- Fixed Income and Global Insurance Strategist
The views expressed are those of the speaker(s) and are subject to change. Other teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. For professional/institutional investors only. Your capital may be at risk.
Episode notes
Evergreen funds are reshaping how investors access private markets. In this episode, Mike Trihy explains how these vehicles work, how they differ from traditional drawdown funds, why adoption has accelerated, and how disciplined liquidity management, underwriting, and portfolio construction influence outcomes in venture growth strategies.
1:30 – Mike's background in evergreens
3:15 – Defining evergreen funds
8:30 – Comparing evergreen and drawdown funds
11:15 – Managing liquidity in an evergreen context
13:40 – Evergreen's return expectations
15:55 – Potential impacts of AI
17:10 – The role of secondary investments
20:00 – Evergreen pricing
22:45 – The biggest learning curve for evergreens
Transcript
Mike Trihy: I think liquidity management is one of probably the most under-talked-about areas in evergreen portfolio management. There's so many new funds that have come to market. And there hasn't been a real stress event for a long time. So, I think it's crucial to look at how you think about managing through difficult periods, because it's not a question of if it's going to happen, it's when. So, I think if the folks who are prepared will be very well, well suited to manage through that.
William Craig: Today we're exploring a structural revolution in private markets, evergreen private equity funds. These aren't traditional raise, invest, exit, repeat vehicles, and they're causing investors to rethink how they access private markets. We'll dig into why investors may be drawn to flexibility over fixed timelines, how perpetual structures are redefining liquidity and exposure, and also cover the associated complexity and risks of a more liquid structure investing in illiquid investments. Stay tuned as we break down the opportunity, the considerations, and the mindset behind the rise of evergreen funds. Hello and welcome to the InvestorExchange. My name is William Craig, platform leader for Wellington's private equity business. Joining me today is the head of venture growth Evergreen at Wellington, Mike Trihy. Mike leads the firm's private investment activity and evergreen strategies, and there's no better person to help us navigate the structural revolution underway today. Welcome to the show, Mike. It's great to have you.
Mike Trihy: Thanks so much, Will, happy to be here.
William Craig: Before we dive into the evergreen space, why don't you tell us a bit about your investing background and what led you to join Wellington?
Mike Trihy: Yeah, happy to spend some time on my background. Have spent really the vast majority of my career investing vehicles in private markets in the wealth channel. For almost the last decade, that's been predominantly in these evergreen private-markets vehicles. Started allocating to them at Partners Group, who was a very early mover in the space ― did a lot of multi-asset class allocation, across both evergreen and separate account mandates there. Learned a lot about how to sustainably manage these products and manage a lot of the complexity around liquidity and stress testing and things like that. Went on from Partners to launch a new evergreen fund with an asset manager in Denver, Colorado, helped scale that fund to nearly $1 billion while putting up pretty compelling rates of return and investing across a broad set of private-markets asset classes ― predominantly private equity buyout, but complemented by growth venture, private credit, liquid strategies. So, a really, really broad solution there. What got me excited about Wellington was really a number of things; I think as a firm, they're suited to execute in the evergreen space. If you look at who has been successful in evergreen investing, it's typically groups that have a really strong operational infrastructure and ability to handle complexity, really good distribution, and a really strong investment program. So, it's great to see the existing strength of the privates platform. And then you look more broadly at Wellington as a firm who's been operating complex investment structures for decades on the public side of the business ― really strong ability to handle the complexity here, manage liquidity effectively. We have a massive, traditional asset manager in stocks and bonds that help manage the liquid assets of the portfolio and really a great distribution arm and great reputation. We got to be really excited about the opportunity set to work on evergreen strategies at such a world-class firm.
William Craig: Just to level set on the structure for our audience. You know, what are evergreen funds? How have you seen clients incorporate them into their portfolios? And why might people want to access these structures?
