Private Markets, missing parts: Fixing things that fall apart

Unlike public markets, private investment is not self-explanatory. There is no daily price, no tickers or automatic feedback loops. Liquidity is low, timelines are long, and information flow is asymmetric by default. Confidence is built almost entirely through research, visibility, and communications.

A deal in private markets follows a familiar and well-optimised sequence. Sourcing, diligence, documentation, signatures, capital transfer, and formal close define the core execution path. Most platforms concentrate almost all their product effort on accelerating and de-risking this exact moment.

Once the deal closes, a quite different phase begins, one that is slower and less visible. Capital is locked, timelines stretch into months or years, and outcomes become probabilistic rather than transactional. This is where trust must be actively maintained through proactive signals, not assumed to persist on its own.

Private investing in this case is structured through the entity called SPVs, or Special Purpose Vehicles. It is a separate and independent legal entity created to pool capital from multiple parties into a single deal. It simplifies ownership, limits members’ liability, and allows a large group of shareholders to act as one.

From the Investor’s perspective, an SPV removes operational complexity. Rather than holding shares directly or negotiating separate agreements, Investors commit capital into a single vehicle. Then this entity will be keeping the assets, equity, or economic rights on their behalf, acting as a manageable proxy-service.

This creates a structural gap in the Investor experience. Investors expect ongoing signals or a sense of movement, yet the structure itself may produce long periods of silence. Without a deliberate communication layer, the SPV becomes an opaque container where capital is locked, and the visibility erodes over time.

This creates a dangerous gap. Investors expect updates and signals, but the structure itself produces silence. Without an intentional communication layer, the SPV becomes a black box where capital is locked and visibility fades over time.

To get the idea, let us have a look at the condensed version of the lifecycle of the deal:

1. Deal sourcing – identify the list of potential investment opportunities.
2. Pre-screening – filter for basic fit and general feasibility.
3. Indicative terms – outline the economics and structure.
4. Due diligence – validate key risks and assumptions.
5. Structuring – set up SPV and related governance.
6. Documentation –finalise necessary paperwork.
7. Capital raising – collect Investor commitments.
8. Closing – execute and transfer work capital.
9. Confirmation – issue ownership records.
10. Operation – asset or company runs.
11. Updates – share the information.
12. Follow-ons – additional rounds.
13. Exit prep – liquidity event.
14. Exit –distribute proceeds.
15. Wind-down – close SPV.

This is where the platform that deals with such matter introduced the case. Data showed that Investor interaction with the platform drops significantly after transaction closure. This limited organization’s ability to deliver additional value and build revenue streams across the user lifecycle in. post-deal experience.

Setting the task

The task was to solve this problem. A product strategy must be developed to boost Investor engagement after the transaction, aiming to build long-term loyalty and maximise lifetime value. To make it become real, there was also a request to come up with specific resourcing, execution plan, and respectful timelines.

To better understand why engagement drops after a deal closes, we’ll break the problem into smaller parts based on the two main user roles: Investors and Deal Leads. For each group, we’ll look at a few clear and separate reasons why users’ interaction with the platform drops significantly at certain point of their journey.

Defining Personas

First persona: Investor. Participates in multiple private deals simultaneously and expects low-effort visibility rather than constant interaction. He mainly brings, commits capital, tracks outcomes over long periods with minimal touchpoints. Values clarity, predictability, and timely signals over detailed operational involvement.

Assumption 1: No visibility after investing. Once they fund a deal, it is hard to see what is happening next. There is no clear view of progress, expected returns, or substantial updates. This makes them feel disconnected and unsure whether their money is working. Hence, it creates a boiling point of a tension.

Assumption 2: Nothing brings them back. After signing and sending funds, there are no reminders, updates, or follow-on opportunities to return to the platform. Without a reason to log in again, they simply move on and find workaround. Platform is abandoned, the chance for other opportunities is down to zero.

Assumption 3: Updates happen outside the platform with no consistency or frequency If there are news or signals, they usually would come through emails or messaging apps. This breaks the experience and makes the service feel like a one-time fancy tool instead of a place to manage investments in a long-term.

Second persona: Deal Lead. Manages the lifecycle, acts as a coordination point between Investors, founders, and operators. Focuses on execution up to closing, then shifts to updates, governance, and stakeholder alignment. Optimises for both efficiency and control, minimises repetitive and manual work.

Assumption 1: Platform utility gap. Once a transaction is completed, the system stops helping Deal Leads with their real responsibilities. There are no native instruments to monitor progress, handle subsequent rounds, capture evolving context. It pushes ongoing coordination into emails, files, and other channels.

Assumption 2: Communication friction. There is tangible lack of a built-in way to share updates, answer incoming questions, or respond to feedback at scale, which forces Deal Leads to return to familiar channels such as email, messaging apps, and shared spreadsheets to keep the group of stakeholders aligned.

Assumption 3: Workflow fragmentation. After closing, essential materials end up spread across multiple tools and storage locations, requiring duplicate effort to keep information consistent. This scattering reduces the product’s perceived value and reinforces reliance on external systems instead of the platform.

