Introduction
As private credit continues its rapid expansion, investors are searching for lending segments where specialization and structural inefficiency can still translate into true alpha. Venture debt, long regarded as a niche market, is increasingly proving to be one of them.
Venture debt has consistently outperformed middle-market direct lending while experiencing comparable realized losses. Yet persistent misconceptions about its risk, structure, and borrower profile have constrained capital formation and kept competition limited.
This paper examines why those perceptions are changing. It explores how venture debt’s distinctive risk design, borrower dynamics, and structural advantages create durable yield premiums — and why the opportunity is poised to grow as AI expands the addressable market for venture debt, improves borrower credit worthiness, and reshapes venture capital funding playbooks.
In short, venture debt isn’t a riskier corner of private credit. It’s one of the most overlooked.
Venture debt: Higher returns than direct lending
As traditional direct lending — the largest segment within private credit — becomes crowded and commoditized, institutional investors are increasingly looking for alternatives that can generate alpha relative to direct lending. Not surprisingly, venture debt and its 300+ bps return premium¹ are gaining investor attention and scrutiny.
The primary question on investors’ minds is whether venture debt’s return premium is the result of market inefficiencies or greater credit risk. To address this question, we assembled benchmarking data to compare venture debt and direct lending performance across three core measures — gross yields, realized losses, and net returns — in the table below.
While most investors expect venture debt to generate higher gross yields, many are surprised to learn that both experience similar realized losses, suggesting similar levels of credit risk.
It is worth highlighting that venture lenders exhibit higher dispersion in credit losses, typically due to differences in strategy configuration, market focus, and borrower stage. Espresso’s Canadian funds, for example, have averaged approximately 50 bps annualized credit losses since 2017, primarily due to a focus on more resilient mid-stage enterprise software companies and a highly proactive risk management model. Whereas early-stage lenders and lenders focused on consumer-centric borrowers may realize higher credit losses but also higher offsetting warrant gains, with the net result being similar realized losses as direct lending.
Why, then, does venture debt earn higher gross yields? The answer lies in strategy complexity and underfunding, and not necessarily from accepting greater credit risk.
Perception bias
Limits capital formation
EBITDA-negative borrowers are often misperceived as riskier despite strong lender protections, which limits capital supply and raises borrowing costs.
Structural barriers
Limit competition from banks and generalist non-bank lenders
Banks face regulatory hurdles in the form of higher capital charges on loans to EBITDA-negative borrowers, limiting their participation in venture lending. Whereas the total addressable market is too small to interest large, generalist non-bank lenders.
Need for specialized expertise & track record
Limits competition from new entrants
Venture lenders also require specialized underwriting expertise and a prior record of success to attract capital, further limiting competition.
Unlike venture capital, which depends on a small number of outsized winners, venture debt — like direct lending — has a track record of predictable, contractual returns backed by strong lender protections and alignment with well-capitalized venture sponsors. This allows investors to capture yield premiums over direct lending while maintaining a conservative risk profile.
Footnotes:
1. Venture debt data is sourced from Cliffwater Direct Lending Index-Venture (CDLI-V) and direct lending data is sourced from Cliffwater Direct Lending Index (CDLI). Both CDLI-V and CDLI are asset-weighted by reported fair value.
2. Gross income yield is the sum of interest, fee and dividend income divided by average assets.
Debunking the myth
In conventional thinking, direct lending is perceived as the safer option: borrowers have tangible assets, are typically EBITDA positive, and mature from a tenure perspective.
Meanwhile, venture lending is seen as riskier: it supports cash-burning companies, relies on future equity raises, and lacks hard assets. On the surface, this seems intuitive.
But when you look beneath the surface, it becomes clear that this generalization can be misleading.
The reality is: venture lending is not a fixed risk asset class — it’s a configurable strategy. When conservatively structured, it can offer superior downside protection and better loss-adjusted outcomes than direct lending, or it can be configured to maximize upside with commensurate downside risk exposure.
In addition, since venture debt has a priority claim over equity, it will always be exposed to less risk than venture capital, while benefiting from the same underlying growth engine.
1. Not all ‘Secured Lending’ is truly protected
Direct lenders often emphasize the security of blanket liens on borrower assets. However, most direct lending consists of cash-flow-based loans. While these loans are technically secured, true collateral coverage is limited — loan-to-value (LTV) ratios typically range from 30% to 65% of enterprise value, often exceeding hard collateral.