Mike Trihy: Yeah, I'll take that in a few different parts. At the simplest level, evergreen funds are perpetual vehicles that take in capital, typically on a monthly basis, and provide some amount of limited liquidity on a periodic basis as well. There are a lot of different flavors you can see in that. Some are more institutional oriented, the majority are much more focused on the wealth channel. And if you look at these vehicles, the first generation was very heavy real estate, private credit ― asset classes that were in some ways a little bit easier to manage in a more liquid vehicle. And then in the last 2 or 3 years, you've seen an explosion in private-equity-oriented strategies in these vehicles as well. And across all of them, it’s structurally much more similar to what you see in a mutual fund or ETF construct than a traditional ten-year partnership type fund. So, it's a simpler to invest structure, and a little bit easier to digest, particularly for the wealth channel. So, I think the reason that you're seeing increased adoption of these vehicles and increased launches of these evergreen funds is really twofold. There's kind of a more positive rationale behind it and one that's a little bit more mixed. On the positive side, I do think there's a genuine need for more of this product in the wealth channel in retirement accounts. If you look at what's happened in the retirement landscape over the last, call it 20-30 years, used to have the majority of retirement assets in defined benefit plans where the risk of managing retirement assets was at the firm level, not the individual level. And the toolkit that was used at the institutional level was much, much broader than what you see in most 401(k) plans today. They were they were using obviously all the traditional asset classes, but also a broad set of private markets asset classes ― credit-, equity-oriented, hedge funds. So really had this very broad toolkit to manage retirement risk. Flash forward to today things have completely pivoted. Defined benefit obviously still exists, but it's been shrinking for years. And now we've put the onus on retirement risk at the individual level, but given them a fraction of the number of tools that are available at the institutional side and said, you know, good luck more or less. I think the more that you can open up and provide some of the benefits of private markets in that landscape and help people meet their retirement goals, I think that's a very positive rationale behind the growth of these evergreen vehicles. On the flip side, I also think there's a rationale for asset managers to want to launch and move into the wealth channel in a big way. If you look at what's happened over the last 3 or 4 years where, you know, after the rise in interest rates in 2022, a lot of the traditional pockets on the institutional side for fundraising have really started to pull back on the private side because they're at or above their target allocation. And the result has been a brutal fundraising environment for several years in traditional pools of private capital, particularly on the institutional side, and I think that's driving a lot of asset managers to say, hey, we need to move into the wealth channel, this is largely untapped, let's launch a product. And the result is just this influx of a massive amount of launches and the evergreen space. And again, I think more choice is generally good. I think many of these will be high-quality products, but many probably won't be. They'll be they won't be as well thought through. Some groups may not be used to managing them in this kind of construct. So, you have this kind of flood of things coming to market. So, I think there's kind of a demand-driven reason that's very positive, but also the supply of funds coming online that's driven by, more of a existential need to raise in the channel than designing the best product for the channel necessarily. And then I think the last part of your question was how are these being used in portfolios? I've seen a few different constructs. At the simplest level, if you think about the equity side of things, you're starting to see a lot of advisors start to use this as almost a small-cap alternative. One way of thinking about the risk and return is to say, okay, private equity allocation is somewhat close to the small cap, that's maybe a small cap replacement with less liquidity in a portfolio. The more nuanced flavor of portfolio fit that I've seen is, the more sophisticated asset owners are starting to say, okay, depending on someone's liquidity tolerance, we can figure out how much they can allocate to alts. Maybe that's 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%. And depending on their time horizon and risk tolerance, you can figure out a different combination of evergreen funds to solve for specific client goals. So, if it's someone who's on the older end, they're retired. Maybe they're at the very, very low end of that liquidity spectrum, you probably allocate maybe 5% and you do a very heavy amount to private credit, lower-risk real estate, lower risk infrastructure yielding assets. That's a good fit for, a lower-risk private portfolio or in a retirement account. If you look to someone who's 20, 30, 40 years younger, has a long time horizon, you could see maybe 20% privates, maybe 70% more equity-oriented strategies and taking more risk there. And I think this kind of more model-based approach and pulling equally from different parts of the portfolio depending on the risk profile, is a much more nuanced way to allocate to the space, and I think it's just starting to really expand, as you've seen the initial forays into model portfolios in an evergreen context, because evergreens fit much, much cleaner in a model portfolio, given the ability to rebalance than trying to do traditional drawdown funds. And I think the next phase of growth in this space, it’ll probably be a lot more model driven over the next 10-15 years than maybe advisors going out and picking individual evergreen funds.
