Kasper
Welcome to Balentic Edge, conversations that matter in private markets. I’m your host Kasper investor, entrepreneur and founder of Balentic. On this show, we explore the people, strategies and ideas shaping private markets today, from GPs building tomorrow’s funds to LPs allocating in a shifting landscape. This episode is brought to you by Orca, an AI-driven compliant platform connecting the right GPs with the right LPs, smarter matches, faster decisions and better outcomes.

Kasper
Today we’re joined by Julien Marencic. Julien is a managing partner at Jera Capital, a private market secondary-focused fund building high quality risk adjusted portfolios for institutional investors. Julien brings deep experience from investment consulting, multi-manager investing and asset allocation Welcome Julien.

Julien (Jera Capital)
Hi Kasper, thanks for having me.

Kasper
Julien, now you’re building Jera Capital. Looking back, can you tell us a little about your own personal journey and the defining moments that shaped how you approach private markets today?

Julien (Jera Capital)
Absolutely. And I think it’s a succession of coincidences, which is a good story. So happy to share it. I started in the early 2000s as an engineer with an MBA. in venture capital. I saw it as the perfect combination between the technological side, the technical angle and the business side of things in Paris, realizing that Europe is maybe not the best place for playing the venture space. I became aware that private equity was a wider asset class with the buyout space being well established, larger, and also more predictable. So I was fortunate to start with Campbell Lutyens in London, which at the time was doing all sorts of advisory mandates to GPs, LPs, in addition to fundraising services. And quickly thereafter, the global financial crisis hit in 2008, which created a significant demand for secondary services and an understanding and an acceptance of secondaries as a liquidity mechanism. From that point, I saw the growth of the market.

I became quite interested and really passionate about the secondary space. but I felt much more comfortable on the buy side than being on the intermediary side. Therefore, I moved to Switzerland, joined Partners Group, where I spent six years where I was global head of origination on the secondary side. I also realized that the large end of the spectrum is crowded. It’s a market priced to perfection to a large extent. So you have a lot of competition. You have a lot of demand for larger portfolios. And I felt like the path for happiness on my side might be on the smaller end of the market. Being a French person married to a Dane, we decided with a family to relocate to Copenhagen, Denmark about 2017.

And I joined Nordea Asset Management where I was looking at investing in secondaries I spent four years developing the platform in conjunction with Christen Estrup, And in 2021, we decided that we had a very interesting skill set and combination of track record and expertise and experience that would be quite attractive to be developing as an independent business. So we decided to leave Nordea, start Jera Capital at the beginning of 2022 as an independent asset manager focusing on secondaries offering flexible investment solutions for the investors, be they smaller institutionals, high net worth family offices and larger institutional investors.

Kasper
And you must have been quite successful with this because you were just telling me before we jumped into this that you’re onboarding your 100th LP at the moment. Can you tell us a little bit about what attracts LPs to Jera Capital?

Julien (Jera Capital)
This is the key answer to the question, why should we be in business? And when we looked at each other with Christen and Alexander, our third partner before launching Jera Capital we really assessed what are our key core competencies that we should be relying on. We came to the conclusion that the expertise in managing flexible structures, investment solutions is fundamental. You cannot be running an asset management platform if you don’t know how to run a fund. So certainly we had a strong edge on that side. So that’s almost a license to operate. And on the other hand, on the investment side, the actual investment side, there were two, three items that we deemed being extremely important, First one being origination of transactions. Certainly, if you don’t get transactions in the machine, it’s hard to make a transaction. It’s not hard to invest. And even more so, it’s a numbers game. You’ve got to have as many transactions as you can in the machine in order to pick the best.

I’m an engineer by training, so we became very, very mechanical in terms of how do we get deal flow, how do we increase the volume and how do we make sure that we see the best transactions. The second part is the selection process. It’s great to see hundreds of transactions a year, but if you do not have efficiency in sorting them out, in triaging what will be a clear decline, what is going to be more work and what is actually likely to be a winner, you’ve got a problem because you will be very inefficient and you will end up misallocating your time. So the selection process and the discipline around this is critical. The first few months of us starting, we didn’t have a fund, but we had a clear investment strategy and allocation policy and the likes to be 100 % confident that we had the tools in place to guide us through.

the deal flow that was to come, And the final item is the feedback loop. It’s great to be making investments, but you’ve got to learn as you make the investments. One of the features I love about the secondary market is we review hundreds of opportunities, even thousands of companies every year. And we invest in dozens of companies on an annual basis, which means we are modeling each of them.

