Fund Manager

Fund managers design strategies, raise funds, execute investments, and report results to LPs. For allocators, a GP is not just a “brand”—it’s a long-duration counterparty defined by process quality, controls, and alignment.

How allocators define Fund Manager quality

Allocators assess:

• Edge: sourcing, underwriting, execution, or risk framework
• Repeatability: process stability across cycles
• Team durability: incentives, key-person risk, succession planning
• Portfolio construction: sizing discipline and concentration controls
• Reporting: transparency, attribution, and loss honesty
• Alignment: fee model, economics, governance terms

How fund managers fit into allocator workflows

LPs use GPs to:

• Access specialized deal flow and execution capabilities
• Outsource strategy implementation within a policy portfolio
• Build multi-vintage exposure with accountable reporting

How allocators evaluate GPs

Conviction increases when:

• Track record is explainable by identifiable drivers (not luck)
• Losses are disclosed with clear lessons
• Terms are institution-friendly and governance is clean
• Operations (valuation, compliance, controls) are mature
• The GP can articulate what they won’t do (guardrails)

What slows allocator decision-making

Common blockers:

• Key-person dependence and unstable teams
• Style drift after fundraising success
• Weak transparency or selective attribution
• Overpromising and under-documenting downside cases

Common misconceptions

• “Big brand means low risk” → process and governance matter more than size.
• “TVPI proves skill” → DPI quality and attribution matter.
• “Great pitch equals great manager” → institutional trust is built in reporting and behavior.

Key allocator questions

• What is the repeatable edge and how is it defended?
• How are losses handled and communicated?
• What is the key-person and succession plan?
• How does the GP prevent style drift?
• What reporting and controls are standard?