---
title: "Moonfare Review"
url: https://altstreet.investments/platforms/reviews/moonfare
kind: platform-review
updated: 2026-08-14
description: "Moonfare review from a verified access test, SEC Form D filings and broker-dealer reports: feeder fund fees, the $75K US minimum, returns, disclosure gaps."
publisher: AltStreet (https://altstreet.investments)
license: Public factual pages may be read, quoted and cited with attribution and a link. Bulk redistribution is not permitted.
---

# Moonfare Review

Moonfare offers accredited US investors access to institutional private equity funds at $75K minimums, including KKR, Carlyle, EQT, Apax, Warburg Pincus, Vista, Hg, and Lexington. But AltStreet's 61-record catalog analysis found recurring disclosure-quality problems, the data room did not unlock in a verified KYC test, and the captive US broker-dealer's FY2025 revenue was mostly affiliate debt forgiveness rather than placement fees.

AltStreet score: 41.3 (C), scored August 14, 2026. Method: https://altstreet.investments/platforms

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Platform | Moonfare |
| What it is | Feeder-Fund Aggregator (Private Equity Access Platform) |
| Asset class | Private Equity, Venture Capital, Pre-IPO, Secondaries, Infrastructure |
| Website | moonfare.com |
| Review first published | June 5, 2026 |
| Last updated | August 14, 2026 |
| AltStreet relationship | None: no affiliate, sponsorship or partnership |

## The short version

Moonfare is the most polished retail-accessible interface to institutional private equity in market — slick onboarding, recognizable GP names (KKR, Carlyle, EQT, Apax, Warburg), 61-fund catalog spanning 2018 through 2026. The legitimacy is real at the corporate level: FINRA-approved BD, BaFin-regulated parent, Luxembourg fund structures, Pandomus admin, K-1 reporting. The structural problems documented across the captured catalog are also real: methodology footnotes recurrently bury material predecessor underperformance, calculate displayed net returns using assumed fees, exclude unfavorable subsets from headline aggregates, or substitute peer-relative quartile claims for absolute LP returns. The 'Complete your profile' data room did not unlock in AltStreet's verified test after full KYC and biometric verification. This is a single verified user-access test, not proof that no verified investor receives data-room access, but it is falsifiable evidence that the documented procedure does not always resolve as described.

- **61** Fund records captured from the Moonfare US catalog: 29 Access Feeders (A20-A106 era), 14 early-numbered Feeders (1-29 era), 6 Moonfare-sponsored vehicles, 7 Series Fund I LLC qualified-purchaser tiers (Series M added August 2026), and 4 Tier 1 multi-fund records. Earliest closing: Q1 2018. Latest: 2026.
- **0** Records in the catalog met AltStreet's clean-disclosure threshold (an AltStreet methodology standard, not a regulatory definition). Across all 61 captured records, methodology footnotes contain at least one of nine documented disclosure-quality problems — including the August 2026 Series M addition, which fails on 'hypothetical net' returns and a realised-only subset multiple.
- **$400K** Of $464K total FY2025 revenue at Moonfare Securities USA LLC reported as 'forgiveness of indebtedness' from a sister company. Only $64K from actual placement fees. Source: Moonfare Securities USA LLC FOCUS Part II FY2025.
- **0.50%** One-time placement fee Moonfare charges on commitments, structurally confirmed across 11+ records spanning 2020-2025 vintages with identical verbatim language.
- **$129M** Moonfare Feeder A45 SCSp (2021 vintage, 145 investors) — the single largest Moonfare US-facing offering by capital raised in EDGAR records. The fund's marketing tile was not visible in AltStreet's catalog sweep.

Data note: Catalog data captured from the Moonfare US platform across multiple sessions June 2026; one additional record (Series Fund I LLC Series M — General Catalyst XIII & Creation III) captured from Moonfare marketing email and public tile August 2026. SEC EDGAR Form D coverage: 30 Moonfare-direct entities, ~$430M aggregate raised, representing approximately 10% of Moonfare's claimed €3.9B global AUM.