William Craig: You raised a lot of good points; I definitely want to come back to the capital flows and demand and the potential impact on a forward-looking basis as you think about the market competitiveness, returns. Before we get there, would it be helpful to compare and contrast the evergreen fund versus what's maybe commonly associated with private equity, which is traditional drawdown structure? As you think about exposure, tax, administrative burdens, how do you compare the two structures?
Mike Trihy: Traditionally, drawdown funds have made up the vast majority of private equity allocations. You're typically looking at a ten-year partnership with a few years of extensions. Your money will be called down over a 2 to 4 year period very gradually. And you'll get random notices and have to fund those capital calls in five, six, seven days, in some cases. And on the back end, you have no control over your liquidity ― your capital is locked up and sporadically five, six, seven years down the line you may start getting distributions off that portfolio and hopefully the whole thing winds down. And I think the average life of a PE fund is like 12 plus years, so it's a pretty long hold period. A lot of administrative burden coming with that as well. You have the unpredictability of the calls on the front end. You have the unpredictability of when you're going to get your money back. In a drawdown structure, you need to have a pacing plan and know when your capital calls are going to happen in distributions and be diversified across funds. The complexity level ramps very, very quickly. And you also have just a lot of natural barriers ― particularly when you think about a wealth-oriented channel ― of very, very high minimums; I mean, top-tier managers are typically $5 million minimum plus, some will go down to $1 million, but I'd say the majority are in that, call it $5 million plus type range. Obviously, that's an access issue. You also have the joy of not getting your tax reporting on your K-1 until usually like August, September, which is also a joy from a tax perspective. So, all of that creates a lot of friction and a lot of barriers in in a wealth construct. Evergreens really try to solve for a lot of those issues. Instead of a series of capital calls, you're immediately invested day one, so the asset owner has some degree of control over liquidity. Yes, there are gates. So, there's limitations on how much you can pull out of a fund. You typically see something between 2.5% to 5% per quarter in liquidity on these vehicles at the fund level. So, in benign environments they can be fairly liquid. But again, they can go very illiquid very fast in a stress scenario. But it does have a much higher degree of investor control. You also typically see lower investment minimums anywhere from, some funds run, $1,000, but I'd say the majority are in like $25k, $50k type minimums ― much more accessible for the majority of the wealth channel versus the millions you're looking at on a typical fund. And again, tax structures vary, but many will be much more simple from a tax standpoint, either a really streamlined K-1 that comes out at the beginning of the year, or a 1099 tax reporting, which is a lot simpler. The goal of these vehicles is to take away a lot of those frictions that you've seen on the drawdown side in terms of getting exposure to private markets.
William Craig: You do have illiquid assets combined with a semi-ish liquid structure. So, how do you think about managing liquidity? And particularly in a space like venture and growth, where the investments perhaps are a little longer in duration than something in buyout and certainly in credit?
Mike Trihy: Yeah, I think liquidity management is one of probably the most under-talked-about areas in evergreen portfolio Management. There's so many new funds that have come to market. And there hasn't been a real stress event for a long time. So, I think it's crucial to look at how you think about managing through difficult periods, because it's not a it's not a question of if it's going to happen, it's when.
So, I think if the folks who are prepared will be very well, well suited to manage through that. And I've always thought about managing liquidity in an evergreen context through a few different layers. Starts with just proper investor education on the front end and letting people understand this is a long-term product. These are ways to get immediate exposure to private markets. They are not liquid. They can be liquid for periods of time. And they are certainly more liquid than a typical ten-year partnership. That does not make them a liquid vehicle. Then, you move into the asset allocation itself. I always like to have a spectrum of liquidity, starting with a liquid bucket and then moving into more mature investments ― that's like secondaries that are four, five, six, seven, eight, nine years old that are throwing off distributions quickly ― and then your true illiquid investments that are newer and then just starting to generate returns. You take all those assets, you stress test them bottom up, and assume okay, if 2008 hits, can you still hit your minimum gates for at least a two-year period? And I think if you can solve that stress test, it puts you in a really good position to manage through pretty much any challenging liquidity environment. And then the layers behind that are things like credit lines ― for many folks, they’re first line of defense. I've always thought of them as the last line. They really do nothing but buy you time. But that time can be important ― it lets more distributions come off the portfolio ― but, obviously, have to make sure that those credit lines are turned out appropriately and are going to be there for you when stress hits. I think in that context that can be really additive. And I also like to think about how you even structure your client base. If you avoid having too much concentration at the client level and having exposure to a broad set of different client types, it can set you up to be more resilient, because different types of clients are going to behave differently in a stress environment. If you have some institutional, some large distributors, some RIAs, some family offices, that creates a more stable base in a stress environment than if you have everyone in one investor type who's all going to move as a herd. That can be a challenging thing to manage through from a liquidity perspective. But I think that combination of asset allocation, kind of backup lines of defense, and proper education can set up a fund like this to be successful from liquidity perspective, even when things get really choppy.
