Co-Investment & Direct Deal Access
Direct deal and co-investment access alongside leading sponsors.
Image · Co-Investment & Direct Deal AccessCo-investment and direct deal access let investors deploy alongside sponsors into single assets, often fee-light, improving net returns. Matchpoint provides curated co-investment and direct-deal access for PE funds and family offices.
As part of our Alternatives practice, Matchpoint Partners has originated and led $2+ billion of transactions across four continents, and every alternatives mandate is led by a partner, from first call to close.
Our role on co-investment & direct deal access mandates
- Co-invest alongside lead sponsors
- Single-asset, direct exposure
- Often reduced fees and carry
- Curated, diligence-led opportunities
Select transactions
Representative alternatives mandates led by Matchpoint partners.
JV equity — land acquisition and development capital.
Series-D raise for a tertiary healthcare hospital group.
Co-investment access alongside a Shariah-compliant PE fund.
Growth financing for a battery-technology venture.
Research relevant to this area
Original analysis and decision frameworks from the Matchpoint team.
How should a sophisticated alternatives investor evaluate deal flow and co-investment access?
Start with a written investment mandate, then evaluate each opportunity across sponsor alignment, asset evidence, valuation, capital structure, economics, governance, conflicts, diligence, downside and exit. Access alone does not establish investment quality. The investor's own approval, suitability, diligence and specialist-adviser processes remain necessary.
| Decision area | Questions to answer | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Mandate fit | Does the opportunity fit the investor's sector, geography, stage, ticket, concentration and liquidity limits? | Written mandate, exposure map and exception approval. |
| Sponsor and source | Who originated the opportunity, why is co-capital required and how is the sponsor aligned? | Sponsor history in the strategy, investment and allocation rationale, sponsor commitment and governance role. |
| Asset and thesis | What creates value and which assumptions would invalidate the case? | Source-linked commercial evidence, operating plan, valuation and thesis tests. |
| Capital structure | Where does the co-investor sit and what claims rank ahead or alongside? | Sources and uses, security or instrument terms, waterfall, dilution and downside sensitivities. |
| Economics | Which fees, carry, expenses, broken-deal costs and related-party payments apply? | Complete economics schedule and worked proceeds waterfall. |
| Governance and information | Which consent, information, reporting and exit rights exist? | Term sheet, constitutional documents, side arrangements and reporting package. |
| Conflicts and allocation | How are opportunities, expenses and conflicts allocated between the main fund, affiliates and co-investors? | Written allocation and conflicts policy, disclosures and approval process. |
| Diligence and independence | Which work has been completed, by whom and with which limitations? | Data room, adviser reports, open items, reliance position and independent review plan. |
| Exit and liquidity | Who controls exit, what are the likely routes and which transfer constraints apply? | Exit scenarios, rights, holding-period cases and liquidity constraints. |
| Execution readiness | Can the investor decide, fund and complete within the available timetable? | Decision authority, KYC and compliance readiness, funding evidence and closing plan. |
ILPA's Principles 3.0 discusses advance disclosure of co-investment allocation frameworks and written policies for conflicts and transaction-specific concentration risks. Source: ILPA Principles 3.0.
How to evaluate a direct-deal or co-investment access partner
Test the partner's mandate discipline, source transparency, information control, conflict disclosure and execution ownership.
| Partner-selection test | Evidence of a controlled process |
|---|---|
| Opportunity definition | The partner documents the investor mandate before presenting opportunities. |
| Screening discipline | A consistent screen explains both acceptance and rejection against the mandate. |
| Source transparency | The source, sponsor role, adviser role and access route are disclosed accurately. |
| Information control | NDA, permissions, source documents, questions and releases are recorded. |
| Conflict clarity | Compensation, relationships, allocations and potential conflicts are disclosed in writing. |
| Decision support | The materials separate facts, management assumptions, adviser analysis and unresolved items. |
| Execution ownership | Named people manage questions, terms, diligence, funding readiness and closing tasks. |
This is a decision framework for professional evaluation. It is not an offer, investment recommendation or statement that any opportunity is suitable or available.
Co-Investment & Direct Deal Access — frequently asked questions
Direct, often fee-light exposure to specific assets, improving net returns.
PE funds and family offices able to evaluate single-asset risk.