We are making assumptions about their future developments, their growth, their exits, timing and profiles. And the stone that should not be left unturned is assessing how we’re doing when we are assessing all those dozens of companies. So certainly making sure that our models are not pre-investment models and then gathering dust, but become monitoring models once the companies are in portfolio.

It is absolutely instrumental to what we are doing because that brings the feedback loop, and that allows us to have continuous learning not only into our own assessments, but also into the fund managers we work with.

Kasper
Okay, so is it fair then to summarize that as you had great experience from your prior jobs, you put together a really knowledgeable team when you spun out, you put some very high quality institutional structures in place, and now you also got a track record on which to market yourself and a very interesting product with an evergreen fund.

Julien (Jera Capital)
I think it’s a fair summary and it’s also the promise to those investors that we are going to stick to the strategy. We’re going to stick to the small ends of the secondary markets, which we have seen time and again, new entrants in the secondary asset class, raising traditional closed ended funds, raising a first fund that tends to be small. The second fund tends to be bigger. And then the third fund they’ve reached typically escape velocity, they leave the small end space and they end up competing with the bigger guys in transactions of, 100 million and plus What we see as an advantage is the structure of our flagship fund, the Evergreen Fund, means that we can continue focusing on transactions below 50 million euros, which are many in numbers. They represent, we assess, about a third of the secondary market but they are drawing much less attention And we assess that segment of secondary transactions attracts about 5 % of the secondary capital available globally. So one third of transactions by number, 5 % of the capital. That’s the type of odds I like to play in.

Kasper
We’re going to jump a little bit more into strategy in a minute, but also before we jumped on, you told me that you recently launched the Jera Academy. Can you tell us a bit about this? What’s it all about? And why is it interesting for LPs?

Julien (Jera Capital)
Absolutely. We are excited about launching the Jera Academy. What we aim to do is to share our insights and our thoughts about what we see in the secondary market, what are the trends, what are the dynamics that are at play. What gets us excited at the moment is the GP led part of the market.

For those who are not familiar with it, the secondary market is really providing liquidity to LP and GPs who want that liquidity before the terms of the funds are due. On the LP side, this is the historic part. We are talking about an investor in a fund seeking a buyer to replace them in that fund. So we are acquiring fund interest from an existing investor, which typically holds a dozen, two dozens of companies and we price each and every single of these companies, aggregate them in the fund structure, give a price to this counterparty and close the transaction on that basis. That’s about half of the secondary market. That was about $75, $80 billion last year. The other part, which has really grown in size and importance in the 2017- 2018 years is GP led. A GP led transaction, as the name suggests, is a secondary transaction that is steered and initiated by the GP. 

 What essentially those transactions consist in is, take one or a handful of portfolio companies in the older funds of this GP and bring them into a new fund structure, typically called a continuation vehicle, that is used to acquire those companies from the older vehicles. And that continuation vehicle is financed by secondary investors. That continuation vehicle prices the older assets and finances the acquisition through that. The interest of that part of the market is those assets are selected by the fund manager. They are priced by the secondary market for the future value creation that these companies will be delivering or expected to deliver in the future. 

And that brings very much a higher quality because the assets are only trophy assets. It brings a longer hold and higher multiple to a secondary portfolio compared to the LP side where you would buy bulk, typically with a higher discount and typically with faster distributions. It’s not unusual when you do a secondary transaction to receive distributions right after closing or even before closing, you will see those distributions coming in. 

So on the LP side of the market, we would qualify them as being IRR driving parts of the portfolio. Strong IRRs tend to be lower multiples because we get the capital quite quickly. But on the other hand, you have an entry discount. The GP led side of secondaries within a portfolio would bring some strategic exposure to trophy assets, would bring a longer hold. So no liquidity for maybe a longer period of time compared to an LP transaction. But on the other hand, a higher multiple and exposure to only the quality assets

Kasper
I’m going to get back to CVs a little bit later on. But before that, I want to get to your strategy. You said that Jera capital is focused on balancing risk and opportunity in an increasingly complex environment. With secondaries booming, NAV loans rising, fund term stretching, are LPs really being compensated for this illiquidity and the complexity that they’re underwriting?

Julien (Jera Capital)
Well, I think so. I think it really depends on the strategy and it really depends on the type of investments that secondaries are undertaking. In my days as an advisor, I have learned the very interesting way that discounts are not a sure way to make returns. I will always remember this buyer.

Kasper
fund, yes.