As a result, direct lenders — much like venture lenders — focus primarily on preserving enterprise value to ensure a full recovery.
By contrast, venture lenders often extend credit at 5% to 20% LTV ratios, backed by sticky, recurring revenue models, rapid growth, institutional venture equity backing, and low capital intensity. Despite lacking hard assets, venture loans can be structurally safer because they represent smaller claims on more valuable and faster growing companies.
2. Risk is not inherent — it’s designed
Venture debt is not inherently risky — it is programmable along a risk spectrum. Lower-risk venture debt strategies focus on mid- and late-stage companies with strong revenue retention, institutional backing, and ample runway. Whereas higher-risk strategies chase early-stage companies, light covenants, and heavy warrant upside.
Through careful design — covenant frameworks, amortization schedules, disciplined pricing, and proactive monitoring — venture lenders can tune their strategies to resemble low-volatility senior secured lending or, at the other extreme, higher volatility structured growth equity. This versatility allows venture debt to occupy a unique position along the risk–return spectrum, tailored to borrower profile and investor appetite.
By contrast, direct lending offers a narrower toolkit. Yields are lower and loan-to-value ratios are higher. Upside participation is also more constrained, with little or no warrant-based upside.
Moreover, many mid-market companies generate transactional or re-occurring rather than true recurring revenue, increasing their sensitivity to macro-economic headwinds and reducing earnings predictability.
3. Low LTVs and other protections help maximize recovery prospects
Venture lending, when structured conservatively and actively managed, potentially offers better recovery prospects than direct loans due to lower LTVs, strong covenant packages, backstop provided by sponsors, and the ability to exit troubled borrowers to consolidators.
4. Enterprise software offers high predictability and defensibility
One of the core advantages of venture lending — particularly to enterprise software, cloud, and AI companies with recurring revenue models — is the ability to underwrite forward-looking performance with a high degree of confidence.
Unlike traditional lending, which often leans heavily on historical EBITDA, venture lenders can assess revenue quality, growth efficiency, and scalability using a suite of leading key performance indicators including:
- Revenue growth rate
- Gross margins
- Customer retention, upsell, and churn metrics
- Funnel conversion metrics
- Budget attainment history
These KPIs provide a granular view into a company’s unit economics and customer dynamics, allowing lenders to build conviction around future repayment capacity, even in the absence of consistent profitability.
In contrast, direct lending often relies on EBITDA as a proxy for cash generation. But EBITDA can be misleading: it may appear healthy even when underlying cash flows are vulnerable to cyclicality, customer churn, or demand shocks — especially in businesses with non-recurring or transactional revenue models.
5. Understand the strategy — not just the label
Lumping all venture debt into a single risk bucket overlooks the wide dispersion in investment styles and risk tolerances across managers. Evaluating a venture lending manager requires understanding its specific strategy configuration, including:
- Industry focus, borrower stage, and end-customers markets
- Loan structures, including LTVs and covenant strength
- Return composition including cash coupons, upfront fees, PIK interest, back-end fees, and warrants
- Portfolio management style
- Loss history and recovery track records
- Performance during stressed economic conditions
A sub-20% LTV loan to a mid-stage or late stage enterprise software company with institutional backing, strict covenants, and mostly interest and fee-based income, represents similar credit risk as direct lending, whereas a covenant-lite loan to an early stage borrower serving consumer markets may be subject to greater credit risk.
Venture lending is a risk-efficient strategy — when engineered right
Venture debt is not inherently riskier than direct lending or equity — it’s a tunable strategy with asymmetric outcomes. When executed with discipline, it offers superior downside protection to venture equity, comparable or better loss-adjusted outcomes than direct lending, and access to high-growth companies without full exposure to equity risk.
Rather than placing it on a risk ladder beneath other asset classes, investors should ask:
- How is this venture lending strategy constructed?
- What risks is it actually taking?
All Espresso information in this table relates to Canadian Funds managed by Espresso Capital Ltd. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Footnotes:
3. Gross yield sourced from Cliffwater Direct Lending Index (CDLI) and Cliffwater Direct Lending Index-Venture (CDLI-V).
4. Realized losses sourced from CDLI and CDLI-V. Warrant gains are an Espresso estimate.
5. Downside deviation calculated using data sourced from CDLI and CDLI-V.
6. Correlation calculated using data sourced from CDLI and CDLI-V, S&P 500, and the Morningstar US Leveraged Loan Index.
Underserved US$400 billion market opportunity
Espresso estimates that roughly US$100 billion of venture debt is currently outstanding — only a small fraction of the potential US$400 billion market opportunity.7 Limited bank participation and a small pool of specialist lenders have left much of this market underserved.
