机构观察站| LP看中的GP，有什么魅力？不只是业绩！

-LPGP观察-

一，基金到期时，风投机构如何处理LP的期权？

二，LP和GP对彼此的期望，各自需求是什么？

三，LP选择GP的理由，不只是业绩，如何评估GP？

四，结论

一，基金到期时，风投机构如何处理LP的期权？

  在基金即将到期时，有以下5种选择。：

上世纪90年代末繁荣的科技带来了迅速增加的风险投资，1998年至2002年间，美国一共募集了400多只新基金。现在，当时募集的一众基金已经超过了10年的期限，面临着是否延期、如何延期的挑战。这个问题不仅会发生在繁荣时期涌现的基金身上，它也是很多GP关注的焦点。

自2002年以来，随着企业长期的私有化，流动资金周转时间增加，从首次融资到IPO的平均耗时长达7年，LP与GP之间传统的10年期合伙关系已经不足以为基金提供充足的投资和回报时间，所以LP担心，基金在后期可能出现利益错位。

虽然GP想让LP的价值最大化，但某些LP在基金到期后也得管理自己的投资组合。如果LP需要流动性，或者没能顺利延期，GP在决策时就需要权衡不同的利益和因素。Industry Ventures作为一家专注风投市场的投资机构，旗下也管理多支二级市场的投资基金，他们为GP提供了解决方案，在基金即将到期时，有以下5种选择。

1.为LP引荐其他风投机构

如果只有少数LP要求流动性，那么风投机构可以通过自己的网络，以适当的买家为目标，快速而谨慎地管理LP的股份出售过程。这样的好处是，GP可以在整个谈判过程中保持中立，利用这种一次性的出售流程，为不太想延期的LP提供流动性。对于GP来说，重要的是充分了解到底有多少LP需要流动性。

2.代理

如果很多LP都希望有足够的流动性，或者LP不太清楚短期内是否需要流动性，代理可能是个好的解决方案。这条路线会受到GP现状的影响，如果GP已经有了后续资金，那么选择代理可能比管理一个完整的资产重组更简单。GP需要保持公平交易的距离，避免有意地影响或者默许价格，因为这会存在利益的冲突。

3.资金回笼重组

资本重组的好处在于，它为基金开创了一个新的时间节点，并重新设置了管理费和结转结构，从而调整了GP和新LP的利益，最大限度地减少了对投资组合里其他公司的干扰。用新的LP替换现有LP，或者允许现有LP加入新的基金结构，资本重组可以为LP提供流动性。GP通常不会选择这条道路，但如果基金不能在短期内为LP提供流动性，资本重组不失为一个后备方案。

4.分配私人股票或直接出售资产

对于GP来说，结束一只基金是艰难的决定，LP也很少会马上要求结束。基金很少会把私人股票直接分配给LP，因为LP更喜欢现金，投资组合里的其他公司也不想让他们的上限表太复杂。然而，在某些情况下直接出售剩余资产可能是最有效的，它能让GP继续发现新的机会，如果基金能够以合理的价格出售剩余头寸，就能创造双赢局面。虽然优先承购权（ROFR，Right of First Refusal）和共售方向可能很难管理，但是对于GP来说，牢记对LP的信托义务至关重要。

5.Industry Ventures近期的投资案例

Industry Ventures最近在一只1999年成立的vintage基金中发现了一个机会，该基金是一只基金家族的一部分，拥有多个前任和连续基金。在连续两次延期两年后，GP估计他们还需要2到4年的时间来自然清算剩余资产，但是近一半的LP在短期内就想实现流动性。

考虑到剩余投资组合公司中规模可观的收益，以及继续管理这些资产的愿望，GP不想直接出售这些资产，但是大量LP要求短期内实现流动性，很难通过转介来一次性出售LP股权。在这种情况下，最好的选择是进行全面的基金重组，让所有想留下来并且同意新条款的LP加入。

  Time’s Up! Options for VCs & LPs When Funds Reach 

the End of Their Term：

The tech boom in the late 1990’s led to a rapid increase in venture investment, with over 400 new funds raised in the US between 1998 and 2002. Many of these venture funds are now well past their 10 year terms, have meaningful investments remaining and are trying to determine how to navigate beyond temporary extensions.  This issue is not confined to the boom-era funds and is likely to become an ongoing concern for many general partners (“GPs”).