William Craig: So, when you bring together the exposure, the structure, and the liquidity management, what's the type of return profile on average an investor might expect from an evergreen structure?
Mike Trihy: Yeah, it's funny. So, the evergreens, optically, if you look at the returns, I think many who are traditional private market allocators will say they seem very low; many who are traditional public market allocators will say, wow, those are quite attractive. And it comes down to a lot of the structural aspects we're talking about here. A lot of that comes down to the difference of comparing IRR and time-weighted returns, like you're looking at in these evergreen vehicles. IRRs assume you're getting a similar rate of return before that capital is called and after it is distributed. In reality, a lot of folks probably are not managing that liquidity perfectly. And where it's most interesting to compare is take the IRR out of the equation, because it's so easy to kind of game and can be shifted so easily. A multiple on a typical top quartile private equity fund, depending on the vintage, is going to be something like a 2x net multiple over a 6-10-year type time frame. An evergreen fund that's doing 12% per annum net is going to be, 2x net return in just over six years. So, it again, that would put them firmly in top quartile private equity land because of the effect of being immediately invested and compounding as opposed to a private equity fund that takes years to call to capital. So, I do think the returns are compelling in these evergreen vehicles, particularly given that that compounding of capital and that ability to stay invested. I don't think they're a good replacement for like the largest institutions. If you have a really robust program of hundreds of primary fund commits that you're managing on a vintage-year-weighted basis, by all means keep doing that. In the wealth channel, where a lot of folks have no private markets allocation, or even the smaller end of institutional, where fund of funds has been a real challenge in terms of, it takes forever to get invested, double layer of fees, we're increasingly seeing these vehicles turn up in institutional channels as an alternative to a fund of funds allocation. So, I do think there's some interesting solutions where this makes more sense. But again, the larger end of institutional, I think is already pretty well covered with their existing approach on a primary fund basis.
William Craig: Let's move on to the market environment and two topics that are grabbing headlines ― certainly artificial intelligence, as well as secondaries and the increasing demand for second secondaries, given some of the liquidity issues over the past few years. What are your takes on these trends in the context of an evergreen structure?
Mike Trihy: Oh, man. There's a lot to unpack there. I'll tackle AI first because I probably have a little bit less to say on that topic. I think, obviously, an increasingly important segment of the economy. And as you think about it, as an allocator from an evergreen context, there's clearly very attractive aspects to AI from an investment thesis. I mean, it's transformational technology, and you're starting to see it in terms of the enterprise uptake. There's been mixed results in terms of seeing how much the actual efficiency improvements are there. But they are generating tons of revenue. So, it seems like a lot of the things are in place for this to be a really compelling investment thesis. On the flip side, you also have an incredible amount of money flowing into the space. You have lofty valuations where if there's even a slight misstep in terms of how fast this technology develops and if things are slower to come around, I think there could be a lot of pain in the space as well. So, it's a really challenging thing to think about as an allocator. I think if you just say I'm going to avoid it entirely, you risk potentially having any exposure to what could be the most transformational technology of the last 50 years. On the flip side, I think you need to be very risk conscious about how you do that. I think it's important to include as part of a portfolio, you cannot size it in such a way where it's going to make or break your performance. I think it's important to participate