📚 PASS Investment Adviser (Level 1) Difficulty: Beginner ℹ️ Info   ~5 min read
📌 Chapter 13.3 — SEBI requirements on AIF

Imagine you are an investment analyst reviewing a Pitchbook for a Category II Alternative Investment Fund. You have already verified the ‘skin in the game’ requirement—the manager has committed 2.5% of the fund’s corpus. While this satisfies the regulatory mandate for alignment, your analysis must now shift toward how that capital is actually deployed across the market. The SEBI-mandated ‘continuing interest’ ensures the manager feels the pain of poor performance, but it does not protect the investor from the manager’s potential obsession with a single high-conviction bet.

Diversification constraints function as the second pillar of investor protection, acting as a structural guardrail against the inherent risks of concentrated portfolio management. In the Indian AIF landscape, these limits restrict the percentage of the fund’s corpus that can be invested in a single investee company. By preventing the manager from dumping the majority of the fund’s capital into a single ‘winner,’ the regulations force the manager to prove their alpha generation through portfolio-level selection rather than individual company speculation.

This structural limit is a check on the ‘key man risk’ often associated with private equity funds.

Consider an AIF specializing in mid-cap logistics firms. Without these constraints, a manager might allocate 50% of the corpus to one firm in which they have a personal interest. With the regulatory caps, the manager must identify multiple viable opportunities, thereby diluting the specific risk of any one balance sheet failure. When conducting your due diligence, compare the fund’s internal concentration limits—often detailed in the Private Placement Memorandum—against these regulatory floors.

If a fund appears to flirt with these limits frequently, it signals a concentrated strategy that may not be suitable for a risk-averse client profile.

Ultimately, aligning interests through ‘continuing interest’ addresses agency costs, while diversification constraints address structural risk. A manager might be perfectly aligned with your financial success but may still lack the institutional discipline to maintain a balanced portfolio. As an advisor, your assessment of the fund’s investment committee effectiveness must look past the manager’s personal capital commitment and evaluate their historical adherence to these diversification requirements.1

Nuance

⚠️ Nuance
A common professional misconception is that because the manager has ‘skin in the game,’ they are inherently incentivized to manage risk prudently. However, a manager with significant personal capital might still adopt a ‘go-for-broke’ strategy if their fund is underperforming early in its lifecycle. Candidates often confuse ‘alignment of interest’ with ‘risk mitigation,’ failing to recognize that diversification requirements are the primary regulatory mechanism that prevents managers from taking excessive risks with the pooled capital, regardless of their own investment stake.

Check Your Understanding

Practice Question 1

An analyst is reviewing a Category II AIF that intends to allocate 40% of its corpus to a single startup to capture rapid growth. Based on SEBI regulations, which statement accurately reflects the analyst’s findings regarding this strategy?

Practice Question 2

Why must an analyst evaluate diversification constraints in conjunction with the manager’s ‘continuing interest’ when vetting an AIF?

This is a companion read for Section 13.3 — SEBI requirements on AIF from PASS Investment Adviser (Level 1) by Akhilesh Gururani, available on Amazon Kindle.

Copyright © 2026 HABSG Consulting

  1. AIF diversification limits typically prevent a Category I or II fund from investing more than 25% of its investible funds in a single investee company, ensuring funds maintain broad exposure to mitigate idiosyncratic risk. ↩︎