Primarily through relationships — sponsors offer co-investment to existing LPs and to investors introduced by trusted intermediaries who can move at deal speed. Building a reputation for quick, reliable decisions matters as much as capital, because sponsors return to co-investors who performed last time.
Through an SPV that invests alongside the sponsor’s fund in the same security, on substantially the same terms. The sponsor controls the deal and the exit; co-investors typically receive information rights and, in larger positions, limited governance protections. Economics are usually lighter than a fund commitment.
The sponsor’s track record in that exact strategy, why the deal needs co-capital, alignment between sponsor economics and yours, and concentration risk — one asset, no portfolio cushion. The decision window is usually short, so investors need their diligence framework ready before the opportunity arrives.
It covers US pre-IPO secondaries, curated deal access for private equity funds and family offices, PE/VC fund placement, and AI data-centre investments — for qualified investors.
Pre-IPO secondaries, GP- and LP-led secondaries, co-investments, PE/VC fund placement and SPVs, plus thematic exposure to AI data centres, digital infrastructure and the energy transition.
Access is for qualified investors — primarily PE funds, family offices and institutions — subject to eligibility, suitability and counterparty terms.
Engagements ordinarily combine a retainer with a success fee. Terms are agreed in writing before work begins and calibrated to the mandate’s size, scope and complexity.
Most mandates reach a first term sheet within 30 days, depending on diligence readiness and structure; closing follows once terms are agreed.
A short, confidential scoping call and NDA; we structure the requirement and prepare materials, then run a competitive process across our 5,000+ investor and lender relationships, and negotiate to close — with a partner leading at every step.
Matchpoint Partners is based in the UAE and runs cross-border mandates across the UAE, KSA, India and the UK, with active deal activity in wider Europe, Singapore and the United States.
Matchpoint undertakes corporate finance, financing, M&A and fund-placement mandates from USD 5m upwards, subject to mandate fit, diligence, applicable regulation, capacity and a written engagement. The partner team has originated and led $2+ billion of transactions.
Use the enquiry form, email contact@matchpoint-partners.com, or call/WhatsApp +971 52 345 1119. Every mandate is led by a partner from the very first conversation.
Yes. Confidential information is handled under the engagement terms and any applicable non-disclosure agreement.
More in Alternatives
Interested in co-investment & direct deal access?
Tell us your requirement and a partner will respond personally.
Investment roles, structures and decision criteria
Explore the participants and transaction options relevant to this practice. Each entry sets out a discussion scope, decision checks, a paid engagement starting point and the specialist responsibilities to confirm.
Institutional and Strategic Capital
Co-Investment VehiclesCME-033 · Institutional and Strategic Capital · Equity Investor
- Ecosystem role
- Equity Investor
- Related asset class
- Alternatives
- Instrument context
- Equity or co-investment
Mandate context: large-scale strategic, infrastructure and cross-border investments. The structure and rights are established by the specific transaction documents.
Decision focus: Policy fit and accountable capital decisions.
- Mandate, approval authority and allocation constraints
- Concentration, liquidity and valuation evidence
- Conflicts, reporting and decision rights
Scope to discuss: Investor strategy, opportunity screening, fund or direct-deal diligence and capital access.
Paid engagement entry point: investor thesis and mandate brief; followed by screening, diligence or transaction execution.
Illustrative GCC scenario: An illustrative Qatar institutional allocation can be mapped to its investment policy, committee authorities, portfolio exposures and required manager or asset diligence. This is a hypothetical decision example.
What should be agreed before a mandate involving Co-Investment Vehicles?
Define the investment or transaction objective, the authorised decision-maker, the evidence available, the requested deliverables and the next approval. Use the decision checks above to identify gaps; agree the workplan, delivery responsibilities and fee terms in writing.
Delivery and specialist boundary: Confirm decision authority, evidence access, conflicts, scope and applicable jurisdiction-specific permissions before execution. Legal, tax, fund-marketing, securities and Shariah questions require the relevant appointed specialist. Capital availability, investment returns and execution dates remain subject to assessment.
Discuss a paid scopeReal Assets and Secondaries
Co-InvestmentsCME-168 · Real Assets and Secondaries · Asset Class
- Ecosystem role
- Asset Class
- Related asset class
- Alternatives
- Instrument context
- Equity, debt or fund interests
Mandate context: real assets, project assets and secondary investments. The structure and rights are established by the specific transaction documents.
