Limited Partners are often misled by emerging managers with a short track record of a few successful deals. With a small sample size (e.g., 5-6 deals), it's impossible to distinguish between skill and pure luck—the equivalent of flipping heads five times in a row.
Related Insights
In venture capital, an investor's reputation is constantly on the line. A successful exit in one fund doesn't satisfy the LPs of a subsequent fund. This creates relentless pressure to consistently perform, as you're only as good as your last hit and can never rest on past achievements.
There's a surprising disconnect between the perceived brilliance of individual investors at large, well-known private equity firms and their actual net-to-LP returns, which are often no better than the market median. This violates the assumption that top talent automatically generates outlier results.
During due diligence, it's crucial to look beyond returns. Top allocators analyze a manager's decision-making process, not just the outcome. They penalize managers who were “right for the wrong reasons” (luck) and give credit to those who were “wrong for the right reasons” (good process, bad luck).
Underperforming VC firms persist because the 7-10+ year feedback loop for returns allows them to raise multiple funds before performance is clear. Additionally, most LPs struggle to distinguish between a manager's true investment skill and market-driven luck.
A common mistake for emerging managers is pitching LPs solely on the potential for huge returns. Institutional LPs are often more concerned with how a fund's specific strategy, size, and focus align with their overall portfolio construction. Demonstrating a clear, disciplined strategy is more compelling than promising an 8x return.
In a world of highly skilled money managers, absolute skill becomes table stakes and luck plays a larger role in outcomes. According to Michael Mauboussin's "paradox of skill," an allocator's job is to identify managers whose *relative* skill—a specific, durable edge—still dominates results.
A common mistake in venture capital is investing too early based on founder pedigree or gut feel, which is akin to 'shooting in the dark'. A more disciplined private equity approach waits for companies to establish repeatable, business-driven key performance metrics before committing capital, reducing portfolio variance.
Similar to professional sports, the asset management industry has become hyper-competitive. As the baseline skill level of all participants becomes exceptionally high, the difference between them narrows. This makes random chance, or luck, a larger determinant of who wins in any given deal or fund cycle, making repeatable alpha harder.
Investors often judge investments over three to five years, a statistically meaningless timeframe. Academic research suggests it requires approximately 64 years of performance data to know with confidence whether an active manager's outperformance is due to genuine skill (alpha) or simply luck, highlighting the folly of short-term evaluation.
Relying on an established VC's past performance creates a false sense of security. The critical diligence question for any manager, emerging or established, is whether they are positioned to win *now*. Factors like increased fund size, team changes, and evolving market dynamics mean a great track record from 5-10 years ago has limited predictive power today.