Since 2002, time to liquidity has increased as companies have opted to remain private longer and the average time from initial funding to IPO now stretching to 7 years. The typical 10-year partnership a limited partner (“LP”) maintains with its GP may no longer provide adequate time for a fund to invest and return capital. In the near-term we are unlikely to see this duration change as LPs are resistant to modifying the standard 10-year duration. Historically, funds also had access to several one-year extensions that a GP or the advisory board could approve. Recently, a growing number of LPs are concerned about the potential misalignment of interests at the tail-end of a fund, and are now requiring new funds to have a super-majority vote or full LP consent for extensions.

In the instance that LPs are voicing a need for liquidity, or an extension is not approved, GPs need to weigh a variety of different interests and factors when deciding next steps. While GPs ultimately want to maximize value for their LPs, certain LPs may need liquidity after reaching the term limit on a fund in order to manage their own portfolios. In addition, GPs need to be incentivized to continue to actively manage the remaining assets, especially in light of reduced or no management fees. Fortunately for both GPs and LPs, there are several options available to manage remaining assets in older funds. As a limited partner investing in many funds, having provided GPs with a variety of liquidity solutions, we have seen the following options pursued when facing end-of-life decisions.

Sell LP Stakes through Referrals

If only a few LPs are pushing for liquidity, venture funds can quickly and discretely manage an LP stake sale process through their own referral networks, targeting appropriate buyers. A benefit to this process is that the GP can remain at arms-length throughout the negotiation. We also see funds utilize this one-off sale process to provide liquidity for LPs that may not want to approve an extension. However, it is important for the GP to have a good understanding of the number of LPs that want liquidity to avoid continually being distracted by managing multiple LP sales.

Proxy LP Base

If there are numerous LPs seeking liquidity or if the GP doesn’t have a strong sense of how many LPs want or need liquidity in the near-term, a proxy could be a good solution. The decision to pursue this route will likely be impacted by the GPs’ current situation. If the GP already has subsequent funds, opting for a proxy could be simpler than managing a full recap. In a proxy, there is just one price for a fund interest, so there may be a situation where certain LPs that are seeking liquidity won’t participate as they are not sellers at the determined price. In all cases GPs should remain at arm’s length and be careful not to knowingly or tacitly approve a price as it could be a conflict of interest depending on any future fees associated with the transaction.

Full Fund Recap

The benefits of a full fund recapitalization is that it provides a new time period on the fund and resets the management fee and carry structure which realigns GPs and new LP interests and minimizes the distraction to portfolio companies. The recap could provide liquidity for all or some of the LPs by offering a choice of replacing existing LPs with new LPs, or allowing existing LPs to roll into the new structure or keep current economics. As GPs weigh this option, managing the consent of LPs, and potentially creating two different classes of LPs can prove difficult. While we have seen more recaps in the past three years, GPs typically do not pursue this option due to the time, complexity and perception of conflicts of interest involved. However, if many of a fund’s value drivers are unlikely to achieve near-term liquidity and would benefit from the time reset, this may be a good option.

Distribute Private Stock or Sell Assets Directly

It is a difficult decision for a GP to wind down their fund, and it is rare that LPs would push for immediate liquidity. Seldom do funds decide to distribute private stock directly to LPs, since LPs would prefer cash and portfolio companies do not want to complicate their cap tables. However, in certain situations, a direct sale of the remaining assets may make the most sense. It allows GPs to move on and pursue new opportunities, and if the fund is able to sell the remaining positions for fair value, this could create a win-win situation.  The ROFR and co-sale navigation may be tricky to manage, and it is important for GPs to keep in mind fiduciary duty obligations to LPs to avoid liability.

Recent Industry Ventures Example

We recently pursued an opportunity in a 1999 vintage fund, which was part of a fund family with multiple predecessor and successive funds.  After two consecutive two year extensions, the GP estimated that they needed another two to four years for a natural liquidation of the valuable remaining assets. They also estimated that nearly half of their LPs wanted near-term liquidity.

The GP did not want to sell the assets directly given the feasibility of sizable outcomes among the remaining portfolio companies and the desire to continue to manage the assets. With the high number of LPs seeking near-term liquidity, it would have been difficult to manage one-off sales of LP stakes through referrals. In this case, the best option was to execute a full fund recap, allowing any existing LPs to participate if they wanted to stay and agreed to the new terms.

