Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

NYU's CIO uses historical data not to make decisions, but to interrogate a manager's future plans. This process reveals how the track record supports or contradicts their stated vision, leading to a deeper understanding of their investment philosophy and forward-looking strategy.

Related Insights

In manager meetings, CIO Collette Chilton intentionally avoids position-level discussions. Instead, she explores broader topics like life and current events to gauge the manager's mindset, while her team handles granular portfolio analysis, creating a dual-layered diligence process.

The traditional 'risks and attractions' list creates a false opposition. A better framework is asking, 'What do you have to believe to be true to be attracted to this?' This reframes the diligence process constructively, acknowledging that the goal of an investor is to find reasons to put money to work, not just to identify risks.

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).

Dalio's method for creating a reliable investment 'game plan' is to treat every potential decision as a rule. He then historically backtests that rule to see how it would have performed across different markets and eras, codifying only the proven, timeless ones into his system.

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.

Limited Partners (LPs) value fund managers who are willing to listen and internalize market feedback, even if they ultimately follow their own strategy. This openness is a key positive signal, while a refusal to listen is a major red flag that often appears early in the relationship.

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.

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.

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.

An effective manager evaluation technique is to recognize that everyone presents their polished "best self" initially. An allocator's primary job during due diligence is to actively investigate beyond this facade to uncover the manager's "true self"—how they operate under pressure and handle failure—before committing capital.