In July 2024, Montana’s Board of Investments began a private equity co-investment program with a $100 million commitment. Fisher Lynch Capital managed the vehicle, called the Big Horn Investment Fund. By August 2025, the team had reviewed more than 30 opportunities and invested in eight, allocating about $83 million. The distance between those two numbers is where this company earns its keep.
- FLC invests in private companies alongside private equity sponsors.
- Investors can use its co-investment funds or commission a customized program.
- The job combines finding invitations, assessing businesses and getting transactions closed.
Private equity has an access problem. A pension fund can possess considerable capital without possessing a ready-made team for every transaction that comes its way. Buying into a fund delegates company selection to its manager. Co-investing asks a different question: would you like to put additional money into this particular company?
That invitation offers more control over exposure. It also brings homework. Someone must understand the business, the price, the financing and the relationship with the sponsor leading the transaction. FLC has made that second decision its specialty.
An invitation with homework attached
The mechanics are straightforward. A private equity sponsor organizes an investment in a company. A co-investor participates alongside it. FLC selects opportunities for the portfolios it manages, giving its investors company-level exposure without requiring each investor to assemble the entire operation independently.
This serves two customers with different clocks. Investors need a portfolio that fits their objectives. Sponsors need capital partners who can assess a transaction and follow through. An interesting proposal that misses the closing deadline has limited practical value. Equally, a fast decision is useful only if the underlying investment deserves it.
FLC’s stated equity range is $20 million to $100 million. Its remit crosses buyouts, growth equity and venture capital, with exposure spanning healthcare, consumer businesses, industrials, technology, and business and financial services. Investors can enter through co-investment funds or have a program tailored to their objectives. The specialization sits in the investment method; the opportunity set remains broad.
The apprenticeship before the boutique
Founded in 2003, Fisher Lynch grew out of institutional investing experience. Brett Fisher had led US private equity operations at GIC, Singapore’s sovereign wealth investor. Co-founder Linda Lynch had established and managed Lucent’s global private equity program for pension assets, after working at Cambridge Associates. They understood the buyer’s side of the table.
Lynch’s biography credits her with building FLC’s funds-of-funds practice as well as helping manage the firm. That earlier chapter matters: today’s exclusive co-investment positioning should not be projected backward over its entire history. A fund-of-funds investor evaluates managers; a co-investor must also evaluate the individual businesses those managers propose.
Today Marshall Bartlett and Leon Kuan are co-CEOs, while Fisher is chairman. Kuan joined in 2004. Investment team head Chris Alfert joined in 2010 after technology investment banking roles. These are useful details in a relationship business: continuity gives a sponsor repeated opportunities to learn how a prospective capital partner behaves.
“We prioritize quality over quantity.”Fisher Lynch Capital
The Big Horn test
Montana provides an unusually concrete view of the service. The initial $100 million was a commitment to an investment program, rather than a purchase price for FLC or a valuation of the manager. By July 2025, the board had approved a second $100 million tranche. Its subsequent October materials reported the eight investments and roughly $83 million allocated.
These figures describe activity, rather than investment success. Eight completed investments do not reveal eventual sale proceeds, and an additional commitment does not settle the question of returns. They do show what the customer purchased: a process for translating a large allocation into specific company investments.
That distinction also helps decode FLC’s scale. Its June 2026 homepage reports more than $10 billion in investor commitments, over 300 completed co-investments and 425-plus sponsor deal sources. Commitments measure promised investment capital. They are different from the manager’s revenue, its valuation or the current market value of the portfolio.
Access has operating costs
Co-investment can improve an investor’s fee economics, but hiring a specialist still has a price. FLC’s public 2021 adviser brochure describes advisory fees and carried interest, with arrangements differing between funds, plus operating expenses. Any comparison has to consider the full structure. A lower cost at one layer cannot answer the whole economic question.
There is also a staffing decision. Chris Montclare, FLC’s COO and CFO, leads finance, accounting, tax, compliance and operations. Those functions sit behind the investment discussion. An institution building an internal co-investment program needs capabilities beyond finding an attractive company and agreeing on a price.
FLC competes with other managers offering direct co-investment, including HarbourVest, and with investors doing the work themselves. Its positioning rests on a firm devoted to the strategy. That can appeal to an investor seeking a focused external team; an institution with extensive internal resources may prefer greater direct control.
The useful part to copy
The broader lesson is to separate access from conviction. A trusted introduction gives you a place to begin. It cannot substitute for deciding whether the opportunity fits your needs. FLC’s model puts a dedicated decision-making operation between the invitation and the check.
The constraints remain substantial. Private company exposure requires patience, and a minority investment leaves the lead sponsor central to the outcome. A business can disappoint, financing can become burdensome, and an exit can take longer than expected. Investors needing ready liquidity will find that structure a poor fit. The attraction is the chance to choose company exposure with experienced help. The obligation is to live with the choice.