Private Equity Firms Sell Assets to Themselves: How Pricing Power, Approval Friction and Procurement Leverage Are Being Reset
Continuation vehicles, self-deals, and internal asset sales are rewriting commercial leverage expectations across industries. With independent buyers scarce, pricing power increasingly shifts to the party able to raise fresh capital.
This trend has already reached record participation, now representing roughly one-fifth of all private equity sales, a sharp rise from prior levels.
What makes this commercially decisive is not the statistic itself, but the precedent it establishes: when competitive tension exits the room, bargaining leverage and approval velocity change hands.
Internal continuation asset sales are projected to reach approximately $107bn in total deal value, up from $70bn previously. The structure returns liquidity to older fund backers while allowing managers to retain control of assets they have struggled to sell externally at desired valuations.
Because the same firm manages both sides of these transactions, negotiation leverage sits inward, reducing independent pricing anchors. In any business cycle that depends on external counterparties to enforce price discipline, this sets a precedent for procurement drag, approval friction, and compressed negotiation autonomy if ignored.
Organizations that overlook the commercial signal risk real execution outcomes. When valuation or asset pricing is established without independent buyer pressure, acquisition premiums can inflate, procurement cycles slow, and approval chains stretch as stakeholders evaluate conflicts of interest rather than competing offers.
This is not misconduct by definition, but leverage asymmetry by structure. The longer a mandate owner waits for competitive price formation that may never come, the more likely vendor repricing pressure or bargaining premiums become the embedded execution cost.
This shift has implications for any reader responsible for approving cost, negotiating vendors, managing procurement cycles, or transferring assets where budget autonomy once depended on competitive tension. The core mandate change is clear: leverage now belongs to the side able to generate liquidity, not necessarily the side owning the asset.
The Real Issue Beneath the Headline
The underlying issue is leverage compression driven by buyer scarcity. Continuation vehicles have become a tactical alternative to independent buyers, allowing managers to preserve valuations while unlocking new management fees and future performance fees.
These fee incentives make the tactic commercially material, not conceptual. Where liquidity is created internally, procurement leverage for original backers tightens, price discipline softens, and approval velocity slows. In any industry where competitive bids historically protected execution cadence and pricing fairness, this precedent increases the likelihood of acquisition premiums or approval drag becoming the default execution outcome.
Who Wins, Who Loses, Who Is Exposed
The winners are private equity managers who retain control, extend exit timelines, and unlock new fee streams without accepting external buyer pricing pressure.
The losers are original fund backers whose pricing leverage contracts when there is no independent buyer counterparty establishing a true market price.
The most exposed stakeholders are those accustomed to backing managerial reputation rather than conducting asset-level diligence, leaving them potentially under-equipped to assess the value of transferred companies. The risk is not defined as illegality, but negotiation asymmetry: when buyer and seller incentives align, approval friction increases and procurement autonomy compresses.
What This Changes Going Forward
This precedent signals a mandate shift that will persist. Valuation leverage increasingly sits with the party able to raise new investors rather than independent acquirers who test pricing tension.
Going forward, expect greater clearance drag, slower procurement resets, and heightened demands from boards and mandate owners for evidence of independent price formation.
Organizations that ignore this leverage signal risk approvals stretching longer, bargaining premiums embedding deeper, and procurement slowdown persisting beyond planning assumptions. The commercial consequence is universal: where pricing tension is absent, execution friction fills the gap.
Executive Takeaway
Leverage belongs to the side that can manufacture liquidity. In constrained buyer environments, internal self-deals set a precedent for pricing power shifting away from independent buyers, increasing approval friction and procurement drag for any mandate owner who once relied on competitive tension to protect price discipline and execution pace.
FAQs
Q: What are continuation vehicles in private equity?
A: Newer funds managed by the same PE firm that acquire assets from older funds using capital raised from fresh investors.
Q: Why are private equity firms selling assets to themselves?
A: Because managers have struggled to secure independent buyers or listings at desired valuations, making internal liquidity the most viable ownership-extension path.
Q: How large are internal continuation asset sales expected to reach?
A: Total transaction volume is projected to reach approximately $107bn, up from $70bn previously.
Q: Are continuation vehicle self-deals illegal?
A: They are not defined as illegal by structure, but raise conflict-of-interest concerns because the same manager may operate on both sides.
Q: Who sets pricing in continuation vehicle self-deals?
A: Managers argue new investors contribute to price setting, while critics note independent pricing tension is reduced.
Q: What commercial risk do self-deals create?
A: Reduced negotiation leverage for original backers, slower procurement approvals, and a higher likelihood of acquisition premiums or vendor repricing pressure.
Q: Can original investors roll their stakes into continuation vehicles rather than exit?
A: Yes, firms typically offer stake-rolling options into the new fund.
Q: What happens if businesses ignore this leverage shift?
A: Likely outcomes include procurement slowdown, bargaining premiums, vendor repricing pressure, and compressed budget autonomy due to prolonged approvals.
Q: Do all stakeholders have the expertise to evaluate transferred assets?
A: Not always, particularly those accustomed to backing reputation rather than asset-level diligence, increasing bargaining asymmetry.
Q: Will continuation vehicles remain relevant?
A: Yes, the structure is positioned as a sustained liquidity solution in constrained exit markets, making it evergreen-strategic and commercially persistent.
Latest: 👉 Should We Fear the AI Boom? Commercial Leverage and Strategic Consequence in the Next Market Cycle 👈