The buyers and GP agreed to a 3 year term, reduced management fees to cover the fund’s accounting and audit expenses, and a new carry hurdle that paid different levels of carry after various success multiples were reached.  The GP had ongoing conversations with their LP base so there were no surprises when LPs received the official proxy recap letter, and both the GP and LPs were appreciative of the choice.

The views set forth herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Industry Ventures. The information and views expressed are generic in nature, and is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase interests in any investments or services. Certain information contained in this article may constitute “forward-looking statements.” Any projections or other estimates contained herein, including estimates of returns or performance, are “forward looking statements” and are based upon certain assumptions that may change. Due to various risks and uncertainties, actual events or results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. There can be no assurance that the forward-looking statements made herein will prove to be accurate, and issuance of such forward-looking statements should not be regarded as a representation by Industry Ventures, or any other person, that the objective and plans of Industry Ventures will be achieved. All forward-looking statements made herein are based on information presently available to the management of Industry Ventures and Industry Ventures does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement that may be made from time to time by or on behalf of Industry Ventures.

This material does not constitute financial, investment, tax or legal advice (or an offer of such advisory services) and should not be viewed as advice or recommendations (or an offer of advisory services).

Certain information contained in this article (including certain forward-looking statements and information) has been obtained from published sources and/or prepared by other parties, which in certain cases has not been updated through the date hereof. While such sources are believed to be reliable, neither Industry Ventures and any general partner affiliated with Industry Ventures or any of its respective directors, officers, employees, partners, members, shareholders, or their affiliates, or any other person, assume

原文链接Learnings from our community

https://www.ldeakman.com/archives/2020/05/learnings-from-our-community.html

二，LP和GP对彼此的期望

  LP和GP的需求：

Lindel Eakman建立了一个由LP、风险资本家和创始人组成的广泛网络，他为GP在筹资策略、投资组合建设、公司建设以及风险投资的起伏中提供指导。最近，Lindel和自己接触的LP、GP们谈话，整理了他们在如今的市场环境中对彼此的需求。

1.LP们认为：

疫情对整个系统造成了连锁反应，所以LP和GP需要对工作安排进行“过度”的沟通对接，交流业务和融资风险增加对投资组合产生的影响，并就未来3-6个月的call款时间进行协商。

本质上来说，LP比较保守，他们倾向于等待，但是自由选择的价值就会随着FOMO（Fear of Missing Out，错失恐惧症）的消失而上升。一些LP可能会遇到流动性问题（私立的医院和大学会花费更多的运营资金），并且在投资方面不那么自由。在资产负债表下降的同时，现金需求和支出却在上升，LP对资产流动性的担忧更大。

GP团队可能会感受到来自董事会或者CIO（首席信息官）的压力，他们会把重点放在现有的、已证实的、更容易完成的关系上，而不是铤而走险。CIO会提出关于风险投资回报的问题，这会给比较年轻的基金带来困难，尤其是那些热衷于冒险的基金。

GP需要了解自己在LP的投资组合中所处的位置，如果今年必须筹集资金，给LP一点时间让他们站稳脚跟，以正常或较慢的速度call款。

为LP的问题做好准备。做好投资组合分析，看出哪些公司风险最大，哪些公司从这种环境中受益，哪些公司能够安然度过风暴，仍然是潜在的基金驱动力。对于高净值的个人LP，GP需要灵活一些，并给予一点额外的时间。此外，Lindel发现的一个有趣的细节是，GP可以考虑尽可能在季度初给LP打电话。

2.GP们想说：

在不乐观的环境中，GP和LP还是会从人性的角度去思考彼此。人会有情绪波动，累了，其他工作受阻，或者家庭关系有压力。了解你对面的人和他们的心态，以及他们的心理状态如何影响他们的风险状况。人的另一个本性是，没有持续的稳定收入时会选择冒险。

LP可以借此机会审查自己的投资组合，了解哪些头寸保留期权价值，以及资金的集中点在哪，迫使自己和创始人进行艰难的对话，设定期望值。

LP更需要止痛药，而不是维生素。投资一击即中的好项目，而不是纠结于那些优势不明显的中上之选，确保自己投资的是最不舍得放弃的东西。

  Learnings from our community：

One of the values that I’ve really internalized over the last few years is to think about the world in terms of networks, and our own value or role in those networks. The more interesting networks are not hub-spoke networks but rather mesh networks that can and do create value even while missing a node. Enabling that type of network is one of our goals with Foundry Group Next. A network becomes a community in the very best case. We try to foster that community and connections among our family of founders, partner funds, and limited partners. 

