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.

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.

Conventional wisdom blames high fees and a "paradox of skill" for active management's failure. However, fees are at historic lows and increased manager skill should theoretically reduce market volatility. The fact that managers are performing worse despite these tailwinds indicates a deeper, structural market shift is the true cause.

Despite median venture capital funds lagging public indexes like the S&P 500 for a quarter-century, capital continues to pour into the asset class. One LP describes this as 'hope over experience,' as investors are lured by the outlier returns of top funds, even though the average dollar invested underperforms.

Terry Smith contends that passive investing is mislabeled. It's a momentum strategy that forces capital into the largest companies regardless of valuation. With over 50% of AUM in passive funds (up from <10% in 2000), this creates a powerful feedback loop that distorts markets more than the dot-com bubble ever did.

A Vanguard study of over 2,000 active funds revealed a stark reality: even among the top quartile that survived and outperformed long-term, 95% still lagged their benchmark in at least five years out of the period studied. This proves that frequent underperformance is a normal feature of a winning strategy.