Quadrantis Private Equity II is a labelling exercise worth seeing past: despite the name, it is a conservative credit and fixed-income vehicle, pairing secured financing contracts with established companies and BBB-to-AAA-rated bonds, targeting a reported 6.5% to 10% return. For Golden Visa investors it offers a defensive profile and an unusually clear US posture. The catch is evidential: nearly every term rests on a single manager-fed directory listing, and that listing contradicts itself on the one question that defines the commitment, liquidity.
Key takeaways
- A credit-and-bond strategy behind a private equity name: secured corporate financing plus investment-grade bonds, at least 60% in Portugal, €50 million hard cap, 10-year term.
- Reported terms: €100,000 minimum, 1.5% management fee, 20% performance fee over a 6.5% hurdle, semi-annual NAV, Bison Bank as custodian. Almost all single-source.
- The liquidity record is contradictory: a 120-month lock-up listed alongside quarterly redemptions with 90 days' notice and no fee.
- US persons are recorded as accepted with QEF reporting available, a comparatively strong posture on the fund route.
- New 2025-vintage fund with no published track record, prospectus or KID found publicly.
What does the fund actually invest in?
Two things, neither of them private equity. The first pillar is secured credit: financing contracts between established entities, backed by what the manager describes as strong guarantees and protective mechanisms. The second is investment-grade bonds, BBB to AAA-rated government and corporate paper from Portugal and international markets. The stated objective is stable, consistent returns with capital preservation, and the reported target range is 6.5% to 10%, with at least 60% allocated to Portugal for Golden Visa purposes.
The name is a legacy of the manager's fund family rather than a description of the mandate, and our database accordingly categorises it as a credit fund. That distinction matters for expectations: you should assess this vehicle against income funds, on questions of collateral quality and interest-rate exposure, not against buyout funds on questions of value creation. No percentage split between the two pillars has been published, and as a 2025 vintage the fund has no track record. The €50 million hard cap comes from the manager's own fund table; how much has actually been raised is unknown.
Behind it sits Quadrantis Capital, a Lisbon manager running several Golden Visa-oriented funds, including the PEEIF III energy-efficiency fund and a hospitality vehicle, with over €350 million under management per its own marketing. Partners João Koehler and Pedro Rosas lead the firm, with Paulo Caetano advising the board.
What would the reported fees cost you?
Every number in this section comes from one directory listing, manager-fed but unconfirmed by published fund documents: a 1.5% annual management fee, a 20% performance fee, and a 6.5% hurdle that conveniently matches the bottom of the return target. No subscription fee figure is recorded, and the listed early-redemption fee is zero.
On a €500,000 Golden Visa subscription, a 1.5% fee works out to €7,500 a year:
| Holding period | Management fee at reported 1.5% p.a. |
|---|---|
| 6 years | €45,000 |
| 7 years | €52,500 |
| Full 10-year term | €75,000 |
That 1.5% sits at the lower end of the 1.5% to 2% band typical of Golden Visa funds, which fits the defensive mandate. The performance fee is where the arithmetic gets interesting for a credit fund: 20% of returns above a 6.5% hurdle means that in the middle of the target range, the manager's share of your upside is material relative to the total return on offer. Confirm the fee basis, the hurdle mechanics and whether there is a catch-up clause in the fund regulations; on a fixed-income profile those details move the net result more than they would in a buyout fund.
Can you exit before year 10? The record disagrees with itself
The same directory that supplies the fund's terms records both a 120-month lock-up in a closed-end fund and quarterly redemptions with 90 days' notice and no fee, and the contradiction was still present when re-checked in July 2026. These describe two fundamentally different products. Do not subscribe until the manager shows you, in the fund regulations, which one this is.
The reconciliation may be mundane, for instance periodic liquidity windows inside a formally closed-end 10-year wrapper, but that is a guess, not a fact. The NAV is reportedly struck semi-annually, which sits awkwardly with quarterly dealing and is one more reason to treat the redemption story as unresolved. Nomad Gate's 10-year duration and a December 2027 subscription deadline are consistent with the closed-end reading.
Against the citizenship timeline, either version works in the critical direction: naturalisation realistically takes six years or more, the €500,000 must stay invested throughout, and a 10-year vehicle comfortably spans that. The difference is what happens afterwards. Real quarterly windows would let you unwind once citizenship is settled; a hard 120-month lock-up means waiting out the full decade.
What should US citizens know?
This is, on the record available, one of the fund's stronger suits. The verified directory listing records US persons as confirmed accepted, with QEF reporting available, and the fund is tagged as suitable for US citizens. The manager's sister fund, PEEIF III, carries the same markers, which suggests a deliberate house policy rather than a data artefact.
The framework still applies: as a Portuguese fund, this is expected to be a PFIC for US taxpayers, and the QEF election is only as good as the annual information statements that support it. No manager statement on US matters was found publicly, and IRA eligibility is unrecorded. So the request list is: written confirmation that US persons are accepted, a written commitment to annual QEF statements, and any available guidance on the self-directed IRA route. FATCA and foreign-asset reporting apply regardless, and PFIC modelling belongs with a US tax adviser before subscription.
How does it compare?
Within the funds database, this fund sits in the defensive corner: a credit strategy with a capital-preservation mandate, a €100,000 minimum right at the route's typical entry point, and a reported fee at the bottom of the usual band. Its natural role in a Golden Visa allocation is as ballast alongside equity-heavy funds, which is presumably why the manager positions it on its Golden Visa platform.
Two useful reference points. The manager's own PEEIF III shares the house's US-friendly posture but takes project risk in energy efficiency rather than credit risk. In the same credit category, 3CC Golden Income offers a comparable income-oriented profile from a different manager, which makes it a sensible second quote when testing whether the terms here are competitive.
The unknowns
Listed for completeness; their weight depends on your situation and risk appetite:
- Exact legal structure and ISIN.
- Capital raised to date; the €50 million figure is the hard cap, not confirmed AUM.
- Actual redemption mechanics, given the 120-month lock-up versus quarterly-windows conflict.
- Subscription fee and distribution policy; the fund is tagged income-focused but no policy is published.
- CMVM registration 2222, not independently verified against the registry.
- Whether a prospectus or KID exists publicly; none was found, and subscription runs through the manager's digital onboarding portal.
Next step
If you want a defensive, income-oriented sleeve in a Golden Visa allocation and you can get the redemption mechanics and fee terms confirmed in the fund regulations, this fund earns a place on the comparison shortlist. Roots can walk you through those documents independently and help you frame the liquidity question precisely before you engage the manager. This article is information, not investment, tax or immigration advice; capital is at risk, and target returns are objectives, not promises.