Julien (Jera Capital)
We sold a portfolio back in the days with discounts that was well over 70 % to the assets and the buyer still lost money on the transaction. You can pay very, very cheap for assets, but if the quality is not there, you’re not certain of achieving good returns. The focus we have on our side is a relentless focus on quality assets that are the highest quality we can achieve. To give an idea, our portfolio today has about 100 companies. We have assessed their performance in 2024. They have grown EBITDA as a portfolio of about 20 % in 2024. So we are acquiring growing businesses, profitable companies that keep growing. We are not a high discount player, we’d rather pay a higher price or lower discount compared to paying a higher discount for lower quality assets. Because we’ve learned throughout the cycles and throughout our various experiences that it’s all about the quality. The quality will pay off. It’s not worth buying. I always make that comparison as a Frenchman. It’s not worth buying your 25 year old Peugeot or Renault. These old French cars, they may look cool but I’d rather 20 times own a vintage Porsche instead because these cars are reliable, they keep running. You pay a bit more, but it’s worth it. And that’s the type of gems in the rough that we are looking for in secondaries. And that’s where we believe that you can really create strong portfolios and deliver strong returns for LPs in your funds.

Kasper
I like the car analogy, Julien is very illustrative, and that actually gets us to how you think about portfolio construction. So you’re assembling a car park of vintage cars, how do you do that?

Julien (Jera Capital)
So one of the beauties of secondaries is you’re building a diversified portfolio in terms of geography, sectors and activities of companies. That’s kind of a given. do that even investing in a buyout fund if the buyout fund is large enough. But we also build a diversification based on the fund managers because we have exposure to various fund managers over the geographies. So you have another element that’s typically not seen. Obviously, we acquire assets. So we do not have blind pool risk. We know exactly what the portfolio is like the moment we invest in it. So you don’t have that risk of what new company the GPs will invest in. 

In addition, on the diversification side, we also acquire those assets throughout different cycles. For those of the listeners who’ve been following the secondary market, they are used to seeing the charts of the discounts over the years and up and down and so on. Certainly investing all of your money in a given one or two year period is actually quite risky because you might end up buying all the assets in the peak and then you will have paid a high price for assets that will be most likely very good quality if the selection has been done properly. But on the other hand, the price being paid at entry will not allow for stronger returns. So the beauty of the way we build our portfolios is investing across the cycles. We are a high quality, small volume manager. We invest in four to six transactions on an annual basis. So we take our time. We pick the best opportunities in a given period. And then we invest and we move forward and continue repeating exactly. And in terms of the other element you can do in secondaries is it’s a time traveling machine. The analogy of vintage cars, really, is opposite because if you look at our deal flow, we see transactions from portfolios from 2021, 2020, 2019.

Kasper
So great deals kill good deals.

Julien (Jera Capital)
2018 and earlier than that. So we build that exposure with that in mind, because if you acquire a portfolio from 2000, say 15, while you’re looking at a 10 year old fund, we’re in 25 today, you’re not having the best companies left in that fund. You’re having whatever couldn’t be sold in the better times.

 If you’re acquiring a portfolio from 2021 today or 2022 or 23, you’re looking at a very, very young portfolio. So you may be looking at a little bit of time before exits start coming, especially if the transactions were done before 22, when the interest rate environment changed. So the way we also build our portfolio is taking into account the maturity of the companies. As you mentioned, we manage our flagship fund as an evergreen fund, which means we are very focused on continuous value creation within the portfolio. 

So tail end portfolios, older portfolios tend to not make much sense for us. Any fund before 2017, the juice would have been gone, the valuation would be marked up, so we’re not so active on those transactions. There’s the occasional exception, of course, but these tend to be making less sense. The 2021 until 21 funds tend to be maybe invested in a different world and the companies were created with very, different risk free environments. And therefore we see quite a few that still need a bit of time until the opportunity set makes perfect sense. 

It’s really a question of buying the assets at the right time as well, so we don’t sit on them and go through a J curve. We want to buy them at the beginning of the inflection. The work is done to create the value by the fund managers and then we will harvest and reap the value creation.

Kasper
What I find interesting about secondaries is you’ve got the complexity of the direct deal. But then you add further complexity because you’re not actually in the driver’s seat. And so this is very interesting for the LPs. How do you, as a secondary manager, assess the GP? Because that’s arguably as important to you as it is to the primary LP looking at a blind pool type of fund.

