William Ten Eyck

Bio

Will Ten Eyck joined the Alfred I. duPont Charitable Trust in 2016. His primary responsibilities include market research, performance analysis, portfolio analytics, manager research, and due diligence related to the Public and Private Markets investment programs. Mr. Ten Eyck earned his bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Central Florida and his master’s degree in finance from the University of Florida. He is a Chartered Financial Analyst.

Related News Login for news relating to profile

Learn About Private Equity

Hub Page

Largest Private Equity Firms by AUM

Discover the top private equity firms commanding $4.5 trillion in assets, their market influence, an...

Hub Page

Best Private Equity Funds

Discover the top-performing private equity funds with our expert analysis, revealing funds that deli...

Hub Page

Top Private Equity Managers

Discover the top private equity managers driving $4.5T in assets, transforming businesses and delive...

Glossary Article

What Is Private Equity?

Learn how private equity transforms businesses, drives growth, and offers investors unique opportuni...

Private Equity FAQ

When evaluating AUM growth patterns, institutional investors must dissect the underlying drivers to make informed allocation decisions. Organic growth from portfolio appreciation typically indicates strong investment selection and value creation capabilities, while rapid inorganic growth from aggressive fundraising may signal capacity constraints or market timing opportunism. Deployment rates serve as crucial indicators of investment discipline. Top-tier firms typically deploy 70-80% of committed capital within 3-4 years, while slower deployment may indicate difficulty sourcing quality deals at attractive valuations. Analyzing vintage year performance across market cycles reveals consistency—for instance, leading firms maintained IRRs above 15% even for 2006-2007 vintages despite the financial crisis. Market timing significantly impacts valuation-driven AUM fluctuations. The 2021 market peak inflated many firms' AUM by 20-30% through multiple expansion alone, creating artificial growth that reversed in subsequent corrections. Investors should focus on net invested capital and realized returns rather than unrealized value appreciation. Rapid AUM growth poses operational risks. Firms scaling from $5 billion to $15 billion within three years often struggle to maintain deal quality and partner attention. Historical evidence suggests optimal fund sizes rarely exceed 150% of predecessor funds without diluting returns, as mega-funds face reduced investment universe flexibility. Read more: Largest Private Equity Firms by AUM

Understanding the distinction between AUM, committed capital, and dry powder is crucial for institutional investors evaluating private equity firms. AUM represents the total fair value of all investments in a firm's portfolio plus undeployed capital under management, providing a comprehensive view of assets controlled. This figure fluctuates with portfolio valuations and can exceed committed capital during strong market performance. Committed capital reflects the total amount limited partners have contractually agreed to provide, regardless of whether funds have been called or deployed. This metric remains static throughout a fund's life and represents the maximum potential capital available. Dry powder indicates immediately available capital for new investments—essentially committed but undeployed funds. Industry-wide dry powder reached record levels of approximately $3.7 trillion in 2023, according to Preqin data. For due diligence purposes, high dry powder ratios may signal deployment challenges, overly selective investment criteria, or strategic market timing. Conversely, consistently low dry powder might indicate aggressive deployment or insufficient capital raising. Investors should analyze deployment pace relative to fund vintage, market conditions, and the firm's historical patterns. A balanced approach typically shows steady deployment over 3-5 years, maintaining sufficient reserves for follow-on investments and opportunistic deals. Read more: Largest Private Equity Firms by AUM

The concentration of private equity assets among mega-funds fundamentally reshapes market dynamics through several interconnected mechanisms. With the top 10 firms controlling approximately 25% of the industry's $4.5 trillion AUM, an oligopolistic structure emerges where these dominant players significantly influence deal pricing, competitive dynamics, and market access. This concentration creates substantial pricing pressure in premium sectors like technology and healthcare, where mega-funds compete aggressively for quality assets. The resulting asset price inflation compresses returns industry-wide, as evidenced by median buyout multiples rising from 9.2x EBITDA in 2010 to over 12x by 2023. Mega-funds' deep capital reserves enable them to outbid smaller competitors, creating a two-tiered market where premier deals increasingly flow to the largest players. For institutional allocators, this dynamic presents a strategic dilemma. While mega-funds offer enhanced diversification across sectors and geographies, potentially reducing portfolio volatility, their sheer size may constrain IRR potential. Funds exceeding $10 billion often struggle to deploy capital efficiently, as the limited universe of appropriately-sized deals forces them into increasingly competitive auctions. Consequently, many sophisticated allocators are adopting barbell strategies, combining mega-fund stability with targeted smaller fund exposure to capture niche opportunities and potentially superior returns. Read more: Largest Private Equity Firms by AUM

Private equity firms employ multiple valuation methodologies to calculate AUM, with quarterly revaluations being the industry standard. The primary approaches include comparable company analysis (trading multiples of similar public companies), discounted cash flow (DCF) models projecting future cash flows, and transaction multiples from recent M&A activity in relevant sectors. Fair value accounting standards under ASC 820 (Fair Value Measurements) provide the regulatory framework, requiring firms to use market-based inputs when available and document their valuation assumptions. The standard establishes a three-level hierarchy, with Level 1 being quoted market prices and Level 3 representing unobservable inputs requiring significant judgment. Approximately 65% of large PE firms now engage third-party valuation providers like Duff & Phelps or Houlihan Lokey for portfolio companies exceeding $100 million in value, enhancing objectivity and reducing potential conflicts of interest. This represents a significant increase from just 35% a decade ago. Investors should evaluate valuation committee independence, ensuring external board members participate in valuation decisions. Key credibility indicators include Big Four audit firm oversight, consistent methodology application across market cycles, and transparent disclosure of valuation changes. Firms demonstrating lower volatility in their net asset value calculations while maintaining competitive returns typically exhibit superior valuation discipline and governance practices. Read more: Largest Private Equity Firms by AUM

When evaluating large private equity firms, institutional investors must carefully analyze the complex relationship between fund size and performance, as scale presents both advantages and inherent challenges. Large funds typically face diminishing returns as they grow beyond optimal size. Funds exceeding $5 billion often struggle to achieve the 20%+ IRRs common among smaller funds, primarily due to capital deployment pressures that force managers into larger, more competitive deals with compressed multiples. Academic studies suggest optimal fund sizes range between $1-3 billion for maximum risk-adjusted returns. However, mega-funds offer compelling diversification benefits through broader portfolio construction—often holding 50+ companies versus 15-20 for smaller funds. This diversification reduces volatility and provides more predictable cash flow patterns, crucial for institutional portfolio planning. Large funds also demonstrate lower failure rates, with top-quartile mega-funds showing more consistent performance across market cycles. The operational advantages of scale can offset size disadvantages. Firms like KKR and Blackstone leverage extensive operational platforms, proprietary deal sourcing networks, and specialized industry expertise unavailable to smaller managers. These resources enable value creation beyond financial engineering. Performance persistence varies significantly by firm vintage and market conditions. While some mega-funds maintain top-quartile performance across multiple cycles, others experience performance decay as they scale, making thorough due diligence on management capabilities and investment discipline essential for allocation decisions. Read more: Largest Private Equity Firms by AUM

Learn about Private Equity strategies