## Key figures

| Figure | What it is | Context |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 61 | Fund records captured from US catalog (Jun 2026 sweep + Aug 2026 addition) | 29 Access Feeders, 14 early-numbered Feeders, 6 Moonfare-sponsored vehicles, 7 Series Fund I LLC tiers (Series M added Aug 2026), 4 Tier 1 records. Earliest closing Q1 2018; latest 2026. |
| 0 | Records meeting AltStreet's clean-disclosure threshold | AltStreet methodology standard, not a regulatory definition. Every one of the 61 captured records contains at least one of nine documented disclosure-quality problems. |
| $464K | Moonfare Securities USA LLC FY2025 total revenue | $400K (86%) was 'forgiveness of indebtedness' affiliate transaction. Real placement fees: $64K. FOCUS Part II FY2025. |
| 0.6% | HIG Europe Capital Partners II actual net IRR (predecessor fund) | 1.0x MOIC at actual 2.5% management fee. Buried in footnote 3 of Moonfare Feeder A28 SCSp tile. Economically poor outcome for that prior vintage's LPs. |
| 19.4% | Apax X facility-adjusted net IRR (per Apax footnote 13) | vs. 28.6% headline displayed gross. Most transparent facility-inflation acknowledgment observed in the catalog. |


## Verdict

Moonfare presents the most polished retail-accessible interface to institutional private equity funds in market — but the polish is the product. The marketing tiles routinely obscure historical fund performance through methodology choices that consistently favor the platform's narrative. The captive US broker-dealer is FINRA-licensed but operationally minimal — sustained primarily by affiliate debt forgiveness rather than placement fee revenue. The data room behind 'Complete your profile' did not unlock in AltStreet's verified test after full KYC and biometric verification (a single user-access test, not proof of universal access failure). None of this is illegal; much of it is industry-standard for feeder aggregators. But investors deciding to allocate to KKR Asian IV through Moonfare versus directly through an institutional channel should understand they are paying a three-layer fee stack to access a polished presentation layer that consistently smooths over the rough edges in the underlying GP track records — and that the actual data needed to evaluate those funds is gated behind a profile completion step that may not resolve as documented.

**Best for**

- Investors who already understand institutional private equity and want low-friction access to specific named funds at $75K-$125K minimums
- Accredited investors comfortable with three-layer feeder structures (US LP → Luxembourg SCSp → underlying GP fund) and K-1 reporting complexity
- Investors who treat catalog tile content as marketing and intend to read the underlying GP PPMs independently before allocating
- Investors who do not require institutional-grade liquidity (semi-annual Lexington auction is the only exit mechanism between fund maturity events)

**Look elsewhere if**

- You are evaluating private equity for the first time and treat the catalog tiles as adequate due diligence
- You need verified historical fund performance before allocating
- You expect platform-disclosed track records to match what underlying GPs disclose to institutional LPs
- You need predictable liquidity — the semi-annual auction is the sole exit mechanism and is auction-priced with no liquidity guarantee
- You are not prepared to validate every quantitative claim against the underlying GP PPM independently

**Strengths**

- Genuine institutional GP access — 61 funds across KKR, Carlyle, EQT, Apax, Warburg Pincus, Vista, Hg, Lexington, Advent, Clearlake, Cinven, Permira, Silver Lake, Founders Fund, General Catalyst
- Regulatory structure is real and strengthened in May 2026 — subsidiary Moonfare Financial Services GmbH now holds its own BaFin license (granted May 26, 2026, ending the DHD tied-agent dependency); Moonfare Securities USA LLC is FINRA-approved (CRD 325838, approved Jan 2024, zero disclosure events); Luxembourg SCSp fund administration via Pandomus
- Multi-vintage GP coverage allows cross-vintage comparison — five EQT vehicles, three Vista vehicles, three Lexington vehicles, two KKR vehicles
- Semi-annual digital secondary market in partnership with Lexington Partners (institutional backstop buyer)
- Catalog discloses Luxembourg SCSp legal structures, fund lifetimes, investment periods, sector targeting, and closing dates