Julien (Jera Capital)
Absolutely. So we’ve got a long history of investing as secondaries, of course, but also as primary investors. So we have the skill set to assess a GP in their value creation skills and as platforms. I would split the answer into two different phases. If we are looking at an LP transaction to start with, then we certainly are looking at the GP as a whole. We are very focused on how good are they? What is their track record? How is the portfolio constructed? Is the portfolio and is the fund going to deliver carried interest for this GP? Meaning, do we have a GP that is well incentivized? Are the other funds in that GP’s constellation going to deliver carried interest? Or are we looking at potential risk of GP disintegration because the team is not so incentivized and therefore the hungriest and most best performing people in that team will be maybe looking for different opportunities. The other consideration that we’ve developed over many years is assessing what we call the pop of specific GPS. The pop is essentially what was the nav of a given company held by that GP two quarters before they sold the company. What we aim to do is to understand, is that a GP that’s conservative in their valuations, which means when they sell a company, it’s not so surprising that the company would be sold at say 40, 50 % higher value than the last NAV. And the GP does not want to promise too much to their investors, but they leave some room for value creation right at exit. Or are we talking about a GP that is pricing to perfection and the companies are literally rolling from last NAV exit and it’s just a conversion to cash with no value creation. 

So understanding that POP is very important because it also tells us if we are acquiring or looking to acquire a portfolio from a manager that’s conservative and therefore our pricing can be more comfortable with our pricing or are we looking at a manager that’s very aggressive on valuations and therefore we need to be extra conservative with our pricing. 

Conversely, on the GP-led side, what do we look for? Similar topics, similar considerations in terms of GP as incentive alignments and how are they as a platform. But I would argue we go in finer details because in a GP led transaction, you would have one, two, maybe three companies. And so you’re actually at the, you know, the macro level of the GP, you are the micro level of the GP. Who is the team at the GP running this transaction? We’ve done transactions in the past that went extremely well with GPs. We wouldn’t have qualified as the highest quality, but it so happened that the GP had a team specialist in the sector of the company we were looking at and became very convinced that these people were exceptional in what they were doing. And last but not least, they had a personal alignment. And that’s the beauty of the GP-led transactions if you have the GP would be continuing to manage the assets. They would typically invest as a company a significant amount of their capital, you have a number of situations where the managers are increasing their commitments to those companies. And we obviously look at this as a sign of confidence from their end and an increased alignment of interest. If we don’t like the transaction, doesn’t really matter, we will run away anyway. But if we like the transaction and see the manager being, what we call, a little bit greedy, it’s not bad because we want to do it. We want our investors to be exposed to that transaction. It turns out that the people managing that company, developing that company for the next few years are actually out of pocket. They are voting with their wallets to do that.

Kasper
Excellent input for LP listeners trying to do some of this on their own. I want to move on to the team. You have a small team, you’ve been growing a bit, you can tell us a bit about that but more importantly, how do you, in such a competitive space, compete? What’s your edge? Is it speed, is it alignment, is it access, is it all of the above, is it something else entirely?

Julien (Jera Capital)
It’s a great question. I think that on the LP side of things, you have very, very little amount of the capital available to secondaries to do transactions. It’s easier to sell a 200 or 2 billion portfolio in secondaries than to sell a 20 million. Because in 20 million, you would not have intermediaries running processes for you, you would not have a large community of buyers. So it’s very much a question for a seller to find an A buyer. And when I say A buyer, they are lucky they find two. So it’s a nice space to be in the LP side of things because we are not inundated by transactions, but we certainly see many more transactions that we can execute. 

On the GP led side of things, the transaction is typically split in two phases. You have the big guys, the lead investors in a GP led. They would be the ones setting the price. They would be the ones putting a large amount of capital into those transactions. So we are not competing with those guys. We are part of the second part of those transactions, syndicate investors in GP led transactions. And essentially we are playing along with the big players to be part of those transactions. So one, we are a small investor who’s not interested in leading those transactions, which means we are not competing to the lead investors. So there’s a very collaborative dynamic with them. We’ve known them for many years.

If you’re not competing with them, they are friends. So it’s quite good to be having that dynamic because we can have very, very comprehensive reference calls with them, understand the transactions and they can share their insights into those deals. The GPs are interested in having more investors in those transactions. They are not interested in having a deal by one counterparty because they are thinking about their own network of relationships from the LP point of view. And then you have the intermediary community, which is running those deals, running the complexity of the leads with an auction, then the syndication process.

