Systematic ranking of potential investors based on mandate fit, commitment likelihood, ticket size potential, decision velocity, relationship strength, and strategic value.

Prioritization focuses limited fundraising resources on highest-probability LPs—preventing equal effort on unequal opportunities.

Expanded Definition

Prioritization combines: mandate fit score (alignment with investment strategy), commitment probability (based on qualification and signals), ticket size potential (larger checks score higher), decision velocity (faster timelines score higher), relationship strength (warm intros vs cold), strategic value (brand, references, network), and competitive intensity (how many GPs pursuing same LP).

Prioritization models vary: simple (manual ranking by GP judgment), systematic (weighted scoring across criteria), and dynamic (re-ranking as signals change). Effective prioritization balances: high-probability/small-check vs low-probability/large-check, quick wins vs strategic long-term, and effort required vs expected outcome.

Signals & Evidence

Prioritization scoring factors:

Mandate fit: Strong (10 pts), moderate (5 pts), weak (0-2 pts)
Ticket size: $10M+ (10 pts), $5-10M (7 pts), $2-5M (4 pts), <$2M (0-2 pts)
Access pathway: Warm intro (10 pts), strong cold case (5 pts), weak (0-2 pts)
Decision readiness: Active signals (10 pts), moderate (5 pts), passive (0-2 pts)
Strategic value: Tier 1 brand (10 pts), strong (5 pts), moderate (0-2 pts)
Relationship capacity: Aligned (5 pts), manageable (2 pts), intensive (0 pts)

Decision Framework

Scoring system: Weight criteria based on fundraising priorities (early fundraising: prioritize speed; late fundraising: prioritize size)
Tier creation: Tier 1 (top 20%, receive most attention), Tier 2 (next 30%, moderate attention), Tier 3 (bottom 50%, minimal unless signals change)
Dynamic re-ranking: Update scores monthly as signals change, decisions progress, and new information emerges

Common Misconceptions

"Biggest checks = highest priority" → Sometimes smaller, faster LPs accelerate momentum better than large, slow prospects. "Prioritization is permanent" → Signals change; re-prioritize regularly as readiness, access, and fit evolve. "Equal effort for all qualified LPs" → Resource constraints require tiering; unequal effort is necessary and appropriate.

Key Takeaways

LP target list prioritization uses weighted scoring (fit, size, access, readiness, value) to focus resources on highest-probability opportunities
Prioritization should be dynamic—re-rank monthly as signals change and fundraising progresses
Tiering enables differentiated effort levels (Tier 1 receives intensive focus; lower tiers monitored for signal changes)

LP Target List Prioritization