Special Purpose Vehicles
Contents
Trevor L Taylor is a Miami private investor whose firm, Fortius Capital, is a private investment vehicle. A special purpose vehicle, usually shortened to SPV, is a narrower thing: a separate legal entity created to hold one asset or carry out one transaction, walled off from the finances of whoever created it. Economists Gary Gorton and Nicholas Souleles describe how companies transfer assets to special purpose vehicles to finance themselves off the balance sheet1, under rules that limit the ties between the sponsor and the entity.
A company built for one job
An SPV can be a corporation, a trust, a limited liability company or a partnership. What makes it special is its narrow charter. It has no employees of its own, no other business and no discretion beyond the transaction it exists to complete. The sponsor that creates it keeps running its main operations, while the vehicle holds a defined pool of assets and the obligations tied to them.
The point is separation. If the sponsor runs into trouble, the assets inside the vehicle are meant to stay out of reach of the sponsor’s creditors, and the investors who funded the vehicle look only to those assets for repayment. Gorton and Souleles argue that this protection is the heart of the design: the vehicles are built so that a sponsor’s financial distress does not spill into them, which lowers borrowing costs, especially for riskier sponsors.
The same logic explains why SPVs appear in so many corners of finance. Aircraft leases, infrastructure projects, film financing, real estate purchases and royalty streams are all commonly held in dedicated entities, each with its own lenders and its own paperwork. A shipping company might place each vessel in its own entity, so that a problem with one ship does not threaten the financing of the others. A developer might do the same with each building. The cost is administrative: every vehicle needs its own accounts, filings, directors or managers, and annual upkeep, which is why sponsors use them where the separation is worth the expense. The structure resembles the limited partnership in one respect: it lets investors put money into a defined venture without exposing themselves to everything else the organizer does.
Securitization and the off balance sheet era
Securitization made SPVs enormous. A company with loans or receivables, such as car loans, credit card balances or equipment leases, sells them to a vehicle, which pays for them by issuing bonds backed by the expected payments. Gorton explained to Knowledge at Wharton that publicly rated SPVs issued about $800 billion in asset backed securities in 20052, more than conventional corporate bonds, and that SPV securities outstanding rose from under $400 billion in 1995 to nearly $1.8 trillion early in 2004, before counting mortgage backed securities.
The structure also has a reputation problem. NYU finance professor Aswath Damodaran wrote in 2002 that much of the Enron accounting trouble revolved around special purpose entities3, and compared the device to creating a clean credit profile for a borrowing double. His point was that the tool is usually legitimate but can make it harder for outsiders to see how much a company really owes.
Single deal SPVs in startup investing
In venture capital the term has taken on a second meaning. A startup SPV is a small fund that pools money from many investors to buy shares in one private company. CNBC reported that SPVs accounted for 7 percent of private shares traded on Forge Global six years earlier and 64 percent by early 20254, as investors sought access to private technology deals.
The mechanics usually start with an existing shareholder. TechCrunch explained that early backers of popular artificial intelligence companies often want to use their pro rata rights to buy more shares in each new round, and when they cannot fund the purchase alone they create an SPV, raise money from others and in most cases collect additional fees5, plus a share of profits. Family offices and wealthy individuals who cannot get into fast moving rounds directly are frequent buyers, and the same vehicles are a common way to do the coinvestment deals described elsewhere in this cluster.
Data from the equity platform Carta show how quickly the practice grew. New SPV formations on its platform jumped 235 percent year over year during the 2021 venture boom6. Formation slowed after that, yet the annual count remained well above levels of three and five years earlier. The report drew on more than two thousand vehicles formed in the United States, a reminder of how routine the structure has become for small groups of investors who want exposure to one company without committing to a blind pool fund.
For the buyer, the trade off is concentration. A traditional fund spreads money across many companies chosen by the manager. A single deal SPV puts everything on one name, so the result depends entirely on that company’s next rounds, its eventual sale or listing, and the price paid on the way in.
Layers, fees and control
Popularity has brought costs. PitchBook reported that recurring management fees are becoming routine: among SPVs holding more than $10 million, 41 percent took a management fee in 2021 and 67 percent in 20237, according to Carta data. Some vehicles now invest in other vehicles, stacking fees and making it harder to confirm what sits at the bottom.
Experienced investors have warned about the pattern. Sequoia managing partner Roelof Botha cautioned that many new SPVs are led by an investor who puts up less than 10 percent of the capital8 while recruiting latecomers into richly priced deals. The companies themselves can push back as well. OpenAI stated that any transfer of its shares made without its written consent is void9, a reminder that a vehicle’s claim on a private company depends on that company’s own rules.
The thread connecting the bond market version and the startup version is the same question. An SPV is only as sound as the asset it holds and the documents that define it. Careful investment due diligence therefore looks through the wrapper to ask who actually holds the asset at the bottom of the chain, what fees sit between the investor and that asset, and what the sponsor is obliged to do if something goes wrong.
