Default
Score model

Pick how composites are weighted for you. Affects every score across the app.

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

European vs. American Waterfall

Fund-level vs. deal-by-deal accounting, why each exists, and who each one favors.

7-min read

Two waterfalls can use the exact same four-tier cascade and still produce wildly different LP outcomes — because when the cascade runs matters as much as how. The unit of accounting — fund-as-a-whole or deal-by-deal — is the difference.

Definitions

European (whole-fund) waterfall
The GP earns carried interest only after the fund as a whole has returned LP contributed capital plus the preferred return, summed across every deal in the portfolio. One cascade, run once, on aggregated cash flows.
American (deal-by-deal) waterfall
Each deal runs its own cascade. The GP earns carry on winning deals as they exit, even if subsequent deals lose money. Multiple cascades, each run independently, with a clawback to true things up at the end of the fund's life.

Why both styles exist

European waterfalls dominate institutional buyout funds and large infrastructure vehicles where LP capital is patient and the relationship is long. The math is simple, the LP gets paid first, and the GP doesn't see carry for years — which aligns the GP's compensation with the fund's overall outcome rather than a single home-run deal.

American waterfalls are common in real estate, opportunity funds, and smaller GPs where deal-level liquidity matters more. The GP earns carry as winners materialize, which keeps the team motivated and funded. The trade-off is that LPs face the risk of a GP earning meaningful carry on early winners while later deals erase those gains — a risk only a clawback can address.

A worked example

Two funds, both raise $10M, both make two deals of $5M apiece, both have an 8% compound pref and 80/20 carry, both run a 5-year hold. Deal 1 exits at 2.0×; Deal 2 exits at 1.0× (capital back, no profit). Net result for the fund as a whole: $15M back on $10M in.

European waterfall — fund-level cascade
TierTo LPTo GP
Return of capital ($10M)$10,000,000
Preferred return (8% comp · 5y)$4,693,280
Catch-up + carry split (none — pref unmet)$306,720$0
Totals on $15M$15,000,000$0

Under the European waterfall the GP earns nothing — the fund returned $15M on $10M, but the LP was owed $10M of capital plus $4.69M of compounded pref ($14.69M), and there's only $306k of profit left above that. The pref isn't cleared, so no carry.

American waterfall — deal-level cascade
DealProceedsTo LPTo GP
Deal 1 — $5M in, 2.0× exit$10,000,000$8,654,656$1,345,344
Deal 2 — $5M in, 1.0× exit$5,000,000$5,000,000$0
Totals before clawback$15,000,000$13,654,656$1,345,344
Clawback — restore LP to fund-level outcome+$1,345,344−$1,345,344
Totals after clawback$15,000,000$0

Under the American waterfall, Deal 1 alone clears its own pref easily, so the GP earns carry on it. Deal 2 returns capital but doesn't clear pref, so no carry there. Without a clawback, the GP would walk away with $1.35M while the LP took the loss. The clawback is what restores the LP to the fund-level outcome they would have had under a European waterfall — but only if it's enforceable, properly escrowed, and (critically) the GP still has the money to return.

What to look for in the LPA

For most allocators, the practical filter is simple: if the fund is American, the clawback better be airtight. If you can't verify that, treat the headline carry split as understated and the LP take as overstated.

← Back to Learning CenterBrowse the fund universe →