Alternative Investment Funds
Pooled vehicles investing across venture, private equity, private credit and special situations, each with distinct mandates and expectations.
Between bank credit and institutional equity sits a broad category of structured, flexible capital — more expensive than the first, less dilutive than the second, and frequently the better answer.
“Alternative” is an unhelpful label for a genuinely useful set of instruments. What unites them is that they are provided by parties other than conventional banks, and structured around a specific situation rather than a standard product.
In India this includes Alternative Investment Funds across their categories, private credit and non-bank lenders, venture debt providers, structured and mezzanine capital, and instruments built around receivables or specific contracts.
Businesses generally arrive here for one of three reasons: the requirement does not fit a standard bank product, the timeline is shorter than a bank process allows, or the situation carries complexity that conventional credit will not underwrite.
Pooled vehicles investing across venture, private equity, private credit and special situations, each with distinct mandates and expectations.
Non-bank lenders able to underwrite situations, timelines or structures that bank credit processes will not accommodate.
Debt alongside or between equity rounds, typically for businesses with institutional backing, extending runway with limited dilution.
Instruments sitting between senior debt and equity, often with conversion features or participation, shaped to a specific need.
Capital raised against invoices, contracts or predictable cash flows rather than against the balance sheet as a whole.
Providers who specifically underwrite complexity — transitions, restructurings and situations conventional lenders decline.
This is a less standardised market than bank credit, which makes both structuring and counterparty selection materially more important.
Establishing why conventional routes do not fit, and confirming whether that is genuinely the case.
Shaping an instrument around the actual cash flows, security and timeline rather than forcing a standard product.
Identifying which funds and providers are genuinely active in this structure, sector and size.
Assembling the case in the form these providers assess, which differs meaningfully from bank documentation.
Comparing offers on their full economics, including conversion features, participation and exit provisions.
Managing diligence and documentation through to drawdown.
Fees, conversion rights, participation and exit charges can change the effective cost substantially. Model it fully.
This market is less uniform than banking. Who you take capital from matters as much as the terms.
Conversion features and security packages shape what future funding is possible. Consider the next raise now.
Faster underwriting generally reflects higher risk pricing. That can be entirely worth it — but the trade should be conscious.
Unlike standard bank documentation, these agreements are negotiated. Read them with proper advice.
AIFs and non-bank providers operate under different frameworks. Understand what governs your counterparty.
No, though it is sometimes described that way. Many businesses use it deliberately — venture debt to extend runway without dilution, receivable structures to fund growth without additional security, or private credit to move faster than a bank process permits. It becomes a last resort only when it is used to solve a problem that better funding would have prevented.
Pricing varies too widely by structure, security and situation for a meaningful general figure. What is consistent is that it prices above comparable bank credit, because it is absorbing risk or providing flexibility banks will not. The relevant test is whether that premium buys something you genuinely need.
Debt provided to venture-backed businesses, usually alongside or shortly after an equity round. It extends runway with far less dilution than raising more equity, and typically carries warrants or similar features alongside interest. It suits businesses with institutional backing and a clear path to the next round — it is not a substitute for equity that is not there.
Sometimes. It depends on why. A decline based on product fit, timeline or structural complexity is often addressable through alternative routes. A decline based on underlying financial stress points toward a different conversation — see stressed account funding or debt restructuring.
Most funding conversations touch more than one route. These are the ones most often considered alongside this page.
Those are the situations this category exists for. Describe the constraint and we will tell you which structures are worth exploring.