Defining Solutions

During exploration, a broad set of potential ideas was identified across the post-deal phase. Given time and delivery constraints, this list was intentionally narrowed to five candidates that were fastest to implement, produced immediate impact, and addressed needs on both the Investor and Deal Lead sides:

1. Company Updates Feed – Deal Leads publish updates with automatic summaries.
2. Comments and Notifications – Investors comment and receive alerts in one place.
3. Monthly Investor Digest – automated recap of recent activity and next steps.
4. Milestone Roadmap – a visual timeline of key dates and progress.
5. Document Vault – central storage for core deal documents.

Prioritising. We will use ICE framework to decide on what to do first. Will score three factors: Impact – how much is the value feature can create Confidence – how sure we are, and Ease – how simple is to build it. The bigger the score, the better. Multiplying all scores and then dividing them to 100 gives the final rank:

The prioritisation logic was driven by speed and breadth of impact. The company updates feed was selected first because it is easy to implement and delivers clear value to Investors and Deal Leads. Text updates, attachments provide immediate context, compensating absence of advanced post-deal tools.

Milestones offer a clear view of what is expected next and when key moments should occur. Even a basic roadmap helps set direction and reduce uncertainty after closing the deal. As the product evolves, updates can be tied to specific checkpoints on the timeline to preserve context over a long period of time.

Comments and notifications keep discussion anchored within the platform rather than scattered across external tools. They allow questions, responses, and clarifications to happen in one place. This reduces coordination overhead and keeps stakeholders aligned without leaving the product for third party products.

While other features are good to consider, these three will help:

1. Give Investors to track activity, comment and get notified on key events.
2. Enable leads to share important updates quickly on a scale.
3. Reduce the information asymmetry between parties.

Digging deeper into Solutions

Before moving into execution, it was necessary to adopt a structured approach that reduces risk and avoids building in the wrong direction. The problem spans multiple roles, behaviours, and constraints, so tackling it as a single block would hide root causes and distort outcomes. A step-by-step method makes it possible to validate assumptions while preserving a view of the system. Down below are three key aspects of it.

Defining micro-problems means breaking the larger issue into smaller, manageable parts and addressing them individually while monitoring overall behaviour. This makes it possible to isolate causes without losing sight of the end state. Each step is guided by a clear understanding of the outcome the customer expects.

Testing – test early using simple prototypes – like Figma flows or email mock-ups. We would show them to 5–7 Investors to understand what they’d use, what’s missing, and how they currently stay informed after investing. To confirm, look at platform data like opens, clicks, return visits to see what drives engagement.

Balancing empathy with business needs and tech efforts. Picke features that help Investors feel informed and in control, while also driving retention and follow-on revenue. For example, the weekly digest reuses content leads already post – so it adds no extra work, no compliance risk, and has a minimal build effort.

Execution Plan

The execution plan provides clear visibility into timelines and expected outcomes. It breaks the work into stages with defined tasks, tangible outputs, making progress easy to track and discuss. The structure helps teams stay aligned on delivery scope, timing, and results without adding unnecessary process overhead.

Prototyping

Prototyping starts with making the result tangible as early as possible. It is easier to visualise the outcome than to reason about it abstractly. Whether it is a text document, a slide deck, or a simple sketch on paper – concrete artefacts help align stakeholders and product teams around shared vision before an execution.

Detailed mock-ups add an extra layer of clarity that static descriptions cannot provide. They make flows, transitions, and dependencies visible, which helps uncover edge cases and inconsistencies early. These issues are often invisible in text alone but become obvious once someone tries to interact with the solution.

The milestone roadmap provides a clear view of progress after the deal closes. It organises completed, pending, and upcoming events into a single chronological timeline, giving customer a consistent orientation. This structure reduces uncertainty during long investment cycles without adding an overhead.

The updates feed gives Deal Leads a simple way to share information after closing without leaving the platform. Text, attachments, basic formatting allow updates to carry enough context without requiring separate emails. This keeps Investors informed over time, anchors communication in one consistent place.

The Investor digest aggregates recent activity into a single, predictable update. It summarises milestones, company news, upcoming events, giving customers a snapshot without requiring them to log in frequently. This format reinforces continuity, keeps attention over long gaps, and brings audience back to the platform.

By arriving at a regular cadence, the digest sets expectations and reduces the need for ad-hoc communication between parties. It acts as a reminder that the investment is active and evolving, while keeping the platform as the primary source of truth rather than pushing updates into fragmented channels.

Measuring Impact

Measuring outcomes requires defining success upfront and aligning on it with all stakeholders. By agreeing in advance on metrics tied to Investor engagement beyond the transaction, the team avoids subjective interpretations of progress later. This alignment ensures that efforts focus on increasing long-term value.

1. Investors return rate in 30-day post-deal – +30% vs baseline.
2. Update cadence per deal – 2–3 lead-initiated updates per deal per month.
3. Investor digest open rate – 55–60% at MVP, stabilising at 60–65% over time.
4. Milestone roadmap adoption – 55–60% of Investors view the roadmap within 30 days.
5. Post-deal feature engagement rate – at least 40% of Investors interact within 60 days.

Risk Registry

As part of the planning process, risk assessment exercise was conducted to identify potential points of failure across adoption, compliance, and engagement. For each identified item, a mitigation action was defined in advance. This ensured that the rollout addressed predictable challenges proactively or timely.

Long-term Alignment

Product development should not happen in isolation from long-term intent. Each capability introduced in the short term needs to reinforce a clear trajectory toward company success. A shared long-term vision provides direction, ensures delivery compounds into strategic advantage rather than temporary gains.