12 percent rate does it in six. The CEO who was promised a 1 percent slice of the upside above a 2× return is now looking at a structure where the “above 2×” threshold keeps moving up, year after year, because the clock never stopped.

She was not told this would happen. She was told there would be an exit in three to five years. It has now been seven. Her equity is worth nothing.

By the end of 2024, the median holding period for a US private equity-backed company hit 3.4 years — the longest in nearly a decade. The cumulative median at actual exit stretched to 6.0 years. Over 30 percent of PE-backed companies had been held for at least five years. Globally, roughly 16,000 companies had been sitting on sponsor balance sheets for over four years.

The Continuation Vehicle: A Second Act With the Same Villain

If you were a limited partner in a 2018 fund and your money was still locked up in 2025, you would be unhappy. You would call your GP. You would use the word liquiditywith increasing force. The GP, faced with frozen exit markets and a fund life approaching its end, would need a creative solution.

Enter the continuation vehicle. In 2025 alone, GP-led continuation vehicle volume hit $115 billion — roughly 14 percent of all sponsor-backed exits globally. The broader secondary market topped $240 billion. These are not small numbers. This is not a workaround anymore. It is the market.

The structure works like this. The GP creates a new fund. The new fund buys the assets out of the old fund. The old LPs can either sell their stakes — usually at a discount — or roll into the new vehicle alongside new secondary investors. Eighty to ninety percent of them sell. They vote with their feet.

But here is the part nobody explains at the press conference: the GP sits on both sides of the transaction. They are the seller, with a fiduciary duty to the old LPs to maximize price. They are also the buyer, incentivized to acquire cheaply to maximize future carry. The Institutional Limited Partners Association has an entire body of guidelines about this conflict. Over a third of LP survey respondents call it the single greatest threat to LP-GP alignment in the industry today. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2024, helpfully vacated the SEC rules that would have mandated fairness opinions for these transactions. So now it is mostly the honor system.

The GP crystallizes old carry, locks in new management fees, keeps control of the asset — and then asks the CEO to please roll her worthless equity into the new structure and stay for another four years.

The CEO’s response to this request is, not surprisingly, unprintable.

The Recut: Admitting the Lottery Ticket Was a Losing Ticket

This is the part where the industry invents euphemisms. “Recutting the deal.” “Resetting the MIP.” “Re-incentivizing management.” What it means, in plain language, is that the equity grant that was supposed to motivate the CEO is now so far underwater that it motivates nothing except resignation. And resignation is expensive.

The data on this is brutal. AlixPartners reports that 65 percent of PE-backed portfolio company CEOs are replaced during the holding period. Among those who stay, 39 percent of US CEOs and 46 percent of UK CEOs received no equity at all. Those who did averaged a 1.5 percent grant in the US and 0.7 percent in the UK. That is before the waterfall. That is before seven years of compounding preferred returns.

So the industry has developed four ways to patch the problem. None of them are free. All of them have a catch.

Option one: reset the hurdle. Lower the bar that management equity has to clear. Simple in concept. In the UK, the moment you increase the value of an employee’s shares — even on paper, even without any cash changing hands — the tax authority treats it as employment income and sends a bill. No cash comes with it. The company ends up making a loan to the executive to cover a tax bill on money they never received. This is called a “dry charge” and it is every bit as pleasant as it sounds.

Option two: issue new equity above the old. Leave the old worthless shares exactly where they are. Issue a fresh tranche — call it a “top-up” or a “juice return” — that kicks in at a lower, attainable threshold. In the US, this is relatively clean, because structures called “profits interests” can be issued at zero cost to the recipient without immediate tax. In the UK, there are no profits interests. Management has to buy the new shares at fair market value. The GP sometimes lends them the money. This creates its own interesting complications.

Option three: cash bonuses. When the equity structures are too tangled, sponsors simply pay cash. A retention letter promising a fixed payout upon exit. A transaction bonus when the deal closes. Simple to implement. Taxed as ordinary income — the highest rate possible. And at exit, the buyer may demand the bonus pool comes out of the purchase price. The GP ends up paying for it. From their own carry.

Option four: equity on ice. When someone leaves, instead of buying back their equity in cash — which drains the company — or issuing a promissory note — which makes the ex-employee senior to everyone else — the equity is frozen at its value on the departure date. The former CEO keeps what she earned. Future appreciation goes to the people still working. Elegant. But it does nothing for the current CEO still sitting on a stack of equity worth nothing.

The Honest Version of the Pitch

What if the partner in the glass conference room told the truth? It might sound something like this.

We are giving you a small slice of equity in this company. It will be worth a great deal of money if the company is sold at a significant premium to what we paid, within a reasonable time frame, in a market where buyers are willing to pay that premium. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee any of those things. The hold period may stretch. The market may not cooperate. The debt we took on to buy this company charges compounding interest, which means the bar gets higher every year. If we hold this asset for seven years instead of four, your equity may be worth nothing even if the company has grown significantly in value. In that scenario, we will restructure your equity package, but the restructuring will happen under time pressure, with you in a weak negotiating position. Also, 65 percent of CEOs in your position are replaced before the deal exits. Good luck.

Nobody gives that pitch. The math of compound interest is unpersuasive at the moment of hiring.

But the math does not care whether it is persuasive. It runs in the background, quietly compounding, while the CEO executes the operational improvement plan and waits for an exit that keeps moving three years into the future.

The Part Where It Gets Fixed. Sort of.

The private equity industry has realized, slowly and then all at once, that destroying the financial incentives of management teams is bad for business. This is not a moral awakening. It is arithmetic. If executives leave, companies underperform. If companies underperform, exits get worse. If exits get worse, fund returns fall. If fund returns fall, the next fundraise is harder.

So sponsors are recutting deals. Some gracefully, ahead of the problem. Some under duress, when the CEO hands in her notice and the sponsor realizes they cannot replace her. The market data is unambiguous: throughout 2024 and 2025, there has been sustained, widespread movement to reset executive compensation across funds of all sizes. In life sciences alone, over 75 percent of underwater option repricings in 2025 used a “premium” repricing approach — setting the new price fractionally above market specifically to sidestep the SEC tender offer rules that kick in at exactly at-the-money. A one-cent difference. Seventy-five percent of an entire sector.

Incoming executives, for their part, have learned. They have seen what happened to the cohort before them. They are negotiating harder. They are asking about the distribution waterfall before signing. They are asking the question the partner would rather not answer: how many years has this asset already been held?

This is progress. It is the market working. It has taken a surprisingly long time.

Back in the glass conference room, the partner is still pitching the new CEO. The phrase meaningful upside has been used twice. The distribution waterfall has not been mentioned.

Somewhere else in the same building, a more senior partner is on the phone with a frustrated limited partner, explaining why a seven-year-old asset has still not been sold, and why the management team needed a new equity package, and why the continuation vehicle was the best option available, and why the fairness opinion was technically optional after the Fifth Circuit decision, and why everything is fine.

The math does not agree. But the math is not on the call.

Sources: AlixPartners 11th Annual Private Equity Leadership Survey (2026) · Bain & Company Global Private Equity Report 2025 · Dechert LLP GP-led Secondaries Survey (Nov 2025) · Heidrick & Struggles PE-Backed CEO Compensation Survey (2023) · PitchBook Aging Buyout Portfolio Data · Infinite Equity/Pave Option Repricing Analysis (Dec 2025) · ILPA Continuation Fund Guidelines · WTW M&A Retention Survey (2024) · Latham & Watkins MIP Reset Analysis

4 Likes