**Limitations**

- Across 61 records, none meet AltStreet's clean-disclosure threshold (an AltStreet methodology standard, not a regulatory definition) — nine distinct disclosure-quality problems documented
- Three-layer feeder fee stack — Moonfare 0.50% placement fee plus Moonfare annual feeder fee (0.35-0.75% depending on Series tier) plus underlying GP fees. True all-in cost meaningfully higher than the headline GP fund economics
- Captive US BD operationally minimal — Moonfare Securities USA LLC is FINRA-licensed but FY2025 revenue was 86% affiliate debt forgiveness from a sister company. Parent-supported captive BD with limited standalone operating substance
- BD auditor is Rubio CPA PC (Atlanta, small regional firm, PCAOB #3514)
- Liquidity is genuinely poor — semi-annual auction is the sole exit mechanism between fund maturities; auction pricing is NAV-referenced but discount-to-NAV is auction-determined
- 'Complete your profile' data room did not unlock in AltStreet's verified test after KYC and biometric verification. Single test, not universal proof — but falsifiable evidence the documented procedure does not always resolve as described


## Who it fits

| Investor | Fit | Why |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Accredited Investors Seeking Named-GP Exposure at $75K-$125K Minimums | well-suited |  |
| High-Net-Worth Investors Building Diversified PE Portfolio at $1M+ Allocation | neutral |  |
| Tax-Exempt Investors (IRA, Retirement Plans, Charitable Trusts) | poor-fit |  |
| Investors New to Private Equity Treating Catalog as Due Diligence | poor-fit |  |
| Investors Requiring Predictable Liquidity or Reliable Distribution Income | poor-fit |  |


## Questions

**Did AltStreet actually try to invest through Moonfare?**

Yes. AltStreet completed Moonfare's documented onboarding flow including investor questionnaire, accreditation verification, and biometric ID verification through Moonfare's contracted third-party KYC provider. We followed the published 'Complete your profile' procedure for data room access. We received no response to the data access request. The account was briefly blocked after engagement with the public catalog and subsequently unblocked. Data room access did not unlock as the platform's documentation describes. This is a single verified user-access test, not proof that no verified investor receives data-room access — but it is falsifiable evidence that the documented procedure does not always resolve as published. No capital was committed and no investment was made — the test was specifically to verify whether Moonfare's documented onboarding-to-disclosure flow delivers as published. It did not in this test. Any prospective investor can replicate the verification by completing the same KYC procedure and requesting data room access for their own account.

**What is the actual cost of investing through Moonfare?**

Three-layer fee stack: (1) Moonfare 0.50% one-time placement fee on commitments, structurally confirmed across 11+ catalog records with identical verbatim language; (2) Moonfare annual feeder fee — Series Fund I LLC tiers range from 0.35% to 0.75% depending on share class plus annual liability compensation to feeder GP of 0.025%; (3) Underlying GP fund economics — typically 1.5-2.0% management fee on committed capital declining to invested capital, plus 20% carried interest over an 8% hurdle. Cumulative impact on net IRR is meaningful over 10-12 year fund lifetimes. The catalog tile typically displays only the underlying GP target returns; the Moonfare layer is structurally additive.

**What is the data room access problem in concrete terms?**

Moonfare positions the 'Complete your profile' data room as the gateway to substantive fund information — PPMs, Key Information Documents, detailed performance history, fee schedules, and underlying GP investor materials. The public catalog tiles display only marketing summaries, forward targets, and methodology footnotes. AltStreet completed accreditation verification, investor questionnaire, and biometric ID verification through Moonfare's contracted provider. The data room did not unlock after profile completion in this verified test. The account was briefly blocked after catalog engagement and subsequently unblocked. No substantive fund documents became accessible through the procedure Moonfare documents. This is a single verified user-access test, not proof that no verified investor receives data-room access — but it is falsifiable evidence that the documented procedure does not always resolve as published. The implication for prospective investors: validate independently that the data room actually resolves for your account before committing capital.