This structural shortfall represents one of private credit’s most underpenetrated opportunities and one that is poised to benefit from major shifts in the venture capital landscape.
Artificial intelligence expected to expand market opportunity
Advances in technology, particularly artificial intelligence, are enabling companies to scale faster, operate with leaner teams, and achieve stronger unit economics, making them viable debt borrowers earlier in their lifecycle.
Historically, a software business might have needed 500–1000 employees to reach US$100 million in recurring revenue. Today, AI-native companies such as Cursor and ElevenLabs have achieved that milestone with only a few dozen employees. With proven growth engines, strong investor backing, and predictable recurring revenues, these companies are ideal candidates for venture debt.
Shifting venture capital playbooks
Venture capitalists, especially smaller managers, are also deploying venture debt more strategically to support portfolio companies and compete with larger funds. Many now structure debt alongside equity in funding rounds to maximize ownership and offer founders a lower-dilution alternative — normalizing its role as a proactive capital management tool rather than a last-resort liquidity bridge.
The broader ecosystem is evolving as well, with more funds pursuing AI-driven roll-up strategies that mirror private equity approaches, creating natural use cases for debt. In parallel, the rise of smaller growth equity funds is further blurring the line between venture capital and private equity, reinforcing demand for flexible, non dilutive capital solutions.
Footnotes:
7. Performance data sourced from Cliffwater Direct Lending Index (CDLI).
The origins of venture debt
Venture debt emerged in the 1980s as a way to help venture-backed companies finance critical physical assets like manufacturing equipment, computer hardware, and lab facilities. These businesses were often high-potential but EBITDA-negative, making them poor fits for traditional bank loans.
The first wave of venture debt was largely asset-backed lending, focused on companies with tangible collateral needs. Over time, the model evolved. In the early 2000s, the rise of cloud computing and recurring revenue business models created a new financing dynamic: large upfront customer acquisition costs followed by long, predictable revenue streams.
Today, enterprise software, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence companies represent the largest segment within venture debt, with life sciences companies in a distant second place.
Bank vs. non-bank venture debt
For venture-backed, fast-growing companies, access to traditional bank financing has always been limited. Only a handful of banks offer venture debt. Those facilities tend to be biased towards supporting working capital requirements rather than growth, and are often tied to recent equity raises, with low borrowing limits and strict covenants. They may also require amortization schedules that start quickly, limiting flexibility.
Non-bank venture debt providers, by contrast, are specialists. They understand growth stage dynamics and can offer larger loans, more flexible structures, and terms aligned with the company’s growth plan rather than its current profitability. This makes them a strategic partner for management teams and their equity sponsors, providing faster execution and fewer operational constraints than banks.
How venture debt benefits borrowers
For founders and company managers, venture debt is a smart way to fuel growth without giving up more of the company you’ve built. Yes, interest rates are typically higher than traditional loans, and terms are shorter than venture capital, but venture debt offers something equity can’t: strategic flexibility and speed. Deals can often be executed much faster than an equity round, letting you focus on scaling the business instead of fundraising.
Existing investors also benefit. Because the financing is non-dilutive, it helps extend the company’s runway and allows future capital raises to be timed around major milestones — when valuations are stronger. Venture debt can also fund acquisitions or other strategic moves, all while enabling founders and management to retain greater economic and decision-making control over the business.
Benefits of using venture debt
Minimizing dilution
By using venture debt to meet a portion of their financing needs, growth stage companies can minimize dilution and ultimately see more upside for existing investors.
Funding acquisitions quickly
Acquisitions can help companies drive growth, expand into new markets, or secure complementary technologies or solutions. Venture debt can often be secured faster than other forms of financing, allowing companies to seize on strategic opportunities.
Extending runways & reducing frequency of equity raises
Companies often use venture debt to extend their runway and delay additional equity rounds until opportunities are more favorable, such as after meeting growth targets or new product launch milestones, resulting in higher valuations and less equity dilution.
Using venture debt can help companies accelerate momentum and maximize liquidity, thereby optimizing their negotiating position going into an equity raise. And, since raising equity can be time-consuming and divert management’s attention away from growing the business, using venture debt has the advantage of reducing the frequency of equity raises so that management can remain focused on other priorities.
