Investment Committee Process

An investment committee (IC) process is the formal workflow for evaluating opportunities, debating risk, voting, and documenting decisions. Strong IC processes create repeatable, defensible decisions; weak processes create delays, reversals, and unclear ownership.

From a GP perspective, most missed closes aren’t “strategy rejections.” They’re process failures: wrong calendar, wrong stakeholder order, unclear thresholds, or missing documentation.

How allocators define IC process risk drivers

Allocators evaluate:

• Decision rights: who votes, who advises, who vetoes
• Cadence: scheduled vs ad hoc approvals
• Thresholds: what triggers board/principal escalation
• Quorum rules: what is required to approve
• Documentation standard: memo format, evidence required
• Exception handling: how off-mandate deals are governed
• Execution readiness: legal/KYC steps after approval

Allocator framing:
“Is this a repeatable system—or a sequence of personality-driven approvals?”

Where IC process matters most

• time-sensitive co-invests
• first-time manager approvals
• large tickets requiring escalation
• controversial strategies with reputational sensitivity

How IC process changes outcomes

Strong IC process:

• faster approvals with fewer surprises
• clearer stakeholder alignment
• lower late-stage reversal risk
• higher institutional defensibility

Weak IC process:

• ambiguous timelines and drifting decisions
• late stakeholder introduction
• “one more question” loops with no decision gate
• execution delays even after approval

How allocators evaluate IC discipline

Conviction increases when allocators:

• have clear thresholds and documented rules
• show consistent decision patterns across cycles
• maintain evidence standards (not “story-first”)
• document decisions and rationale clearly

What slows allocator decision-making

• no internal sponsor who owns the decision
• cadence mismatch with fundraising close dates
• unclear escalation thresholds
• missing or inconsistent documentation

Common misconceptions

• “ICs are slow” → unclear ICs are slow; disciplined ICs are efficient.
• “Approval equals funding” → execution readiness still matters.
• “ICs are only for institutions” → many FOs have functional equivalents.

Key allocator questions during diligence

• What is the decision calendar and cadence?
• Who must be involved at this ticket size?
• What documentation is required before a vote?
• What typically causes reversals late in diligence?
• What is the post-approval execution process?