**What is the most material disclosure problem documented in the catalog?**

Two findings are tied for most material. First: material predecessor fund underperformance buried in dense methodology footnotes. HIG Europe Middle Market LBO Fund I (Feeder A28) footnote 3 verbatim states 'The net returns for HIG Europe Capital Partners II reflecting its actual management fee of 2.5% are 1.0x MOIC and 0.6% IRR.' The immediate predecessor to the fund being marketed returned LPs essentially nothing — effectively catastrophic for LP return expectations on that prior vintage, with headline showing forward target 25-30% gross IRR. Ares COF VI (Feeder A27) shows the same pattern with ACOF V at 0.2% Gross IRR / 1.0x MIC inclusive of bridge financings. Second: cross-vintage IRR mutation for the same fund. Lexington Capital Partners IX displayed at 16% Net IRR in the 2019 LCP IX marketing tile and 72.3% Net IRR in the 2022 LCP X marketing tile — a 56 percentage point change for the same fund across vintage marketings. Lexington later acknowledged the 72.3% as not meaningful due to revolving credit facility usage; the 2019 tile contained no analogous credit facility disclosure. Both findings represent material distortions of historical track record information that investors cannot detect without methodology footnote excavation.

**Is Moonfare safe — what protections does the regulatory structure actually provide?**

The regulatory structure is real but multi-layered. US offerings are filed under Regulation D 506(b) — standard private placement exemption, no SEC pre-clearance. Moonfare Securities USA LLC is FINRA-licensed (CRD 325838, approved January 2024) and provides FINRA arbitration jurisdiction for BD-related disputes. The captive BD has no customer fund custody and no direct employees; it is a regulatory presence rather than substantive operation. Luxembourg SCSp feeders operate under AIFMD via Pandomus AIFM. Moonfare GmbH (Germany) operates as a tied agent under DHD GmbH's BaFin license. Investor recourse channels vary by issue: FINRA arbitration for BD disputes; Luxembourg courts for SCSp disputes; Delaware courts for US LP wrapper disputes. No SIPC protection on LP interests.

**What is the Lexington secondary auction actually like?**

Semi-annual digital auction with Lexington Partners as institutional backstop buyer. Auction windows are limited (twice per year); between windows the secondary market is closed. Pricing is NAV-referenced but discount-to-NAV is auction-determined — discounts can be material depending on Lexington's bidding capacity and overall auction supply/demand. Liquidity is explicitly not guaranteed. The Moonfare Secondary Fund SCSp is a separate vehicle providing indirect secondaries exposure with semi-liquid structure. Treat the auction as optionality enhancement rather than liquidity guarantee. Investors should plan for full 10-12 year lockup with auction-based optionality between maturities.

**Can non-US investors use this review?**

This review is specifically scoped to Moonfare's US-facing business — approximately 10% of the platform's claimed €3.9B global AUM. The dominant Moonfare book flows through Moonfare GmbH's German tied-agent structure under BaFin/MiFID, which has different regulatory framework than US Reg D 506(b). The structural catalog analysis applies similarly to EU offerings since the underlying GP marketing materials and Luxembourg SCSp feeder mechanics are the same. The captive US BD analysis and US user access experience apply specifically to US investors.