 Those intermediaries, they want a deal done, and they do not want to work with difficult counterparties and be in the difficult protracted negotiations with the syndicate part. So in that space, we are an extremely professional setup. very similar to what I’ve been seeing with partners group and larger players. So we are efficient. We are able to make decisions and inform our counterparties of where we are. So no questions about whether or not we are interested and so on, no games to be played. 

And we can meet timetables. We’re a team player. We are doing the deals that make the most sense. We have access because we are syndicates. We have access to all the transactions out there, which allow us to be very selective as opposed to the leads who need to lead and win an auction and lead that one transaction. We can pick and literally look at all the deals. And then because we are a good player, a good partner for the community, we get invited and we get re-invited.

Kasper
I want to get on to market reflections because it’s a little bit of a strange moment in private markets. dry powder is extremely high, probably the highest ever. Distributions are low and LPs are recalibrating allocations, manager selection, everything else. How are you and how are your LPs adapting to what’s going on in private markets today?

Julien (Jera Capital)
I think the first element is we’re on the receiving end of everybody reassessing their allocations. The secondary market has been at an all-time high in 2024. I was speaking to one of the leading advisors yesterday. They said the expectations for 160 billion this year are highly conservative. So it’s going to be a blockbuster year as far as everybody can tell at mid-year in 2025.

It certainly is a good time to be in secondaries in the current environment. On the other hand, we’re also very, aware of, in a way, the last time we were in a situation like this, which was 2007, early 2008. ⁓ You remember that Kasper, right? it was a time when lot of

Kasper
Remember that well

Julien (Jera Capital)
What was deemed quality before may not be the same as what was deemed quality after. Some GPs disappeared as a result of that shift. And it was really a tsunami of changes that highlighted, maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to be so levered. Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to be full gung-ho on extremely risky type of investments. And I think the thing we found out who were actually disciplined and who were only saying they were disciplined.

Julien (Jera Capital)
absolutely. That’s where we are in the forefront of the secondary side of that market and that shift because we do crack open every fund we look at. We do look at every company, every valuation, the leverage the past growth and future growth prospects And there are some there are some surprises. 

We see some portfolios and we politely declined, but we feel like running away because the valuations are very high, the leverage is extremely high. As opposed to pre-2022, there is an interest rate. So we see companies paying 10, 11, 13 % interest rate per year with EBITDA margins that may not be that high. And there’s a lot of wishful thinking. There’s also a lot of managers who’ve been clinging on to valuation levels that are maybe not that realistic. 

Within our portfolio, we’ve seen about 6 % of our fund return back to us last year in 2024. 6 % market was about 5 % last year. We are in line. What we are happy with is the 6 % is in conjunction of a portfolio that was essentially built in 2022, 2023, and being built still in 2024. So 2024, 6 % is quite high for a very young portfolio of secondaries. But we also see that there are good distributions even in 2025. What is not happening though is the mediocre companies, they don’t get sold because the valuations are not achievable. So there are exits, but the exits are really for the high quality.

Kasper
These assets are not secondary assets, they are assets for the special situations funds.

Julien (Jera Capital)
They might become that, absolutely.

Kasper
this is a great segue over to risk, what is no one talking about that they probably should be talking about? Is it fund extension fatigue? Is it misprices and secondaries? What do you see? What do you hear out there Julien?

Julien (Jera Capital):
That’s a great question. I think the risk side of the private equity market is always an interesting topic, especially when times become tougher. There are always those moments where people realize we could do this and that would get us a little bit of a lease on life.

There’s a lot of talk about NAV lending, which essentially means borrowing against the net asset value of a fund as a manager—levering up the fund to use the capital for various purposes. There’s nothing wrong with using something that is allowed according to the LPAs of those funds. On the other hand, the key question is how much is being borrowed? How is the communication handled? And how are the proceeds to be used?

If it’s to generate distributions, or to support some companies, or the whole portfolio—these are very different means. And it’s really a specific case-by-case assessment that needs to be done. Obviously, adding leverage to portfolios and funds is adding risk. So there is a question here.

We’ve heard a lot in the last year in particular, those talks about portfolio companies paying very high levels of interest rates. And the answer was regularly, “But interest rates will be coming down.” One thing that worries me is the fact that today in 2025, we have a lot of junior, mid-level, and even some senior investors out there who’ve basically had all their professional careers in the ZIRP—the zero interest rate period that prevailed from 2008 to 2021.

It’s a little bit confusing and concerning to see that some investment policies and decisions are made assuming that this is the normal. I still remember when interest rates were five, six percent. That was the normal level in benign markets, benign times.

