Private investing is an extremely attractive industry: it has high margins (~40-60%), recurring cash flows (management fees are paid upfront), and predictable costs (overhead is relatively fixed) (1). It’s also a massive industry, with over $6.5T in private market AUM globally ($4.5T for private equity and debt alone). And it’s growing — AUM for private market assets grew by 10% in 2019, and increased by 170% in the past decade.
There is, however, a key structural disadvantage that makes any traditional private investing firm a more precarious long-term bet. With human capital as the core asset, Key Person risk precludes most institutions from instilling scalable, repeatable processes that can in turn deliver scalable, repeatable returns. Passing on the torch from a firm’s founder to his or her successor is a risky endeavor, no matter the strength of the heir apparent. Kleiner Perkins and Forstmann Little are just two of many institutions that fell from grace amid inevitable leadership transitions.
Leading a top-tier investment firm requires expertise across several disparate functional areas — and it’s nearly impossible for the chosen successor to demonstrate this jack-of-all-trades capability until he or she is already at the helm. The Key Person is responsible for a broad swath of decision-making across an organization. To name a few:
Private investors are often able to get their initial funds off the ground because they’re actually good at all (or most) of those things. Industry veterans like Peter Fenton or Doug Leone have built credibility because they’ve successfully driven consistent performance through their strong leadership instincts. But a) there is a finite number of people who are highly skilled across each distinct function, b) these people are exceptionally well compensated, and c) jury’s out on whether the preeminence of these firms will outlive the tenure of their founders.
To mitigate Key Person risk, institutions in the next wave of data-driven PE/VC should consider debundling an exceptional leader’s skill set — and as a result, debundling the private investing process entirely. Doing so creates a much greater likelihood of achieving scalable, repeatable outcomes over time.
Organizationally, this would require one individual/team, technology product or other solution dedicated to each distinct function. For example: FTE(s) responsible for investor relations (somewhat common), FTE(s) focused on org design and attracting/retaining talent (less common), and different solutions that specialize in each stage of the investment process: sourcing, execution, and post-close value creation (pretty rare). There are some VC firms that are already leaning into this concept, i.e. A16Z’s board partners, who sit on portfolio companies’ boards and provide operational and strategic support). Data-driven VC firms will leverage technology first in sourcing- thus debundling that core skill from the black box that is the Key Person of yesteryear.
Some key benefits in decentralizing institutional knowledge and expertise:
Debundling private investing will not happen overnight, and it likely won’t be spearheaded by a Key Person that’s been running his or her business the same way for years. But as the old guard gives way to the next generation — and as technology becomes further integrated within operational and investment processes — we expect to see the formation of new models that are intrinsically built to deliver consistent and enduring impact, without Key Person risk.
(1) Pre-tax margins per Pitchbook.