Maintaining control
Using venture debt results in less dilution, providing founders and investors with greater economic and strategic control over their business. By contrast, new equity investors often require additional board seats and input on important decisions such as the strategic direction of the business, staffing and compensation, and product roadmap, among others.
Typical loan structures and terms
Venture debt isn’t a cookie-cutter product. Specialist lenders tailor structures to meet the needs of venture-backed, fast-growing companies, but some common elements include:
Loan amount
Usually sized as a fraction of the latest equity round for earlier-stage companies, or as a multiple of recurring revenue for mid- to late-stage firms.
Rarely exceeds 20% of enterprise value, maintaining a conservative loan-to-value (LTV) ratio.
Security
Typically, a senior facility secured with collateral rights over company assets and intellectual property.
Capital repayment structure
Can be amortizing, bullet, or hybrid, sometimes with ratchets that accelerate repayment if performance lags.
Interest payments
Floating rate over SOFR or prime; part of the interest may accrue and be paid at maturity.
Fees
Origination fees, make-whole or prepayment fees, warrants, or success fees for early exits.
Term
Usually 3 to 5 years. Often shorter for earlier-stage loans.
Use of proceeds
Funding growth, acquisitions, product development, or working capital — not simply plugging operational gaps.
Covenants and protective provisions
Revenue growth and liquidity requirements, plus restrictions on new debt, asset transfers, or certain financings without lender approval.
Reporting requirements
Monthly or quarterly, and may include both financial and operational results, including key performance indicators.
Defaults: What happens when things go wrong
The first line of defense for any lender is always sound underwriting and active portfolio monitoring. Even with strong diligence, a handful of loans may veer off track when originally positive projections no longer hold.
A default occurs when the borrower fails to meet the agreed-upon terms and cannot remedy the breach within the specified cure period. Common triggers include missed interest or principal payments, non-compliance with covenants, or breaches of other loan conditions.
Not every default carries the same level of risk. The nature of the breach matters. For instance, missing a revenue growth covenant might simply mean the company is growing more slowly than expected — it doesn’t automatically signal capital impairment. Administrative issues, like delayed financial reporting, are even less concerning and often reflect internal inefficiencies rather than financial distress.
At the other end of the spectrum, missed payments are more serious, typically indicating a material deterioration in the borrower’s financial position. Each situation requires careful analysis to understand its impact on the lender’s exposure.
When a default occurs, venture lenders have several tools to protect their investment. The specific remedies depend on the loan agreement, applicable laws, and the lender’s internal policies.
In most cases, lenders prefer to work constructively with the borrower to resolve the issue, because litigation or enforcement can be costly and disruptive for both sides. But if recovery risk is high, lenders may escalate toward restructuring the loan, accelerating repayment, or, in extreme cases, enforcing their security interests to recover capital.
Some lenders use warrants or success fees to boost returns and offset potential losses across a portfolio, but this is not universal.
The collaborative nature of venture lending — where sponsors, companies, and lenders are aligned — means defaults often lead to negotiated solutions, not outright losses.
Options available to lenders when defaults occur
Notice of default
After confirming a valid default, the lender will issue a notice of default to the borrower. This notice formally informs the borrower of the breach of contract, provides a specific cure period during which the borrower must remedy the default, and serves as a first step toward resolution.
Additional fees & interest
The loan agreement may stipulate that the borrower incurs additional fees, penalties, or higher interest rates in the event of default. These additional charges provide a strong incentive for borrowers to ensure compliance with loan terms.
Forbearance agreement
A forbearance agreement is a formal agreement between the lender and the borrower, wherein the lender agrees to temporarily refrain from taking certain enforcement actions in exchange for the borrower’s commitment to rectify the default within a specified period.
Acceleration of debt
If the borrower fails to cure the default within the specified cure period, the lender may choose to accelerate the debt. This means that the lender can demand immediate repayment of the entire outstanding loan balance, including principal, interest, and any other amounts owed.
Negotiation & restructuring
In some instances, lenders may be open to negotiating with the borrower and sponsors to restructure the loan terms, extend the repayment period, or modify the covenants to help the borrower get back on track.
Refinancing & debt settlement
Alternatively, the lender, borrower, and sponsors may agree to refinance the debt with equity or replacement lending from a mezzanine lender. In extreme cases, the parties may settle the debt for a reduced amount, allowing the borrower to discharge the debt partially while avoiding more severe consequences.