That’s one of the things that concerns me: the unrealistic expectation that we will go back to very low interest rates. Maybe that will happen, but will it happen over a long period of time again, or will it be a dip back down and then back up? I err on the side of caution. If I’m wrong, that’s OK, because I won’t be creating additional risk for my investors.

I tend to work better with managers who are more conservative—in terms of volume of leverage, in terms of interest rates being paid, and certainly in terms of profitable companies having some leverage. I think that’s really critical.

Kasper:
I want to go back to something you mentioned at the very beginning—continuation vehicles. From an LP point of view, is this synthetic distribution, almost sort of “pass the parcel” in terms of what gets done to the companies? How should an LP think about them and approach them?

Not with your GP hat on, because you’re on the buyer side and can make a really good deal. But what should the LP sitting on the sales side be thinking about these things in your opinion?

Julien (Jera Capital):
It is an excellent question. And I think this is a question in the minds of many LPs with diversified portfolios, because they see those election periods—or election notices as they are called. They have been receiving them for a number of years.

The original thought was: it’s great, it’s getting us some liquidity. We sell that company, it’s a trophy asset, it’s a value driver, so it’s great, we make good returns. What was initially dismissed as “this is quick liquidity in times of no liquidity” has now evolved.

Today, large limited partners are realising this is not going away. And they are starting to ask: hang on, is there something that we should be aware of? Should our automatic “yes, take the liquidity” response be reassessed?

Where the secondary market, intermediaries, and GPs have been clever is in making this a simple process—fairly transparent, increasingly efficient, and improving in terms of communication. That works really well.

On the other hand, from an LP point of view, ideally they should be assessing those opportunities case by case. But in reality, if you made a $100 million commitment to a fund, the fund invested in 20 companies, one company is worth $15 million, and the GP is doing a continuation vehicle on that—your normal ticket is $100 million. Deploying time and resources for a $15 million ticket doesn’t make much sense.

That’s a structural limitation. And so, many transactions get dismissed by LPs simply because the mechanics don’t fit. We at Jera Capital do about 2–3% of the GP-led transactions we see. That means we reject a lot. And we only pick the best of the best.

So from an LP perspective, the response shouldn’t be uniformly “sell.” The challenge is working through those election notices in time. The pay period tends to last for a month, with maybe a two-to-three week heads-up. That’s a very short time to do due diligence and decide whether to roll a small ticket—or even invest more.

Overwhelmingly, LPs have taken the liquidity. But now we see many starting to reconsider. Some of the most sophisticated LPs we speak with say: we’d love to be proactive in taking case-by-case decisions. But it’s a lot of specialised work.

That’s why they’re looking for partners to help them—advisors, asset managers, specialised capital pockets. For some, GP-leds are becoming not just a defensive tool but an active investment strategy. It’s a strong alternative to co-investment. Different risk profile, different type of exposure. And we’re seeing the very beginnings of GP-leds emerging as an asset class.

Kasper:
We’re almost at the end of this. If you could change one thing about how LPs look at secondary market opportunities, what would it be?

Julien (Jera Capital):
Secondaries have always developed based on acceptance. The GFC and CalPERS selling $2 billion, with three different buyers teaming up to do that deal, made everybody comfortable with the idea. And I think the belief should be: it’s smart to manage your allocation.

Kasper:
Fantastic. Julien, we’re going to wrap it up here, but this was a fascinating conversation –  from the Jera Academy to asset selection, portfolio construction, GP assessment, the need to consider the “pop,” the growth of secondaries, the risks of leverage and interest rates, and not least CVs and how LPs are starting to reflect. Thank you so much for joining us and sharing your thoughts.

Julien (Jera Capital):
Thank you so much, Kasper.

Kasper:
Thank you also to our listeners for tuning in to Balentic Edge. I hope you enjoyed the conversation. If you did, please hit follow on Spotify or Apple, or subscribe on YouTube. And consider sharing this episode with a friend or colleague.

Do you have feedback or questions? I’d love to hear from you. Connect with me on LinkedIn. This episode was brought to you by Orca – helping GPs reach the right LPs and LPs discover the right funds. Learn more at balentic.com/orca

Thanks again for listening, and until next time, stay illiquid.

Kasper:
Finally, a small disclaimer. The views expressed in this podcast are solely those of the host and guests and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not represent the views of any affiliated organizations, employers, or entities. Nothing discussed should be construed as investment, legal, tax, or business advice. Any reference to specific funds, companies, or investment strategies are purely illustrative and do not constitute an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. Listeners should consult their own professional advisors before making any investment or financial decisions.