David Cohen reveals that some savvy LPs investigate a General Partner's personal life, such as their marriage. While seemingly invasive, this is a strategic move to gauge stability and de-risk their investment, as significant personal disruptions can detract from a GP's focus and fund performance.
Limited Partners, much like VCs searching for outlier founders, are often looking for fund managers who are "a little off." They value investors who think differently and don't follow the consensus, as this non-traditional approach is seen as the path to generating outsized returns.
Historically, internal conflicts or partner turnover in VC firms were seen as universally negative. Now, leading firms are becoming more transparent, inviting Limited Partners (LPs) into these discussions to act as sounding boards and provide best practices for resolution.
With high partner turnover at large venture firms, a key diligence question for founders is whether the specific partner joining their board is likely to remain at that firm. A partner's departure can be highly disruptive, making their stability more important than firm brand.
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.
David Cohen of Techstars advises founders to request references from a VC's failed investments. This reveals how an investor behaves during difficult times, providing a more honest assessment of their character and support level than speaking only with successful founders.
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.
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.
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.
An LP with prior experience as a GP has a distinct advantage in accessing top-tier funds. They understand what GPs value in an LP—responsiveness, transparency, long-term thinking, and trust. By acting as "the LP they wanted to work with," they build deeper relationships and gain an edge over LPs who have never been on the other side of the table.
Founders Fund's perk allowing employees to co-invest personally is a clever mechanism to test true conviction. If an investor sponsoring a deal is unwilling to put their own money in, it raises a serious question about their belief in the investment's potential, forcing them to justify why it's a better allocation for LPs than their own capital.