and be there, because I do think in 5 or 10 years, even if there is a near-term correction, there will be some big winners in AI, and I think you want to have that exposure. Moving on to secondary is a totally different topic ― there's a few different levers that are making this such an interesting area. So, in traditional secondary funds, and I'll quickly define ― in the secondary context, we're talking about providing liquidity to participants in private markets. Most of that is in the form of LP secondary. So, someone's in a private equity fund. They've been in it for 5 or 6 years. They need liquidity for one reason or another. It could be a big pension fund who's having a liquidity squeeze. They'll go out to the secondary market and sell it. Someone will buy it at typically a discount, maybe $0.70, $0.80, $0.90 on the dollar, and they'll just take over their LP interest and take all the distributions coming off that fund for the rest of its life. There's also an increasing growth of GP-led secondaries and other more complex secondaries. When you have a lot of these vehicles in the market, at the same time, it starts having an impact on the secondary market itself. If you think about having, you know, dozens of vehicles who are going out and buying LP secondaries at scale and all of them are taking in money every quarter, and their option is sit in cash or buy secondaries, they're intrinsically going to be willing to pay more for a secondary than anyone else, because their alternative is to sit in cash and have cash drag the fund. And the result is you're starting to see, I think, a lot of, very aggressive pricing in the secondary market, particularly on the buyout side, is where you probably seen this most acutely, and a little bit in credit. There's some incentives to deploy in a way that's different than a typical drawdown fund, and it's having impacts on the secondary market itself, which is which is obviously a little bit concerning as well. Taking all of that together, I worry a little bit about these growth of just dedicated secondary buyers in an evergreen context. Now, that all sounded very negative. I actually love secondaries as part of an evergreen vehicle. I think they can be a phenomenal tool. I think they are better utilized as one tool across a broader toolkit in an evergreen fund. So, you allocate some percentage to secondaries, you use it as a tool day one when you launch to get some diversification and then quickly build out a more direct-oriented portfolio where you can't raise money as fast ― you have to be a lot more disciplined around your fundraising ― but your returns are going to be driven by the growth of the underlying businesses, as opposed to just this pull to par at acquisition. And then you also have secondaries there as a tool if you ever need to flex in during a serious stress environment because secondaries and you know, when markets get really choppy, you can be one of the best areas to allocate. People panic, they start selling ― you've seen discounts widen out to 40%-50%. Really great to have that flexibility to move in there. So, it's a great tool to have in an evergreen fund. And the last thing I'll mention is that there are pockets of secondary where this really increased competition hasn't bled through yet. You've seen it a lot in credit and buyout where, you know, pricing has gotten really tight. If you look more broadly, areas like, infrastructure and growth venture in particular are really under-competed. You have not seen pricing tighten up the way you have more broadly. So, I think there's pockets you can play in even now in this crazy competitive secondary environment that are still pretty attractive. But broadly speaking, it's a really starting to make the broader secondary world challenging to operate in, particularly for closed and funds who don't have an evergreen fund to compete at this tighter pricing.
William Craig: Let's stay with pricing. You know, I have a variety of discussions with institutional investors who are thinking about the evolution and structure, what the potential additional demand means for forward looking returns in private equity. How do you compete in such a competitive environment when pricing becomes so in focus in terms of all of the dollars looking to be invested in the space?
