How do you evaluate a first-time fund manager without a fund track record?

Evaluating managers
Written By

Evaluate the evidence of judgment, not the absence of a fund. A first-time manager has no audited, fund-level performance across a defined portfolio with a vintage and a net return. That is a real gap. But it is different from having no evidence that the person makes good investment decisions. Angel investments, scout checks, SPVs, decisions made inside a prior firm, operating work and references can each tell you something, as long as you know what each one can and cannot prove.

Two different gaps

A missing fund record means there is no pooled return series that limited partners actually experienced. You cannot see a net IRR, a DPI or how the manager behaved across a full fund cycle.

A missing record of judgment would mean you cannot see any pattern of decisions made under uncertainty with something at stake. That is rarely the case for a serious first-time manager. The useful question is not "do they have a track record?" but "what evidence of their decisions can I verify, and how much does it tell me?"

What to examine instead

The guidance Colibrí Strategies gives first-time managers lists the kinds of evidence an allocator can examine when there is no fund history. Read from the LP's side, they become a diligence list:

  • Judgment. Decisions made under uncertainty, with the reasoning recorded at the time rather than reconstructed afterward. Ask for an investment memo the manager wrote before the outcome was known.
  • Attribution. Which decisions were theirs, in what role, and who else was in the room.
  • The full decision history. Including deals they declined and deals they lost. A record that contains only winners tells you nothing about selection.
  • Sourcing. Where deals came from, whether the channel repeats, and what share of investments came through it.
  • References. People who worked alongside the decisions, including at least one who can describe a moment that went badly.
  • Realized outcomes. Exits, secondary sales and write-offs. Realization is the only part of a private record that is not a mark.
  • Portfolio evidence. Founders willing to describe how the manager behaved as an investor. For an operator who became an investor, this is often the strongest evidence available.
  • Team continuity. Whether the people who made the past decisions are the people who will make the next ones. Continuity is what makes a record predictive rather than historical.

Read each kind of evidence for what it can prove

Different backgrounds produce different evidence, and each has limits.

An angel or scout record shows individual selection, often with small checks and little influence over the outcome. It can show taste and access. It usually cannot show portfolio construction, follow-on discipline or how the person handles a fund's obligations to investors.

Deals from a prior firm can show real judgment, but only if the manager can document their role and has permission to present the deals. Our guide on reading a prior-firm track record covers attribution and portability.

SPV experience shows the ability to source and syndicate a deal. It is deal-level evidence, not fund-level performance, and any returns quoted are usually gross.

Operating experience can be the most relevant evidence for a sector-focused fund, but it is evidence of domain knowledge and network, not of investment selection. Founder references are how you test whether that knowledge translates into investing.

Questions to ask

  • Which of these decisions were yours alone, and which did you share?
  • Can I see a memo you wrote before one of these investments, including one that did not work?
  • Which deals are excluded from what you have shown me, and why?
  • Which figures are realized, and which are current marks?
  • Who can I speak with who was in the room for one of your harder decisions?

What this evidence does not prove

Even a well-documented record of judgment does not predict fund performance. It tells you whether the person has made good decisions in a different setting, with different capital and often different responsibilities. A fund adds new demands: building a portfolio over several years, reserving and deploying follow-on capital, reporting to investors and running a business. The plan for the fund deserves its own review. Our section on testing the manager's plan covers how.

Why this matters for your program

If your process screens out managers without a fund record, you will not see most first funds at all. That may be a deliberate choice. If it is not, the evidence above gives you a way to review a first-time manager directly, on the substance, rather than relying on fund size or brand as a stand-in for quality. Colibrí Institute's White Paper I discusses how common screening rules can exclude managers whose capabilities deserve a direct look. Our summary of what the research says about emerging managers covers that study and its limits.

Related questions

Weighing a manager right now?

Send us the manager you are considering and Dr. Itzel Moncada will give you a free second read on whether their plan holds together and what to ask next. Request a Second Read, or see how we work with allocators.

Sources