**Why review Moonfare so critically when the GPs they offer are legitimate?**

Because the GPs being legitimate makes the structural disclosure issues more material, not less. Investors evaluating Moonfare are not evaluating KKR or EQT or Carlyle — they have already decided those institutional GPs are credible. They are evaluating Moonfare's product layer: catalog presentation, curation quality, fee structure, access mechanism, regulatory wrapper. The Moonfare value proposition is curation plus ticket aggregation. The disclosure-quality issues documented are not GP-level findings — the underlying GPs provide fuller institutional materials through PPMs and LP reporting; the issue here is the Moonfare presentation layer where institutional GP marketing materials are surfaced as catalog tiles without consistent flagging of methodology choices that materially affect comparability. AltStreet's standard for platform reviews is whether the platform delivers on what it promises. Moonfare promises curation, access, and disclosure-quality wrap on institutional GP funds. The institutional GP access is real. The disclosure-quality wrap is partial by AltStreet's measure. The access mechanism (data room) did not unlock in AltStreet's single verified test. The review reflects this evidence base.

**What should an investor do if they want to commit capital to Moonfare?**

Five steps: (1) Validate independently that the 'Complete your profile' data room actually resolves and contains the underlying GP PPM, KID, and performance history for the specific fund you are considering and for your own account. AltStreet's single verified test did not resolve as documented — your own access may, but verify rather than assume. (2) Read the underlying GP PPM directly — do not rely on the Moonfare catalog tile content. (3) For funds with documented disclosure issues (Ares COF VI, HIG Europe MM LBO Fund I, CVC Growth Partners II, Lexington LCP IX/X, Apax X, Warburg Pincus XIII), validate predecessor performance and methodology against the underlying GP's institutional disclosure. (4) Size positions for full 10-12 year lockup with Lexington auction as optionality not exit guarantee. (5) Plan for Q2-Q3 K-1 delivery, budget tax extension as default, verify UBTI exposure for tax-exempt accounts. Treat Moonfare as a ticket-aggregation and presentation layer — not a substitute for reading the underlying GP PPM, verifying the fee stack, checking methodology footnotes, planning for K-1 delays, and assuming a full 10-12 year lockup.


## Update history

**August 14, 2026: Legal scan: clean across five jurisdictions — and Moonfare now holds its own BaFin license, ending the tied-agent structure this review documented**

A structured legal and enforcement scan (August 14, 2026: court records via public search, SEC EDGAR full-text search covering all 120 'Moonfare' hits, FINRA BrokerCheck, BaFin/CNMV/CSSF/FCA checks at search level, consumer channels, and news archives) found zero adverse legal or enforcement findings against Moonfare, its entities, or principal Steffen Pauls in Germany, Luxembourg, the UK, Spain, or the US. The scan's most consequential result is a correction, and a positive one: Moonfare Financial Services GmbH, a subsidiary of Moonfare GmbH, received its own BaFin authorization on May 26, 2026, as an independent investment firm under the German Investment Firm Act (WpIG) covering investment broking, investment advice, and portfolio management — and Moonfare's announcement states this ends the dependency on the Deutsche Haftungsdach (DHD) tied-agent umbrella that this review documented as a structural regulatory observation. The review's tied-agent language has been corrected throughout, with one precision preserved: the license sits in the new subsidiary, not in Moonfare GmbH itself, so investors should confirm which entity their agreements name. Two further findings: Spain's CNMV added the clone site 'moonfareltd.io' to its unauthorized-entities warning list on May 25, 2026 — an impersonation scam trading on Moonfare's name, not an action against Moonfare, now flagged in this review's risk signals as an investor-safety note; and the 2022 German layoffs were verified at 21 employees from a 211-FTE global peak, with headcount recovered to 196 by March 2023. The scan also confirmed Moonfare Securities USA LLC's zero-disclosure BrokerCheck record (CRD 325838) and surfaced leadership facts the review lacked: Lorenz Jüngling serves as Co-CEO alongside founder Steffen Pauls (Founder/Chairman/Co-CEO). Scan limits: PACER dockets, the BaFin and CSSF databases, and Trustpilot review text were not directly queryable; negatives are scan-scoped. No scoring-relevant adverse facts emerged; the review's reputational-risk assessment is unchanged.

