Manager Selection Framework

A manager selection framework is the structured process allocators use to source, evaluate, compare, approve, and monitor managers consistently across cycles. The goal is not “more diligence.” The goal is repeatable decisions that fit a portfolio slot—risk budget, liquidity posture, pacing capacity, and mandate constraints.

From an allocator perspective, most manager decisions aren’t lost on performance—they’re lost on fit. A manager can be good and still be the wrong slot.

How allocators define manager selection risk drivers

Allocators evaluate managers through:

• Mandate fit: strategy, stage, geography, structure, ticket size
• Edge proof: sourcing advantage + underwriting repeatability
• Portfolio construction logic: concentration rules, reserves/triage discipline
• Team governance: decision rights, stability, incentives, key person risk
• Track record integrity: attribution, dispersion, realized vs unrealized quality
• Risk controls: downside behavior, valuation governance, liquidity mismatch risk
• Operational maturity: reporting, controls, compliance, service providers
• Terms alignment: transparency, LP protections, side letter posture
• Portfolio role clarity: correlation overlap, factor exposure, contribution to risk

Allocator framing:
“Where does this manager fit—and what evidence proves they earn that slot?”

Where frameworks matter most

• new-manager approvals vs re-ups
• high-dispersion strategies (VC/growth/special situations)
• periods of fundraising noise and theme-chasing
• portfolios near pacing or risk capacity limits

How frameworks change outcomes

Strong frameworks:

• reduce performance chasing and exception drift
• shorten cycles by clarifying decision gates
• increase re-up consistency and allocator conviction
• improve portfolio coherence over time

Weak frameworks:

• turn exceptions into the strategy
• create late-stage reversals (“not the right slot”)
• apply inconsistent standards across managers
• reduce internal trust in decisions

How allocators evaluate framework maturity

Conviction increases when allocators:

• define explicit decision gates (screen → diligence → IC)
• use consistent weights (what actually matters)
• standardize evidence requirements (not just claims)
• link monitoring to the original thesis and risk expectations

What slows allocator decision-making

• frameworks that are checklists, not decision tools
• unclear weights (“everything matters equally”)
• no portfolio role definition
• repeated exceptions without documented rationale

Common misconceptions

• “Frameworks slow decisions” → disciplined frameworks speed decisions.
• “Brand managers bypass the framework” → that’s how portfolios drift.
• “Selection ends at approval” → monitoring is part of selection.

Key allocator questions during diligence

• What portfolio role is this manager intended to fill?
• What is the minimum evidence threshold for edge and track record?
• What is a hard no (red-line risk)?
• What overlap exists with current exposures?
• What monitoring triggers would change conviction?