Skip to main content

    GP vs LP (General Partner vs Limited Partner)

    The GP runs the fund and makes the investments (and earns the carry); the LPs are the investors who put up the money but stay hands-off and can only lose what they invested. PE funds are legally a partnership of these two.

    Definition

    General partner vs limited partner describes the two sides of a private equity fund's legal structure: the general partner (GP) is the firm that manages the fund, makes investment decisions, and earns the management fee and carried interest, while the limited partners (LPs) are the outside investors — pensions, endowments, sovereign wealth funds, family offices — who provide the bulk of the committed capital and bear liability limited to their investment. The fund itself is structured as a limited partnership with these two roles.

    What each side does

    The GP is the private equity firm (and its deal professionals): it raises the fund, sources and screens deals, executes acquisitions, oversees portfolio companies, and decides when to exit. It has unlimited liability for the fund's obligations and full control over decisions. The LPs are passive capital providers — they commit money, fund capital calls, and receive distributions, but they have no day-to-day control (taking control would jeopardize their limited-liability status). The GP brings expertise and judgment; the LPs bring capital. This division is the foundation of the entire PE business model.

    The economics between them

    LPs typically supply ~98-99% of the fund's capital; the GP contributes a GP commitment of ~1-5% as skin in the game. In return for managing the money, the GP earns a ~2% management fee and ~20% carried interest ("two and twenty"). LPs receive their capital back plus a preferred return before the GP's carry kicks in. So the GP earns disproportionate upside (carry) relative to its small capital contribution, which is the whole point — LPs are paying for the GP's ability to generate returns they couldn't earn themselves.

    Liability and control — the legal core

    The terms come from limited partnership law. The general partner has unlimited liability and management authority; limited partners have limited liability (capped at their investment) but must stay passive. If an LP starts directing investment decisions, it can lose its limited-liability shield. In practice, GPs often form the fund's GP entity as an LLC so even the "general partner" caps its liability — but conceptually, the GP is the active, controlling, liable party and the LPs are passive, protected investors. This structure is also why distributions and governance are all spelled out in the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA).

    Where the LPA and side letters come in

    All the rules governing the GP-LP relationship live in the Limited Partnership Agreement: fee terms, the waterfall, the investment period, key-person provisions, and clawbacks. Large or strategic LPs often negotiate side letters granting them better terms (lower fees, co-investment rights, most-favored-nation clauses). The LPAC (Limited Partner Advisory Committee), made up of major LPs, gives investors a limited oversight role on conflicts and valuations without crossing into management. Understanding that the GP-LP relationship is governed by these documents — not just a handshake — is a sign of real PE literacy.

    Worked Example — With Real Numbers

    A firm raises a $1bn fund. LPs (a pension fund, an endowment, and a family office) commit $980m; the GP commits $20m (2%) of its own money. The GP earns 2% management fees and 20% carry; LPs get their capital plus an 8% preferred return first. If the fund returns $2bn, LPs receive their $980m back, their pref, and ~80% of the remaining profit, while the GP — on just $20m of its own capital — earns roughly $200m of carry plus fees. That asymmetry is exactly why GP roles are so coveted.

    Key Takeaways

    1

    The GP manages the fund, makes investment decisions, and earns the management fee and carried interest.

    2

    LPs are passive investors (pensions, endowments, etc.) who provide ~98-99% of capital with limited liability.

    3

    The GP has unlimited liability and control; LPs are protected but must stay hands-off.

    4

    The GP commits ~1-5% of fund capital as skin in the game but earns disproportionate upside via carry.

    5

    The whole relationship — fees, waterfall, governance — is governed by the Limited Partnership Agreement.

    Common Mistakes in Interviews

    Saying LPs help run the fund — they're passive and lose their liability shield if they take control.

    Forgetting the GP contributes its own capital (the GP commitment), not just management.

    Assuming the GP provides most of the capital; LPs supply ~98-99% of it.

    Overlooking that the GP earns outsized carry relative to its small capital stake.

    How Interviewers Test This

    Expect: "What's the difference between a GP and an LP in a private equity fund?" Cover all three axes — role (active manager vs passive investor), economics (GP earns fees + carry, LPs provide capital and get pref first), and liability (GP unlimited/control, LP limited/passive). Mentioning the GP commitment and the LPA shows depth beyond a one-line answer.

    Related Concepts

    Directly referenced in this topic

    More Private Equity

    23 more concepts in this category

    Topic Guides

    Firms That Test This

    Practice GP vs LP (General Partner vs Limited Partner) questions

    400+ interview questions with AI feedback. Free to start.

    Start Practicing

    Master GP vs LP (General Partner vs Limited Partner) and 100+ More Concepts

    Get the full IB Flash experience and walk into your interview with confidence.

    AI Interview Coach

    Real-time feedback on your answers

    1,000+ Practice Questions

    Across IB, PE, HF, VC & more

    Financial Modeling Tests

    Excel-based skill assessments

    Start Free Trial

    Or explore our free tools to get started