Subscribe to Holding Company News & Updates
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
%202.png){kind=small}
If you’re exploring ways to acquire an existing business—or perhaps launch a new venture—chances are you’ve come across two distinct models: independent sponsors and search funders. At first glance, these two approaches might seem similar. Both aim to identify and invest in promising businesses using funds raised from external sources. Yet there are important structural and strategic differences that can significantly impact how a deal gets done, how risks are shared, and how returns are earned.
Below, we’ll look at what independent sponsors and search funders are, why they tend to operate the way they do, and which model might be a better fit for your entrepreneurial goals. Whether you’re just starting to learn about business acquisitions or you’re a seasoned investor seeking a deeper dive, understanding these distinctions is key to making informed decisions that align with your long-term plans.
Independent sponsors—sometimes referred to as “fundless” sponsors—are individuals or small teams who seek out deals without having a formal pool of capital raised in advance. They typically locate, negotiate, and structure a potential acquisition first. Then, once the deal terms are in place, they approach a network of investors to raise the needed capital.
An independent sponsor’s approach can be appealing if you aren’t looking to formalize a large institutional fund structure. However, it also comes with the challenge of continuously garnering fresh investor interest for each acquisition opportunity. There’s no guaranteed pool of capital waiting in the wings, so the deal has to be sufficiently compelling to attract investment.
Search funders, on the other hand, usually raise a dedicated fund or capital base at the start of their journey. That initial pool is used to support the “search” for a single (or sometimes a few) target companies. The typical search fund timeline might look like this:
This structure provides search funders some financial cushion for a methodical, organized hunt and more centralized support from day one. However, it also introduces an obligation to those early investors who expect a certain return, typically over a set timeline. Search funders often have “skin in the game” themselves, but they rely heavily on investor trust and must demonstrate their ability to find a strong deal and then operate the company effectively once it’s acquired.
One of the clearest distinctions between independent sponsors and search funders is the order in which funds are raised. Independent sponsors start the process with zero or minimal dedicated investment capital, focusing on hustling to find deals first. Meanwhile, search funders often begin by raising an initial pool of money that supports their search.
Independent sponsors patch together capital after pinpointing a target, meaning their success hinges on persuading investors that each specific opportunity is robust. Search funders, in contrast, must secure a general belief in their abilities and strategy up front—before identifying an exact acquisition.
The structure of returns (or the “promote”) can be more variable for independent sponsors. Investors typically want to see strong alignment with the sponsor’s efforts on a deal-by-deal basis. Search funders often have a clearer framework established from the start. They might receive a percentage of the upside after investors recoup their initial capital plus a preferred return.
Independent sponsors may rely on a relatively fluid network of investors, forging new relationships for each deal or tapping the same circle repeatedly if all goes well. Search funders generally work with a stable group of backers who committed to the initial phase and have a vested interest in following through to the final acquisition.
Choosing which approach suits you may hinge on how proactive or flexible you want (or need) to be in your fundraising efforts. If you thrive on building a fresh investor base around each unique opportunity and you like the nimbleness that comes with it, the independent sponsor route might be appealing. On the other hand, if you prefer having a more predictable support system at the onset—and can handle the pressure of delivering on that early commitment—search funding might be more aligned with your comfort level.
Independent sponsors and search funders also differ in how involved they tend to be after the acquisition closes. While both can choose to take active or passive roles, there are a few typical patterns:
Some remain involved as board members or advisers post-acquisition. Others prefer to hand off day-to-day operations to existing management (or a hired CEO) while focusing on additional acquisitions. The level of participation can vary widely, and it often depends on the sponsor’s personal preferences or a pre-agreed arrangement with investors.
Most search funders plan to step into a leadership role, often functioning as the CEO of the acquired company. They might spend several years guiding the organization, building the staff, and implementing strategic decisions—eventually working toward a liquidity event.
Neither approach is inherently superior; it largely comes down to personal ambition, skill sets, and the nature of the business. Someone with a strong operational background might relish the “roll up your sleeves” dynamic of a traditional search fund model. However, if you’re more of a deal-first professional who loves identifying great opportunities but isn’t keen on running the business long-term, being an independent sponsor could be a better match.
Risk tolerance is another factor that sets the two models apart. Independent sponsors personally shoulder a great deal of the upfront risk by devoting time and effort—even funding due diligence costs—before knowing if they can successfully raise the capital for a given deal. If they fail to secure the funding, those hours and resources can’t be recouped.
Search funders mitigate some of that personal risk by raising “search capital” at the start, so they have a financial runway to pay themselves a livable salary while identifying an acquisition target. That setup is handy, but it comes with an obligation: investors will expect a return on that initial capital, creating a pressure to find a suitable business within a defined period.
In either case, when a deal does go through and the business performs, the potential upside can be significant. Independent sponsors can negotiate a healthy share of the equity for their efforts in finding and structuring a good deal, while search funders stand to benefit if they can increase the value of the newly acquired company through hands-on management.
If you operate a platform that invests capital, time, talent, and technology into acquisitions, you might conduct a gut check to see which profile resonates with your own goals and resources. Ask yourself:
To be clear, there is no “one size fits all” solution. Independent sponsors often love the excitement of digging up hidden gems in the marketplace and matching them with the right investors. Search funders, by contrast, might excel at building a niche over a few years—identifying a single great company or a small handful of them, immersing themselves in operations, and steering the business to a value-creating exit.