**August 6, 2026: New offering captured: Series M (General Catalyst XIII & Creation III) — and General Catalyst's disclosure posture flipped between vintages**

Moonfare is marketing a new Series Fund I LLC tier: Series M, a single $125K-minimum interest allocating ~60% to General Catalyst XIII ($4.5B target, the flagship multi-stage venture fund built around applied AI and global resilience) and ~40% to GC Creation Fund III ($3B target, the company-building vehicle writing $50-300M checks into 15-25 concentrated positions). It is the first Series tier AltStreet has observed with dual-fund exposure, and it becomes the 61st record in the catalog — where it promptly fails the clean-disclosure threshold on two of the nine documented patterns. The Creation track record headline (6.8x gross realized MOIC) covers only the 50 realized investments out of 120+ Creation companies, and the accompanying 5.7x net figure is explicitly 'on a hypothetical net basis' — fee-assumption-based rather than actual. More interesting is the cross-vintage comparison the new record enables: the A86 tile marketing General Catalyst XII in 2023 disclosed no performance metrics at all — only AUM and portfolio counts, a pattern AltStreet had flagged as a VC disclosure norm. The GC XIII marketing now leads with a 2.7x TVPI on $17B+ deployed. Same GP, same platform, opposite disclosure posture — and the new numbers arrive with their own wrinkle: the tile presents '2.7x TVPI' with no gross/net qualifier while the solicitation email calls the identical figure '2.7x net total value to paid-in' ($44.6B over $17.0B computes to 2.62x). All substantive terms — the Series M fee schedule, PPM, KID, and fund-level performance breakdowns — remain gated behind the same 'Complete your profile' data room that did not resolve in AltStreet's June 2026 verified KYC test.


## Evidence appendix

Platform website captured June 5, 2026.

Three independent evidence layers: (1) AltStreet direct user access test — completed investor questionnaire, accreditation verification, and biometric ID verification through Moonfare's contracted KYC provider; documented the platform's response to 'Complete your profile' procedure and data room access request; documented account block and unblock behavior. (2) Catalog content analysis — 60 fund tiles captured from Moonfare US platform across Series Fund I LLC tiers, Access Feeders A20-A106, early-numbered Feeders 1-29, Moonfare-sponsored vehicles, and Tier 1 multi-fund records; methodology footnotes parsed for the nine documented disclosure-quality patterns. (3) SEC EDGAR primary source extraction — Form D filings for 30 Moonfare-direct US-facing entities; FOCUS Part II FY2025 for Moonfare Securities USA LLC; FINRA BrokerCheck for CRD 325838.

