Lara Banks of Mechanic Capital passed on a successful fund because she couldn't verbalize the repeatable 'intangibles' driving their returns. LPs must be able to understand and explain a VC's process for generating returns, not just see past luck, before committing capital to a fund.

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.

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.

A simple framework to evaluate a VC's skill is the four 'D's'. They need proprietary Deal Flow, the ability to make good Decisions (initial investment), the conviction to Double Down on winners, and the discipline to generate Distributions (returns) for LPs.

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.

Investor Chris Reisach argues that if an investment doesn't make sense to you, the problem likely lies with the business, not your intellect. He advises junior VCs to trust their confusion as an adverse signal. A founder's inability to clearly articulate their vision is a fundamental flaw, and investing without true conviction is a recipe for failure.

Lara Banks suggests that emerging fund managers should proactively ask LPs about their specific criteria for success. This conversation aligns expectations early, clarifies performance benchmarks for future funds, and prevents misalignment between the GP's strategy and the LP's evaluation framework.

While limited partners in venture funds often claim to seek differentiated strategies, in reality, they prefer minor deviations from established models. They want the comfort of the familiar with a slight "alpha" twist, making it difficult for managers with genuinely unconventional approaches to raise institutional capital.

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.