Limited Partners are often misled by emerging managers with a short track record of a few successful deals. With a small sample size (e.g., 5-6 deals), it's impossible to distinguish between skill and pure luck—the equivalent of flipping heads five times in a row.

A massive valuation for a "seed" round can be misleading. Often, insiders have participated in several unannounced, cheaper tranches. The headline number is just the final, most expensive tier, used to create FOMO and set a high watermark for new investors.

During due diligence, the most revealing portfolio company reference checks involve asking CEOs leading questions. Frame inquiries to suggest the private equity sponsor is taking undue credit for successes. This tactic encourages frankness and uncovers the true dynamics of value creation and deal sourcing.

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.

Venture capital returns materialize over a decade, making short-term outputs like markups unreliable 'mirages.' Sequoia instead measures partners on tangible inputs. They are reviewed semi-annually on the quality of their decision-making process (e.g., investment memos) and their adherence to core team values, not on premature financial metrics.

An investor passed on a fund that paid 30-40x revenue for startups, believing quality alone justifies price. Three years later, that fund and its predecessors are underwater. This illustrates that even for great companies, undisciplined entry valuations and the assumption of multiple expansion can lead to poor returns.

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.

The best investment opportunities are often with managers who have strong demand and don't need any single LP's capital. The allocator's core challenge is proving their value to gain access. Conversely, managers who are too eager to negotiate on terms may be a negative signal of quality or demand.