The romanticized idea of a dramatic "investment committee" meeting is a myth. The most effective investment process is collaborative and iterative, where an idea is pitched early and gains momentum across the firm over time. The formal meeting becomes a rubber stamp for a decision that has already been organically reached.
Product leaders often feel they must present a perfect, unassailable plan to executives. However, the goal should be to start a discussion. Presenting an idea as an educated guess allows for a collaborative debate where you can gather more information and adjust the strategy based on leadership's feedback.
Effective private equity boards function as strategic advisory councils rather than governance bodies. Board members are expected to be co-investors who actively help with strategy, networking, and operational challenges like procurement, making them a key part of the value creation engine.
Don't pitch big ideas by going straight to the CEO for a mandate; this alienates the teams who must execute. Instead, introduce ideas casually to find a small group of collaborative "yes, and" thinkers. Build momentum with this core coalition before presenting the developed concept more broadly.
When assessing a co-investment, LPs should request data on employee participation. Deals where the PE firm's own staff invest their personal capital tend to be the better-performing ones, serving as a powerful, internal signal of conviction that goes beyond the official pitch.
Unlike committees, where partners might "sell" each other on a deal, a single decision-maker model tests true conviction. If a General Partner proceeds with an investment despite negative feedback from the partnership, it demonstrates their unwavering belief, leading to more intellectually honest decisions.
Multi-threading isn't just a seller's tactic; it empowers the buyer. An internal champion feels more confident and strengthened when they can approach their CFO with the backing of two or three peers who also see the value. This shared internal momentum makes it easier for them to secure budget and push the deal forward.
A16z's growth fund avoids traditional investment committees, which can lead to politicization and slow decisions. Instead, it uses a venture-style "single trigger" model where one partner can champion a deal, encouraging intellectual honesty and speed.
Bessemer's investment process favors individual partner conviction over group consensus. A partner can "pound the table" for a deal (the "gold nugget") without the risk of another partner vetoing it (the "blackball" model). This fosters ownership and bold bets, with performance as the ultimate accountability.
Sequoia's internal data shows consensus is irrelevant to investment success. A deal with strong advocates (voting '9') and strong detractors (voting '1') is preferable to one where everyone is mildly positive (a '6'). The presence of passionate conviction, even amid dissent, is the critical signal for pursuing outlier returns.
TA Associates uses a hybrid investment committee. A central group reviews deals but delegates final approval to a small team of four partners (two from the deal team, two from the committee) who conduct deep, in-person diligence. This decentralizes decision-making to those closest to the information.