Single-asset SPVs vs closed-end funds
Ben Haber, CEO of Monark, on why 2026 is the year of alts
The real decision is whether Robinhood wants a product that markets well on day one, or a structure that better matches how private market demand actually shows up. Closed-end funds are easy to package and list, but they bundle names together and can drift away from underlying value. Single-asset SPVs let an investor buy one company, fund one vehicle, and track one exposure, which is closer to how demand concentrates around names like SpaceX and Anthropic.
-
Robinhood is entering a market where brokerages want private assets partly because economics are much better than public stock trading. Monark describes private offerings as a 2 to 3% commission opportunity for distribution partners, versus a tiny fraction of that in payment for order flow. That creates pressure to keep expanding private market products once demand is proven.
-
The operational case for SPVs is not just investor preference. SPVs avoid putting many small buyers directly on a company cap table, can bypass repeated company approval workflows, and make resale easier because investors trade units in the vehicle instead of renegotiating the underlying stock transfer each time.
-
Diversified private market funds do have a role, especially for RIAs building model portfolios and alt sleeves. But the highest pull product for self directed brokerage users is still branded single company exposure. That is why Monark treats pre-IPO names as the wedge product, while evergreen multi-asset funds come later as a broader portfolio product.
The likely path is a split market. Closed-end and evergreen funds become the simple portfolio product for advisors and passive buyers, while single-asset SPVs become the high-demand format for retail investors who want a specific company. If Robinhood keeps pushing deeper into private markets, the logic of its own user demand points toward eventually offering both.