**Highlights**

- VERIFIED USER EXPERIENCE (single test): AltStreet completed Moonfare's documented onboarding flow including investor questionnaire, accreditation verification, and biometric ID verification through Moonfare's contracted third-party KYC provider. Followed 'Complete your profile' procedure for data room access. Received no response to data access request. Account briefly blocked after engaging with public catalog. Account unblocked but data and document access did not materialize. This is a single verified user-access test, not proof that no verified investor receives data-room access — it is falsifiable evidence that the documented procedure does not always resolve as published.
- CATALOG INVENTORY: 60 fund records captured spanning Q1 2018 (Moonfare Feeder 1 SCS investing in EQT Mid-Market Asia III — earliest captured record) through 2026 (Moonfare Series Fund I LLC Series F — most recent). Breakdown: 29 Access Feeders A20-A106 era, 14 early-numbered Feeders 1-29 era, 6 Moonfare-sponsored vehicles, 6 Series Fund I LLC qualified-purchaser tiers, 4 Tier 1 multi-fund records.
- PLACEMENT FEE ARCHITECTURE: 0.50% one-time placement fee structurally confirmed across 11+ catalog records with verbatim language: 'Includes a one-time placement fee to the Investment Advisor and/or its affiliates up to 0.50% of commitments.' Older records (DFJ Growth IV Feeder A31, Genstar X A24, Khosla VII A32, Founders Fund Growth Feeder 13) lack the explicit footnote.
- DISCLOSURE PROBLEM #1 — MATERIAL PREDECESSOR UNDERPERFORMANCE BURIED IN FOOTNOTES: HIG Europe Middle Market LBO Fund I (Feeder A28) footnote 3 verbatim: 'The net returns for HIG Europe Capital Partners II reflecting its actual management fee of 2.5% are 1.0x MOIC and 0.6% IRR.' The immediate predecessor returned LPs essentially nothing — an economically poor outcome for that prior vintage's LPs. Headline shows forward target 25-30% gross IRR. Ares COF VI (Feeder A27) footnote 3 verbatim: 'ACOF V: Inclusive of bridge financings, Gross IRR is 0.2% and Gross MIC is 1.0x.' Same pattern across two unrelated firms.
- DISCLOSURE PROBLEM #2 — FEE-ASSUMPTION-BASED RETURNS: HIG uses assumed 2% management fee to compute displayed historical net returns instead of actual 2.5%. General Atlantic A41: returns calculated using 'assumed 1.6% service fee + 0.3% broken deal + 0.1% organizational expense.' Three records identified with this pattern.
- DISCLOSURE PROBLEM #3 — MOONFARE-DERIVED METRICS: EQT Infrastructure V Feeder A20 footnote 6 verbatim: 'loss ratio as well as the realized gross IRR figures are based on Moonfare's own calculations.' Oakley IV Feeder 4: 'Total gross IRR and multiples compiled by Moonfare.' Three records across unrelated firms.
- DISCLOSURE PROBLEM #4 — SELECTIVE COMPOSITES: Eight records with material exclusions from headline aggregates: Warburg Pincus ex-energy; Qualitas ex-IV-V; Insight ex-Funds I-IV; Ares ex-energy; Veritas ex-2-deals; Apax core-sectors-only (28.6% vs. 23.7% all-sectors); KKR NGT II ex-recent funds; Cinven Fund 7 ex-Fund 6.
- DISCLOSURE PROBLEM #5 — ANOMALY-INCLUSIVE AGGREGATES: Lexington LCP X marketing includes LCP IX at 72.3% Net IRR without flagging GP later acknowledged 72.3% as not meaningful. TCV XII includes TCV X at 75.7% IRR.
- DISCLOSURE PROBLEM #6 — CROSS-VINTAGE IRR MUTATION: Lexington Capital Partners IX displayed at 16% Net IRR in the December 2019 LCP IX tile; same fund displayed at 72.3% Net IRR in the March 2022 LCP X tile. 56 percentage point change for the same fund across vintage marketings.
- DISCLOSURE PROBLEM #7 — PRIOR-FIRM TRACK RECORD: CVC Growth Partners II Feeder 14 footnote 7 verbatim: 'Figure as of 31 March 2013, which was the approximate departure date of Mr. Clark from Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe (WCAS).' CVC presents investment returns generated at WCAS as part of CVC track record.
- DISCLOSURE PROBLEM #8 — EXPLICIT FACILITY INFLATION: Apax X Feeder 12 footnote 13 verbatim: 'Hypothetical Net IRR for Apax VIII, adjusting for use of rolling 12 month facility from the start of the fund, is 19.4%.' Headline displays 28.6% gross. Most transparent facility-driven IRR distortion acknowledgment in catalog.
- DISCLOSURE PROBLEM #9 — PEER-RELATIVE SUBSTITUTION: Warburg Pincus Global Growth XIII Feeder 5 displays only '12 consecutive funds in the 1st or 2nd quartiles' as historical track record claim. 'Realised IRR and Money Multiple not provided by the fund.'
- MOONFARE SECURITIES USA LLC FY2025 (FOCUS Part II): Total revenue $464,067 of which $400,000 (86%) was 'forgiveness of indebtedness' from sister company. Actual placement fees: $64,067. Net capital $102K. No direct employees, no customer fund custody (Footnote 74 exemption). FinOp outsourced to Maven Strategic Advisors. Auditor: Rubio CPA PC (Atlanta, PCAOB #3514).
- EDGAR COVERAGE NOTE: 30 Moonfare-direct US-facing entities documented in Form D, ~$430M aggregate raised, representing approximately 10% of Moonfare's claimed €3.9B global AUM. Moonfare Feeder A45 SCSp ($129M, 145 investors, 2021) is the single largest US-facing offering by capital raised but its marketing tile was not visible in the June 2026 catalog capture.
- AUGUST 2026 ADDENDUM — SERIES M (GENERAL CATALYST XIII & CREATION III): Captured from Moonfare marketing email and public opportunity tile, August 2026 — the 61st catalog record. Single Series Fund I LLC interest allocating ~60% to GC XIII ($4.5B target, flagship multi-stage VC around applied AI and global resilience) and ~40% to GC Creation Fund III ($3B target, company-building vehicle, 15-25 core investments at $50-300M checks). $125K minimum, expected 5% called upfront. Marketing displays 2.7x TVPI on $17B+ deployed ($44.6B total value, as of 31 March 2026) and 6.8x gross realized MOIC ('5.7x on a hypothetical net basis') for Creation's 50 realized investments. Documented disclosure observations: (1) the tile presents '2.7x TVPI' with no gross/net qualifier while the accompanying email calls the identical figure '2.7x net total value to paid-in' — inconsistent gross-vs-net characterization of the same headline number across marketing surfaces (and $44.6B/$17.0B computes to 2.62x, displayed as 2.7x); (2) Creation's 6.8x covers only the 50 realized investments out of 120+ Creation companies, with the unrealised majority excluded from the headline multiple (pattern #4, selective composites); (3) the 5.7x net is explicitly 'hypothetical net' (pattern #2, fee-assumption-based returns); (4) portfolio company counts vary across surfaces (900+ vs 1,000+ for the same $17B deployment claim). All substantive terms — Series M fee schedule, PPM, KID, fund-level performance breakdowns — remain gated behind the same 'Complete your profile' data room that did not resolve in AltStreet's June 2026 verified KYC test.