Mike Trihy: That's a really interesting question. I mean, you're seeing it in secondary land right now for sure, where like, I think it's going to impact, not just returns for evergreens, but returns for broader secondary managers because, again, it's hard if you're a buyout manager to compete. So, you've either got to find really proprietary off-market deals, you have to operate in smaller, more niche pockets. But if you're just like a mega fund going out and buying traditional LP deals, it's tough. And I think that's what's driving a lot of the growth of the GP-led secondary market, because again, returns are starting to look more attractive there because I think the LP side has been a lot harder to get the returns you're looking for. But taking this out a bit broader. Yeah, what does it mean for the broader private equity ecosystem to have this much money flowing into a space? It'll be interesting to see. I don't know that it's going to have as massive of an impact as you would think. And I think that'll come down to like where these evergreen funds eventually evolve. I think there's going to be a lot of mega-fund managers who are going to have massive evergreen funds, but they're already deploying such large drawdowns, and those drawdowns are getting harder and harder to raise because the institutional money is coming away. So, like, I don't know that it's suddenly going to mean that they're going to do $60 billion buyouts instead of $20. Like, I think they can still probably operate in that $20 billion-type range. Maybe they do a deal or two extra a year. But again, those are they've already kind of started looking more like almost PE beta to a degree at that scale. I don't think it's going to have a huge impact on that pocket of the market. Then as you look at the other end of the spectrum, I think there's a lot of opportunity for smaller, more niche strategies in the evergreen world that are more alpha focused. And I think there's so much opportunity outside of like the large-cap private equity that gets most of the attention that the money flowing in there shouldn't have a huge impact near term. Now, if you look out long enough, 20, 30, 40 years down the line, if these grow enough and the institutional world doesn't shrink as much as maybe people expect, there could be this net massive increase in private markets AUM. But again, we've already seen that over the last 10 or 15 years ― private markets AUM has doubled or tripled. And I mean returns have certainly not been quite as strong as they were in the early days, but they're still well above public markets on average. So, I don't think you've seen that thesis come to fruition yet. But I do think at a long enough time with enough capital moves into a space, it's going to be detrimental to returns full stop, anyway. I don't see that happening near term, in the next 5 or 10 years, but if you look out long enough, it's definitely a risk that I think I could see why institutions would be concerned about it.
William Craig: So, I have one last question for you, Mike. And I think from what we've seen in terms of flows and fundraising is that adoption ― potentially mass adoption ― is underway. What would you leave our listeners with in terms of the biggest learning curve as they evaluate this type of a structure?
Mike Trihy: So, there are a few different aspects, I think in terms of like learning curve and things to focus on. The one as an industry I think that we need to work on the most is just really basic, asset-class level education. I think a lot of advisors are getting more familiar with private markets, but I think it's still relatively early days on that education and I think you have a lot of advisors who are still somewhat skeptical about private markets in general. I think they see, hey, these are high fees, there's tons of products coming to market. And for good reason they have a degree of skepticism there. But I think if they go a step deeper and start to really learn about how these asset classes function, the return potential, how they can help stabilize portfolios ― there's even a I think an element of, kind of mental comfort that some clients get from like, even though the volatility is just as high, if not higher in terms of like true risk to privates, you don't see that volatility every day, which actually, I think in some ways can have behavioral benefits to end investors, where it can help investors stay invested if they don't see these big market swings from day to day, even though there's still the risk is still very much there (you just don't see it on a day-to-day basis). A lot of this falls on asset managers to just continue to focus on education and helping advisors understand. The other element is going to be the complexity that comes from so many different funds being launched., I think it's very hard for the advisory world to do manager-level diligence in this space, like for them to go onsite with a manager and get comfortable with single-manager funds here in single sector. It's getting more narrow. It's never going to be as narrow as drawdown world, but it's getting more complex to underwrite. When there was only a handful of funds in the space you just said, okay, I'll pick one of these 3 or 4 and I can just do this. It's getting much more complex now, and I do think that's where there's a big opportunity for models to move into this space in the next 5 to 10 years. I think that's going to help a lot with the education side, where you say, okay, we'll have private markets experts who work on the actual model allocations and solve for different risk tolerances. That'll help a lot in terms of like advisors knowing how to have the right mix in a portfolio.
William Craig: Thanks, Mike. We certainly covered a lot of ground today, and I learned a ton. And we really highlighted the structural revolution underway in private markets as evergreen strategies see, continued growth and adoption. Thank you all for joining us on InvestorExchange. That's Mike Trihy, Head of Venture Growth Evergreen Investing at Wellington. Mike, thanks again for being here.
Mike Trihy: Thanks so much, Will. Great to be here.
Views expressed are those of the speaker(s) and are subject to change. Other teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. For professional/institutional investors only. Your capital may be at risk. Podcast produced February 2026.
