Will we start to see a decline in the number of traditional searches? I think so

March 17, 2026

by an investor from Harvard University - Harvard Business School in San Francisco, CA, USA

At Footbridge Partners, ^redacted‌, ^redacted‌, and I are seeing what feels like a meteoric rise in the number of committed capital vehicles / HoldCos at the expense of entrepreneurs pursuing traditional search. (Note: we're excited about these vehicles and leaning in where there's a compelling thesis, strong entrepreneurial talent, and a right to win in the target industry). I suspect these CCVs / HoldCos will continue to pick up steam, and I bet we'll start to see a decline in the number of traditional searches raised on an annual basis. Hard to say by just how much, but in a handful of years, I think we'll look back at 2025/2026 as a turning point in the ETA ecosystem. What are other people seeing? Do you all agree?

23 Likes

47 Replies

1,268 Views

Replies

Reply by an investor
from Harvard University in Dallas, TX, USA

As with all the good topics on here.....it depends. I'll start with where my opinion comes from. I invest in traditional, self funded, hold cos, search fund of funds (mineola for example) and Im working with the Communeta team. I also, due to the document I wrote, am at over 3000 people who've called about search, since I searched in###-###-#### I operated, bought out investors so was traditional, then kind of a blend before we sold. The reason for listing all that is because 1. I dont invest other people's money and so I dont have those pressures nor that perspective. 2. I love search and take the view that Jim Sharpe mentored me to, that its about the person not the vehicle. So that being said, I think there are less traditional searches because of how the funders of traditional searches have behaved. I should also say that id view Footbridge as one of the best, so this isn't targeted to you! 1. Its dictated to that the searcher gets 25%. If they are Cristiano Ronaldo of search or Joe Schmo....25%. Thats ridiculous and if funds listened to the market of searchers it is literally the first thing brought up by them and they are afraid to bring it up to funders. Funders should have a much wider conversation, to do with equity grants later after success, and all kinds of other things. You know who shouldnt care about the funds returns? The searchers. If you're gonna pay some vice president $300k a year and fly all over the place and have a fancy office....all off the alpha the searchers generate......then no, they shouldn't care about your returns. 2. The homogeneity of the opinions in search fund of funds is toxic. The nonsense about how to search that has been parroted by associates who have never searched is toxic. As is the inaccessibility of the "partners" who started the funds and never searched. Straight up ego and arrogance. The basic premise of the model is successful entrepreneurs mentor and invest in the inexperienced "talent". So outsourcing it to someone else to talk to them and not taking the call from the searcher having a panic attack at 2am ... .is a big part of why. 3. The attitude at the conferences is easy to feel . The searchers should be the stars of the show. It is a privilege and honor to be involved in searchers journies. Yet the funders think like VCs , like they are the masters of the universe. Since when did search funds become a "space". It's inexperienced people, rolling the dice, to spend 2 years getting told to go pound sand and then to perform exceptionally well running businesses that are anything but a sure bet. 4. The hidden relationships of funds is shocking. So often search funds think they have 12 investors when in fact its basically 60% money that moves together as its a nice little club of funders. It might be legal but its deceitful. 5. There are a very limited number of successful searchers and they are shut out. Those who searched and failed are gold mines of useful perspective and they're ostracized. 6. There is a guy ranking funds and putting information out about how many searchers get fired. Dont know him, but it exists due to funders behavior The argument is that all of these things are growth problems as since I searched (maybe 3 funds that year) it's grown to hundreds per year But there are millions of potential businesses to be bought and lots of aging owners. The potential has never been larger. Traditional search has a problem. The problem is the investors. Dont target Cristiano Ronaldo and treat him like Joe Schmo.

Reply by a searcher
from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in Austin, TX, USA

To give a searcher perspective to this conversation, as a self-funded searcher with a few searches and acquisitions: Firstly, I'm glad I am not starting my search journey today. I believe the growth of CCVs is very closely tied to the flood of new searchers, a lot of whom lack the ability to close deals. I've noticed that brokers are generally more unyielding about seeing proof of funds before engaging or even sharing a CIM, which isn't a bad thing per se. Even so, I still talk to many brokers and sellers that are burned out by the influx of requests within 2 weeks of posting a halfway decent deal. Most operators receive multiple emails per week from searchers and PEs whose CRM can't tell that the business was acquired 6 months ago. So yes, I believe the age of the unfunded searches may be coming to an end. The cycle has become: large # of offers > high multiples > lower IRR deals > deals less likely to be funded and close###-###-#### unless you have a CCV. Ultimately, the only way you win with higher than normal multiples is to be a strategic buyer or require a lower IRR for your capital.

+45 more replies.

Join the discussion