In a perfect world, when a sponsor is ready to step out and hang their own shingle, their current GP will be in between funds and the investments they led will be realized or on solid footing. In the real world, this is rarely the case, making GP exits a careful balancing act over a flammable bridge.

In most cases, the departed will have a choice: either plot their exit at the conclusion of a fund's investment period or, alternatively, wait until after they've seen through the investments they've led. In the recent past, it's been hard to pick out a discernible trend.

When Harold Rosser exited Bruckmann Rosser Sherrill, his departure followed a string of realizations involving deals that he either led or was intimately involved with. But he left roughly two years after BRS closed its third fund. Alternatively, Chip Schorr's decision to leave Blackstone, reported by Fortune.com, came as the firm finished off BCP V. He won't be around to see the fate of investments such as Freescale Semiconductor, Travelport or Intelenet.

In speaking with Mergers & Acquisitions, Rosser conceded that leaving mid fund "is never perfect," but he adds: "The investments I was responsible for were either liquid or near liquid." Both Rosser and representatives from BRS affirmed that he left on good terms. The same seems true with Schorr, as Blackstone is reportedly planning to be an investor in his fund.

Perhaps the more important question is whether LPs have a preference. The obvious answer is that they would take the status quo over a shakeup in the general partnership, otherwise they wouldn't bother asking for key-man clauses. But if it has to happen, three limited partners Mergers & Acquisitions spoke to contend that they don't have a bias either way.

"It depends on why the person is leaving and the shape of the fund," says Hamilton Lane chief investment officer Erik Hirsch. But when it happens, Hirsch adds that a spinout will receive more scrutiny from limiteds regardless of the timing. "It adds an extra layer of diligence in order to parse through the track record and figure out the responsibility."

Jesse Rogers, who left Golden Gate Capital last summer and closed a debut fund for Altamont Capital Partners in January, cites that for him, it came down to the broader market and the shape of the economy.

"We thought it through at great length. There was a lot of planning and discussion; it was very collaborative," he describes. "Two thousand and nine would have been the wrong time because the world was still upside down."

Hirsch believes that for a variety of reasons the recent exits mark a trend. "It's not surprising that we're seeing more of this," Hirsch notes, adding, "In some instances, people aren't 'spinning' out, they're getting pushed out. There's going to be more of that going on."

The decision on timing can come down to which network is more important, the one that provides the funding to pursue new deals or the network made up of the channels through which deals flow.

Southlake Equity's Douglas Wheat, who spun out of Haas Wheat & Partners in 2006, says that he timed his exit around the portfolio. "We waited until we disposed our last investment. We couldn't leave and disappoint the management teams."

Meanwhile, as Hirsch and other LPs identify, the institutional investors are going to do their homework either way, and money will flow to those who can provide top-quartile returns. Rogers was able to raise $500 million with apparent ease, even after he left Golden Gate mid-fund while taking three other Golden Gate team members with him.

Seeing the portfolio through, as opposed to the funds, also helps draw the line between the specific partner and their investments.

"There will be a thinning out at a lot of firms, and the burden is going to be on the LPs to understand what happened," Hirsch adds.