Wellington Management Company LLP (WMC) is an independently owned investment adviser registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). WMC is also registered with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a commodity trading advisor (CTA) and serves as a CTA to certain clients including commodity pools operated by registered commodity pool operators. WMC provides commodity trading advice to all other clients in reliance on exemptions from CTA registration. WMC, along with its affiliates (collectively, Wellington Management), provides investment management and investment advisory services to institutions around the world. Located in Boston, Massachusetts, Wellington Management also has offices in Chicago, Illinois; Radnor, Pennsylvania; San Francisco, California; Frankfurt; Hong Kong; London; Luxembourg; Milan; Shanghai; Singapore; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto; and Zurich. This material is prepared for, and authorized for internal use by, designated institutional and professional investors and their consultants or for such other use as may be authorized by Wellington Management. This material and/or its contents are current at the time of writing and may not be reproduced or distributed in whole or in part, for any purpose, without the express written consent of Wellington Management. This material is not intended to constitute investment advice or an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to purchase shares or other securities. Investors should always obtain and read an up-to-date investment services description or prospectus before deciding whether to appoint an investment manager or to invest in a fund. Any views expressed herein are those of the author(s), are based on available information, and are subject to change without notice. Individual portfolio management teams may hold different views and may make different investment decisions for different clients. In Canada, this material is provided by Wellington Management Canada ULC, a British Columbia unlimited liability company registered in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan in the categories of Portfolio Manager and Exempt Market Dealer.
In Europe (excluding the United Kingdom and Switzerland), this material is provided by Wellington Management Europe GmbH (WME) which is authorized and regulated by the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – BaFin). This material may only be used in countries where WME is duly authorized to operate and is only directed at eligible counterparties or professional clients as defined under the German Securities Trading Act. This material does not constitute investment advice, a solicitation to invest in financial instruments or information recommending or suggesting an investment strategy within the meaning of Section 85 of the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz). In the United Kingdom, this material is provided by Wellington Management International Limited (WMIL), a firm authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK (Reference number: 208573). This material is directed only at eligible counterparties or professional clients as defined under the rules of the FCA. In Switzerland, this material is provided by Wellington Management Switzerland GmbH, a firm registered at the commercial register of the canton of Zurich with number CH-020.4.050.857-7. This material is directed only at Qualified Investors as defined in the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act and its implementing ordinance. In Hong Kong, this material is provided to you by Wellington Management Hong Kong Limited (WM Hong Kong), a corporation licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission to conduct Type 1 (dealing in securities), Type 2 (dealing in futures contracts), Type 4 (advising on securities), and Type 9 (asset management) regulated activities, on the basis that you are a Professional Investor as defined in the Securities and Futures Ordinance. By accepting this material you acknowledge and agree that this material is provided for your use only and that you will not distribute or otherwise make this material available to any person. Wellington Investment Management (Shanghai) Limited is a wholly-owned entity and subsidiary of WM Hong Kong.
In Singapore, this material is provided for your use only by Wellington Management Singapore Pte Ltd (WM Singapore) (Registration Number 201415544E). WM Singapore is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore under a Capital Markets Services Licence to conduct fund management activities and is an exempt financial adviser. By accepting this material you represent that you are a non-retail investor and that you will not copy, distribute or otherwise make this material available to any person. In Australia, Wellington Management Australia Pty Ltd (WM Australia) (ABN 19 167 091 090) has authorized the issue of this material for use solely by wholesale clients (as defined in the Corporations Act 2001). By accepting this material, you acknowledge and agree that this material is provided for your use only and that you will not distribute or otherwise make this material available to any person. Wellington Management Company LLP is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence (AFSL) under the Corporations Act 2001 in respect of financial services provided to wholesale clients in Australia, subject to certain conditions. Financial services provided by Wellington Management Company LLP are regulated by the SEC under the laws and regulatory requirements of the United States, which are different from the laws applying in Australia. In Japan, Wellington Management Japan Pte Ltd (WM Japan) (Registration Number 199504987R) has been registered as a Financial Instruments Firm with registered number: Director General of Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Kin-Sho) Number 428. WM Japan is a member of the Japan Investment Advisers Association (JIAA), the Investment Trusts Association, Japan (ITA) and the Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association (T2FIFA). WMIL, WM Hong Kong, WM Japan, and WM Singapore are also registered as investment advisers with the SEC; however, they will comply with the substantive provisions of the US Investment Advisers Act only with respect to their US clients.
©2026 Wellington Management Company LLP. All rights reserved.
HOST
Guest(s)
Head of Portfolio Management, Venture Growth Evergreen
MORE EPISODES
Podcast
Podcast
Podcast