Legal action
In cases of severe default or non-compliance, the lender may pursue legal action against the borrower to enforce the terms of the loan agreement. This can include filing a lawsuit, seeking a judgment, or initiating foreclosure proceedings to sell the business.
Enforcement of collateral
If the loan is secured by collateral (e.g., assets, intellectual property, or equity stakes), the lender may have the right to enforce its security interest. This could involve seizing and selling the collateral or the company itself to recover the outstanding debt.
Benchmarking analysis: Venture debt vs. direct lending
The following benchmarking data has been sourced from Cliffwater, a provider of asset management, advisory, and research services to institutional investors. Cliffwater maintains two indices, Cliffwater Direct Lending Index (CDLI) and Cliffwater Direct Lending
Index-Venture (CDLI-V).
CDLI was launched in 2015 and reconstructed back to 2004, and currently covers ~20,000 directly originated middle market loans totaling $485 billion in value. CDLI-V is a subset of venture loans within CDLI. The CDLI is constructed quarterly using fair value asset valuation and an asset-weighted approach, consistent with that of other private asset indices. The loans are valued quarterly following SFAS 157 guidance.
While venture debt and direct lending evidence many similarities — realized losses and volatility, for example, are similar. Their performance also exhibits important differences, resulting in a moderately strong correlation of 0.66.8
The tables that follow present core measures of comparative performance, including net returns, gross yields, unrealized gains and losses, and realized gains and losses.
Venture debt data is sourced from Cliffwater Direct Lending Index-Venture (CDLI-V) and direct lending data is sourced from Cliffwater Direct Lending Index (CDLI).
Venture debt in the broader context
Within private markets, venture debt sits as private credit’s niche alpha strategy. Like middle-market direct lending, it offers contractual returns, low volatility, and senior secured protections. But unlike the middle market, it remains less crowded, more specialized, and consistently priced with a meaningful yield premium — typically around 300 basis points.¹
Relative to venture capital, venture debt plays a complementary role. Equity investors depend on a few outsized winners to drive fund performance, while debt investors earn steady, predictable yields across a diversified base of high-growth companies. The two strategies reinforce each other: venture debt extends runway and strengthens equity IRRs, while strong equity sponsorship improves credit quality and recovery outcomes.
Final thoughts
Venture debt is a lucrative, underpenetrated, and underappreciated corner of private credit. Structural shifts — companies staying private longer, banks retreating from lending, and AI making growth companies leaner and more capital-efficient — are driving demand for tailored, non-dilutive financing solutions.
From a credit risk perspective, venture debt has proven itself by evidencing losses similar to direct lending, while generating approximately 300 basis points of alpha.¹ Yet the market remains underserved. Current venture debt outstanding is estimated at US$100 billion, far below its full market potential of up to US$400 billion.7
Historically, venture debt has been viewed as riskier than direct lending, but that is changing. Investors willing to look under the hood discover that venture debt is not a one-size-fits-all strategy. It can be tuned to perform like direct lending, but with higher returns, or it can be designed to produce equity-like returns with commensurate risk. It also requires specialized expertise and a prior track record of success to attract capital, which acts to limit competitive intensity further and allow lenders to command higher gross yields than direct lending.
For investors, this dynamic creates a rare opportunity: a private credit strategy offering high returns, strong downside protection, low correlation, and a persistent alpha premium over traditional direct lending.
Given these characteristics, venture debt merits consideration as a core allocation within private credit portfolios, offering the potential to enhance returns, mitigate risk, and improve overall portfolio resilience.
Disclosure information
This document and the information contained in this document are for educational and informational purposes only and do not constitute, and should not be construed as, an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities or related financial instruments. If any such offer is made, it will only be by means of an offering memorandum or term sheet, which would contain material information, including certain risks of investing. Nothing in this document constitutes investment advice or recommendations and should not be relied upon as a basis for making an investment decision.
Confidentiality
This document is the property of and contains the proprietary and confidential information of Espresso Capital Ltd. (“Espresso”). This document shall not be reproduced, redistributed, passed on, or the contents otherwise divulged, directly or indirectly, to any other person (excluding the relevant person’s professional advisers) or published in whole or in part for any purpose without the prior written consent of Espresso.
Limitations and Disclaimers
No representation or warranty, express or implied, is or will be given by Espresso or its affiliates, directors, officers, partners, employees, agents or advisers or any other person as to the accuracy, completeness, reasonableness or fairness of any information contained in this document and no responsibility or liability whatsoever is accepted for the accuracy or sufficiency thereof or for any errors, omissions or misstatements, negligent or otherwise, relating thereto. No information included in this document constitutes, nor can it be relied upon as, legal, tax, investment or other advice. Recipients should consult their independent advisors.
