5.3
Lean Pass
Greenline Infrastructure Fund II
Evaluated by Toviya Slager · October 07, 2026
Analytical 5.19/10
Gut feel 5.84/10
📊 Deal metrics
Fund Size / Target Raise
$850,000,000
Firm AUM
$2,100,000,000
Length of Track Record (Years)
8 yr
Net Return Since Inception (Ann.)
12.4%
Net Return, Trailing 3Y (Ann.)
11%
Sharpe Ratio (net)
1.1x
Annualized Volatility
7%
Max Drawdown
9%
Beta to Benchmark
0.3x
Gross Exposure
100%
Net Exposure
100%
Number of Positions
14
Management Fee
1.5%
Incentive Fee / Carry
20%
Hurdle / Preferred Return
8%
GP Commitment
$17,000,000
Minimum Investment
$5,000,000
Lockup (Years)
10 yr
Redemption Notice (Days)
90
Section breakdown
7
Portfolio manager's track record IN THIS STRATEGY
Benchmarked against two comparable deals we closed.
4
GP commitment — how much of the manager's own money is in the fund
5
Integrity, transparency, and quality of disclosure
4
Depth of the investment team beyond the founder
Depends on the anchor tenant renewing.
6
Background and regulatory history (Form ADV, SEC/FINRA, litigation)
5
Team stability and turnover
7
Firm business stability (AUM trend, revenue, is the firm profitable)
Consistent with the T-12.
7
Compensation alignment across the team
4
Key-person risk and succession
6
Clarity of the strategy — can you explain in plain English how it makes money
Confirmed on the call with the sponsor.
4
Source of edge, and why it persists
4
Repeatability and process discipline
5
Style drift — does the current book still match the mandate
Weak spot; flagged for diligence.
5
Capacity — does the strategy still work at this AUM
7
Portfolio construction — position count, sizing, and concentration
4
Dependence on a particular market environment
Weak spot; flagged for diligence.
6
Research process and idea sourcing
4
Use of leverage, derivatives, shorting, and illiquids
5
Length, relevance, and auditability of the track record
Weak spot; flagged for diligence.
6
Net returns vs. the right benchmark and peer group
6
Drawdown history — depth, duration, and recovery
4
Risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe, Sortino, vol)
Third-party report pending.
6
Consistency — breadth of contribution, not a few lucky positions
5
Attribution — do returns come from the stated edge
5
Behaviour in stress periods (2008, 2020, 2022)
Our own estimate; sponsor disagrees.
5
Are the returns independently verifiable
6
Risk framework — limits, monitoring, and who owns it
5
Liquidity of the book vs. the fund's redemption terms
Third-party report pending.
6
Gross and net exposure limits, and adherence to them
4
Leverage — level, source, and financing terms
5
Concentration limits — position, sector, and factor
Confirmed on the call with the sponsor.
5
Counterparty and prime-broker risk
4
Stress testing and scenario analysis
4
Independence of risk oversight from the PM
Weak spot; flagged for diligence.
7
Incentive fee, hurdle, and high-water mark
4
Lockup, redemption frequency, and notice period
6
Gates, side pockets, and suspension rights
Third-party report pending.
5
Management fee
7
Total expense load beyond the headline fees
6
Fee terms vs. peers running this strategy
Third-party report pending.
4
Most-favoured-nation and side-letter terms
4
Minimum investment and our resulting share of the fund
5
Independent third-party administrator
Weak spot; flagged for diligence.
7
Reputable independent auditor with clean opinions
4
Independent custody of assets
4
Valuation policy — who prices hard-to-value positions
Third-party report pending.
5
Compliance function and CCO
6
Investor reporting — quality, frequency, and transparency
4
Operational due diligence findings
Management's number, not yet verified.
4
Cash controls and segregation of duties
4
Business continuity, cyber, and technology
4
The role this fund plays in our portfolio
Depends on the anchor tenant renewing.
5
Correlation and overlap with what we already own
4
Liquidity fit with our own needs
7
Sizing — is the right position size available to us
Benchmarked against two comparable deals we closed.
5
Access — is this an allocation worth having
4
Our ability to monitor it once invested
5
Fund structure and domicile
Our own estimate; sponsor disagrees.
6
LPA / offering document terms and investor protections
6
Tax treatment for our entities
5
Regulatory registration and reporting status
Benchmarked against two comparable deals we closed.
7
Governance — LP rights, advisory board, removal provisions
6
Overall excitement about this deal
6
Trust in the people across the table
Supported by the data room; see folder 3.
7
Would this be your only investment this year?
4
Portfolio fit and strategic alignment
7
LP/partner explainability
Management's number, not yet verified.
7
Too-good-to-be-true meter
4
Timing and urgency — is the window right?
7
Differentiation vs. other opportunities
Supported by the data room; see folder 3.
4
Sleep-at-night factor
6
Regret minimization — would you regret passing?
7
Information quality — do you know enough?
Weak spot; flagged for diligence.
Full analysis
DEAL EVALUATION ANALYSIS: Greenline Infrastructure Fund II Type: Fund | Overall Score: 5.26/10 | Recommendation: Lean Pass ====================================================================== KEY METRICS: Fd Fund Size: 850,000,000 Fd Firm Aum: 2,100,000,000 Fd Track Years: 8 Fd Net Return Itd: 12.4 Fd Net Return 3Y: 11 Fd Sharpe: 1.1 Fd Vol: 7 Fd Max Drawdown: 9 Fd Beta: 0.3 Fd Gross Exposure: 100 Fd Net Exposure: 100 Fd Positions: 14 Fd Mgmt Fee: 1.5 Fd Incentive Fee: 20 Fd Hurdle: 8 Fd Gp Commit: 17,000,000 Fd Min Investment: 5,000,000 Fd Lockup: 10 Fd Notice Days: 90 MODERATE AREAS: ~ Legal, Structure & Tax: 5.74/10 ~ Terms, Fees & Liquidity: 5.46/10 ~ Manager & Team: 5.44/10 ~ Track Record & Performance: 5.3/10 ~ Strategy & Edge: 4.98/10 ~ Risk Management & Exposure: 4.98/10 ~ Operations & Service Providers: 4.94/10 ~ Portfolio Fit: 4.74/10 GUT FEELING SCORE: 5.84/10 ====================================================================== SUMMARY: This deal has significant concerns that outweigh the positives. Recommend passing unless the key weaknesses can be materially addressed or mitigated.
Evaluator notes
First read at screening; the rubric gets re-scored once we have our own numbers.