In private equity or broader alternative investing, the term “independent operator” (sometimes called an independent sponsor or fundless sponsor) refers to a team or individual who sources and executes deals without managing a traditional, commingled fund. Instead of deploying capital from a pre-raised fund, an independent operator finds deals first and then raises capital from investors on a deal-by-deal basis.
By contrast, a traditional fund model involves raising a pool of committed capital from Limited Partners (LPs) up front. The manager (General Partner, or “GP”) then invests that committed capital in multiple deals over the fund’s lifetime—often several years—without needing to go back to investors for each transaction.
Note, I've got a library of great templates no matter what route you are trying to go. I've built many types of joint venture templates over the years as well as 100s of unique bottom-up financial model templates for startups that can be used to evaluate individual businesses. I can also work with custom models you may already have or need help on.
Below are the main points of differentiation:
1. Capital Raising
-
Independent Operator (GP without a fund)
-
Raises equity for each investment separately.
-
Must “sell” every deal to investors in order to secure funding.
-
No guaranteed pool of committed capital; each transaction starts from scratch in terms of fundraising.
-
-
Fund Model
-
Managers (GPs) raise a dedicated fund from LPs before making any specific investments.
-
Once capital is committed, the GP can call down those commitments when opportunities arise (i.e., investors do not re-vet each new transaction).
-
Implication: Independent operators can be more flexible and can pick deals opportunistically without pressure to deploy capital. However, they must repeatedly spend time and effort raising capital on every transaction. Fund-based GPs benefit from speed and certainty of capital once the fund is established.
2. Economic Structure and Fees
-
Independent Operator
-
Typically compensated through a deal-by-deal “promote” (carry) and perhaps a management or monitoring fee at the portfolio-company level. This fee may be based on gross rent of the deal or EBITDA / NOI of the operating company. It could also be based on the funds raised on the specific deal. You could also have no fee and instead the GP may earn a percentage of the distributable proceeds even during the LPs pref. phase.
-
Arrangement with investors can be more bespoke—some deals might have variations in promote splits or hurdle rates.
-
Generally do not charge the standard “2% management fee / 20% carry” found in a blind-pool fund.
-
-
Fund Model
-
Often follows a “2 and 20” or similar approach: annual management fee (e.g., 1.5%–2% of committed capital) plus a carry (often 20% over a certain return hurdle).
-
Terms are usually standardized at the outset for the entire fund.
-
LPs pay fees even if the manager has not yet identified specific deals, balancing that with the expectation of professional management and broad deployment of capital.
-
Implication: Independent sponsors usually have a more variable economic relationship per deal. Fund GPs have standardized terms but also an ongoing management fee stream.
3. Risk and Alignment
-
Independent Operator
-
Must continually demonstrate the attractiveness of each investment to potential investors—alignment can be high because every deal is “tested” by investor scrutiny.
-
They usually invest personal capital in each deal, creating strong alignment.
-
Greater fundraising risk for the sponsor (no capital = no deal).
-
-
Fund Model
-
Fund GPs have discretion to deploy already committed capital.
-
Strong alignment typically comes from GP’s own capital commitment (“GP commit”) into the fund, plus carried interest on overall performance.
-
LPs rely on the GP’s track record and strategy rather than deal-specific underwriting for each new investment.
-
Implication: Independent operators face more “deal execution risk”—they may spend time sourcing deals that never close due to lack of funding. Fund-based GPs can move more quickly but must deliver portfolio-wide performance to keep LPs committed for future funds.
4. Investment Strategy and Control
-
Independent Operator
-
Can be highly selective, focusing on transactions that best fit their expertise and investor interests.
-
Often take a hands-on role—“operator” typically implies day-to-day involvement in portfolio companies.
-
Can pivot strategy as opportunities arise without worrying about predefined fund mandates.
-
-
Fund Model
-
Often adheres to a pre-approved investment mandate or strategy outlined in fundraising documents (sector, geography, deal size, etc.).
-
May be more diversified across multiple deals, geographies, or industries, reducing concentration risk.
-
Can still be hands-on, but the structure is typically set to scale across many portfolio companies, with a team and processes in place.
-
Implication: Independent operators may focus on fewer, concentrated bets with deeper operational engagement. Fund managers often spread risk across multiple deals but have to adhere to the fund’s stated strategy.
5. Investor Base
-
Independent Operator
-
Must cultivate relationships with deal-specific co-investors—often family offices, high-net-worth individuals, or institutional investors interested in particular transactions.
-
The investor base may vary from deal to deal depending on sector, size, and timing.
-
-
Fund Model
-
Typically involves large institutional LPs (pensions, endowments, sovereign wealth funds), funds-of-funds, or other institutions committing capital for the entire fund.
-
After the fundraise, LPs are generally passive until the next fund cycle.
-
Implication: Independent operators must maintain a broad network of potential investors to match each new deal. Fund managers focus more heavily on periodic fundraising cycles and maintaining relationships with institutional investors.
Which Model is “Better”?
There is no universal “best” approach—each model has its own merits, trade-offs, and suitability depending on the sponsor’s track record, deal pipeline, operational capabilities, and investor preferences:
-
Independent Operator is often favored by investors seeking greater discretion to evaluate deals one by one, or who prefer to co-invest and maintain control over capital deployment. It also suits sponsors who have strong operating expertise but want the flexibility to pursue opportunities as they arise without the overhead of a formal fund.
-
The Fund Model is well-suited to sponsors who have an established track record, a robust deal flow, and prefer the efficiency, scale, and consistency of having committed capital. It also suits LPs who want broad exposure to a manager’s portfolio and do not want to underwrite each deal individually.
In short, the difference fundamentally revolves around when and how capital is raised, the fee/economic structure, and the level of discretion each type of GP has in sourcing and executing deals.
You may also be interested in understanding how an IRR 'rate' differs from a regular 'rate' within a joint venture deal (relevant for monthly / quarterly distribution models).
I offer something called the Super Smart Bundle that includes every template you see on the site. If you're interest in financial modeling for your own organization or just trying to learn, it is a great place to start.
Feel free to contact me about potential custom financial modeling services as well.
Article found in Joint Venture.