This document should not be relied upon for the purpose of evaluating the performance of Espresso or its fund offerings or for any other purpose, and neither Espresso nor any of its affiliates, directors, officers, partners, employees, agents or advisers nor any other person, shall be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential liability, loss or damages suffered by any person as a result of this document or their reliance on any statement, estimate, target, projection or forward-looking information in or omission from this document and any such liability is expressly disclaimed. In all cases, interested parties should conduct their own investigation and analysis of Espresso and the information contained herein. This document shall not be considered as a recommendation by Espresso or any affiliate or other person in relation to Espresso or any of its subsidiaries, nor does it constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation for an offer to buy the securities, assets or funds managed by Espresso , nor shall there be any sale of securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction or pursuant to an exemption therefrom. This document shall not form the basis of any contract. Any references to any future or proposed transaction are for illustrative purposes only, and the terms of any such transaction, should it occur, may be materially different than the terms in this document.
Private funds are speculative investments and are not suitable for all investors, nor do they represent a complete investment program. Private funds are available only to qualified investors who are comfortable with the substantial risks associated with investing in private funds. An investment in a private fund includes the risks inherent in an investment in securities.
Targets and Trends
References to performance information contained in this document relate to the historical performance of Espresso Venture Debt LP and Espresso Venture Debt Trust (formerly Espresso High Yield US Trust) (the “Canadian Fund” or the pre-merger Funds, the “Canadian Funds”), which are managed by Espresso Capital Ltd., a Canadian entity and the parent company for Espresso.
Targets in this document are shown for illustrative and informational purposes only, and are based on various assumptions, including historical performance for similar investment strategies within the sector, current market conditions, and potential investment opportunities that may be available. There is no guarantee that the assumptions upon which the target returns are based will materialize. Risks, uncertainties, and changes beyond Espresso’s control (including changes in economic, operational, political, or other circumstances) mean the actual performance of the fund could differ materially from the target returns set forth in this document. There is no guarantee that target returns will be achieved or that an investment will not result in losses. Target returns are hypothetical and do not represent actual trading or the impact of material economic or market factors.
There can be no assurances that any of the trends described in this document will continue or will not reverse. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Indices and Benchmarks
The indices and benchmarks used in this document are presented for illustrative purposes only. Broad-based securities indices are unmanaged and are not subject to fees and expenses typically associated with managed accounts or investment funds. Investments cannot be made directly into an index. The performance of the indices shown represent unmanaged, passive buy and hold strategies, investment characteristics, and risk/return profiles that differ materially from Espresso’s funds, and an investment in an Espresso fund is not comparable to an investment in any index or in the securities that comprise any index.
The indices and benchmarks used in this document are defined as follows. Growth and loss rates for public indices are derived from the Cliffwater Direct Lending Index and Cliffwater Direct Lending Index-Venture, which are indices of private middle-market loans originated by private and public Business Development Companies. The index and benchmark returns used in this document reflect net performance.
Forward-Looking Statements
This document contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other factors. All statements other than statements of historical fact or relating to present facts or current conditions included in this document are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements may relate to Espresso’s current expectations and projections relating to Espresso’s managed funds financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance, and business.
You can identify forward-looking statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. These statements may include words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “seek,” “plan,” “intend,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “assume,” “will,” “may,” “could,” “would,” “continue,” “likely,” “should,” and other words and terms of similar meaning in connection with any discussion of the timing or nature of future operating or financial performance or other events but not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Risks, uncertainties, and other factors may cause future results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements, and potentially adversely from the historical results contained herein. Forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions regarding Espresso’s present and future policies and plans and the environment in which Espresso will operate in the future.
Furthermore, certain forward-looking statements are based on assumptions or future events which may not prove to be accurate, and no reliance whatsoever should be placed on any forward-looking statements in this document.
You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the utility of the information in this document as a predictor of future performance of funds managed by Espresso, as projected financial and other information are based on estimates and assumptions that are inherently subject to various significant risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which are beyond Espresso’s control.
Third Party Information
Espresso does not undertake any duty to update or revise the information contained in this document, publicly or otherwise. Espresso has not independently verified any third-party information and makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of any such information.
