What LPs actually want is consistent, net cash-on-cash returns that BEAT the asset class, and a high probability the fund survives, scales, and returns capital in a reasonable time.
Quartile rankings are a relative performance measure. They tell you, “How did this fund do compared to other survivors,” not whether it delivered absolute returns or even avoided failure.
For sub-$250M funds, where over half never raise a second fund, this framing is dangerously incomplete.
Saying “specialists are more likely to be top quartile” ignores the fact that 29% still end up in the bottom.
This chart excludes the many dead funds that didn’t even make the quartile cut.
LPs should care more about the base rate of survival, DPI, and whether the strategy has a durable edge than where it sits on a survivorship-skewed ladder. Any analysis that omits failure data is not insight. This crap is marketing.
This is great. Is there a fund size where generalists start to perform better?
What LPs actually want is consistent, net cash-on-cash returns that BEAT the asset class, and a high probability the fund survives, scales, and returns capital in a reasonable time.
Quartile rankings are a relative performance measure. They tell you, “How did this fund do compared to other survivors,” not whether it delivered absolute returns or even avoided failure.
For sub-$250M funds, where over half never raise a second fund, this framing is dangerously incomplete.
Saying “specialists are more likely to be top quartile” ignores the fact that 29% still end up in the bottom.
This chart excludes the many dead funds that didn’t even make the quartile cut.
LPs should care more about the base rate of survival, DPI, and whether the strategy has a durable edge than where it sits on a survivorship-skewed ladder. Any analysis that omits failure data is not insight. This crap is marketing.
spot on: https://www.foundamental.com/philosophy
What is the source for 1000+ VCs performance 2000-2020
PitchBook
No wonder this is total bullshit