**Primary source pages**

- Moonfare US platform — 60 fund tiles captured (June 2026)
- SEC EDGAR — Form D filings for 30 Moonfare-direct entities including Moonfare Global Portfolio LP (CIK 0001906475), Moonfare Co-Investment Fund I US LP (CIK 0001980801), Moonfare Secondary Fund SCSp (CIK 0002101507), Moonfare Series Fund I LLC tiers, Access Feeders A20-A106
- FINRA BrokerCheck — Moonfare Securities USA LLC (CRD 325838, FINRA-approved 2024-01-04)
- Moonfare Securities USA LLC FOCUS Part II FY2025 (Annual)
- moonfare.com — corporate website, regulatory disclosures, educational content (June 2026 capture)
- Underlying GP marketing materials embedded in Moonfare catalog (KKR, Carlyle, EQT, Apax, Warburg Pincus, Vista, Hg, Lexington, Advent, Cinven, Permira, Silver Lake, Founders Fund, others)


## Related

- Full review (HTML): https://altstreet.investments/platforms/reviews/moonfare
- Every platform review: https://altstreet.investments/platforms/reviews
- Methodology and scoring: https://altstreet.investments/platforms
- Category hub: https://altstreet.investments/categories/private-equity-private-markets

---

Source page: https://altstreet.investments/platforms/reviews/moonfare
Machine index: https://altstreet.investments/llms.txt
AltStreet reads what platforms, funds and issuers file with the SEC and what they tell investors, and publishes the difference. Figures are as filed or as captured on the date stated; nothing here is investment advice.