Decision focus: Asset economics and the terms of ownership.
- Underlying asset, fund or portfolio evidence
- Cash flows, valuation and capital commitments
- Transfers, liquidity and specialist diligence
Scope to discuss: Private-markets portfolio strategy, manager selection, diligence and transaction access.
Paid engagement entry point: allocation and market-opportunity study; followed by manager or asset screening and diligence.
Illustrative GCC scenario: An illustrative Qatar real-asset or secondary investment can review valuation support, future capital commitments, transfer permissions and exit assumptions. This is a hypothetical decision example.
What should be agreed before a mandate involving Co-Investments?
Define the investment or transaction objective, the authorised decision-maker, the evidence available, the requested deliverables and the next approval. Use the decision checks above to identify gaps; agree the workplan, delivery responsibilities and fee terms in writing.
Delivery and specialist boundary: Confirm decision authority, evidence access, conflicts, scope and applicable jurisdiction-specific permissions before execution. Legal, tax, fund-marketing, securities and Shariah questions require the relevant appointed specialist. Capital availability, investment returns and execution dates remain subject to assessment.
Discuss a paid scopeEquity and Hybrid Capital
Co-Investment EquityCME-203 · Equity and Hybrid Capital · Funding Instrument
- Ecosystem role
- Funding Instrument
- Related asset class
- Private equity
- Instrument context
- Equity or hybrid
Mandate context: equity raises, founder financing and growth investment. The structure and rights are established by the specific transaction documents.
Decision focus: Ownership economics across alternative structures.
- Cash-flow rights, conversion and dilution
- Governance, preferences and contingent payments
- Valuation, exit and specialist documentation
Scope to discuss: Capital-structure design, financing options analysis and execution support.
Paid engagement entry point: financing-options and term-sheet assessment; followed by lender or investor process execution.
Illustrative GCC scenario: An illustrative UAE investment can compare ordinary, preferred or convertible terms using the same ownership, cash-flow and exit scenarios; actual rights depend on the documents. This is a hypothetical decision example.
What should be agreed before a mandate involving Co-Investment Equity?
Define the investment or transaction objective, the authorised decision-maker, the evidence available, the requested deliverables and the next approval. Use the decision checks above to identify gaps; agree the workplan, delivery responsibilities and fee terms in writing.
Delivery and specialist boundary: Confirm decision authority, evidence access, conflicts, scope and applicable jurisdiction-specific permissions before execution. Legal, tax, fund-marketing, securities and Shariah questions require the relevant appointed specialist. Capital availability, investment returns and execution dates remain subject to assessment.
Discuss a paid scopeCapital Raising and Financing
Co-Investment ProcessesCME-268 · Capital Raising and Financing · Transaction Route
- Ecosystem role
- Transaction Route
- Related asset class
- Private markets
- Instrument context
- Equity or debt raise
Mandate context: private financing, syndication and targeted investor outreach. The structure and rights are established by the specific transaction documents.
Decision focus: Readiness and capital-provider fit.
- Mandate authority, funding requirement and materials
- Capital-provider criteria and approach permissions
- Diligence, term comparison and closing conditions
Scope to discuss: Transaction route assessment, process design and execution support.
Paid engagement entry point: transaction-route feasibility study; followed by process design and execution.
Illustrative GCC scenario: An illustrative GCC club financing can assign lender roles, information responsibilities, consent rules and funding conditions before coordinating the process. This is a hypothetical decision example.
What should be agreed before a mandate involving Co-Investment Processes?
Define the investment or transaction objective, the authorised decision-maker, the evidence available, the requested deliverables and the next approval. Use the decision checks above to identify gaps; agree the workplan, delivery responsibilities and fee terms in writing.
Delivery and specialist boundary: Confirm decision authority, evidence access, conflicts, scope and applicable jurisdiction-specific permissions before execution. Legal, tax, fund-marketing, securities and Shariah questions require the relevant appointed specialist. Capital availability, investment returns and execution dates remain subject to assessment.
Discuss a paid scopeFurther reading on diligence, market frameworks and applicable requirements. These resources do not verify an individual mandate or Matchpoint permission.
