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).
Backing independent sponsors on a deal-by-deal basis is more than an investment strategy; it is an extended due diligence process. This approach provides deep, real-time insights into a manager's problem-solving skills under pressure, offering transparency that is impossible to achieve before a Fund I commitment.
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.
For LPs, the primary benefit of pre-fund co-investments with emerging managers isn't just financial returns. It's a critical diligence tool to observe intangible qualities, such as a sponsor's discipline to abandon a flawed deal, which strongly correlates with long-term success.
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.
Many LPs focus solely on backing the 'best people.' However, a manager's chosen strategy and market (the 'neighborhood') is a more critical determinant of success. A brilliant manager playing a difficult game may underperform a good manager in a structurally advantaged area.
Experience taught Herb Wagner that great leaders consistently surprise on the upside. He now weights leadership quality far more heavily, assessing CEOs not by interviews or charisma, but by their verifiable track record and through trusted backchannel references who have worked with them directly.
Elite decision-making transcends pure analytics. The optimal process involves rigorously completing a checklist of objective criteria (the 'mind') and then closing your eyes to assess your intuitive feeling (the 'gut'). This 'educated intuition' framework balances systematic analysis with the nuanced pattern recognition of experience.
To elicit candid answers from fund managers, the most effective technique is not the question itself but the silence that follows. Resisting the psychological urge to fill the space forces the manager to sit with the question, often leading to less rehearsed and more truthful responses.
The best investment opportunities are often with managers who have strong demand and don't need any single LP's capital. The allocator's core challenge is proving their value to gain access. Conversely, managers who are too eager to negotiate on terms may be a negative signal of quality or demand.
Instead of focusing on process, allocators should first ask managers fundamental questions like "What do you believe?" and "Why does this work?" to uncover their core investment philosophy. This simple test filters out the majority of firms that lack a deeply held, clearly articulated conviction about their edge.