One benefit of the last few challenging weeks has been bringing together our group of partner fund managers on a weekly basis. These get-togethers have a light agenda, but they really enable friends and peers to connect over the week’s challenges, share concerns, and have a little fun. It’s been especially gratifying to see the more experienced managers chime in actively, sharing prior experience and addressing some of the questions and concerns that the newer managers have been facing for the first time. It’s these consistent interactions and sharing that have enabled a feeling of community. We’ve also met with our direct portfolio of companies and those of our partner funds. It’s been heartening to see the consistency of leadership across our group.

We’ve been taking notes as we go along, and I thought that some of the more general thoughts would be worth sharing. Each of these points could probably be a separate post, but I thought it more important to get these out in the wild than to crisply edit. So, with apologies for the draft nature, I hope you enjoy seeing notes from a few of the shared conversations we’re having across our network. 

What does the market environment look like? 

LPs, GPs, and Founders are all experiencing anxiety at both a personal and professional level. Today, most have made it through the initial shock of high anxiety, deep engagement, and triage mode with their portfolio or business. Consumer-focused businesses have almost certainly felt the first wave of change whereas many B2B companies have yet to see the real impact of a slowing economy. Look for that over the next two quarters as we experience higher churn and reduced sales for existing customers.  

Expect a lag in private markets relative to public markets, maybe 6-9 months if this is a real reset of pricing. Reset could become protracted, and that would be the best time to invest. A guess among the group is that we see valuations come down 20-30% and that round sizes will reflect that for dilution. We’re already seeing anecdotal data (or “anecdata” as we fondly call it) of this in the market.

Valuations are already coming down in some segments, e.g., an experienced/pedigreed founder expecting 15M pre going into demo day, now expecting 9-10M pre and getting comfortable with investors pricing and not being able to “set” a price. The hot rounds are still “competitive” but not being bid up so much on price. There also seems to be a more pronounced “feast or famine” modality at seed/A rounds.

Technology and innovation aren’t correlated to the markets. New investments are still building products and will come to market after this cycle turn. Are you willing to keep investing with a 2-3 year timeframe in mind?

Deal re-trading: folks are starting to see it both for M&A and follow-on financings. Deals are being put on pause and/or terms are being retraded. We’ve already seen some bad behavior. Make sure you know where your syndicate partners sit w/r/t an inside round if the external deal falls away. Also, a reminder that pay-to-play rounds are usually a bad place to put capital. Think about what you’re defending. How much does this company matter to your fund? How hard will 

Conversations we’re having with/about LPs 

This crisis will likely cause a ripple effect through the whole ecosystem. Everyone should over-communicate about working arrangements (business continuity plan in place), acknowledge some fallout in the portfolio due to business risk and increased financing risk, and provide guidance on capital calls/pacing over the next 3-6 months.  

Many LPs are essentially out of business until the end of the year – by their nature, LPs are conservative and will have a bias towards waiting, the value of the free option just went up as FOMO disappears. 

Some LPs might experience liquidity issues (e.g. hospitals and universities may need to spend more money on operations) and will be less liberal with their investments, particularly in new funds. Cash needs and spending are up at the same time that balance sheets are down. Liquidity fears are greater as LPs stare more directly at unfunded commitments. 

Staff and teams are likely feeling pressure from board/CIOs, and there’s no benefit to them for taking risk. They will focus on existing, proven relationships that are easier to get done. And our favorite CIOs will question (even more!) venture returns (and also anything with leverage). This will pose difficulties for younger funds especially ones that have more “adventurous” investment theses.

Understanding where you stand in your LPs’ portfolios is imperative, having multiple points of contact is important, and you should not just assume a re-up from them if you have to raise this year. Do your best to slow down and not hit the market until 2021. There will be a logjam of funds trying to wrap up in the fall, and LPs are way overcommitted. If you are stuck fundraising, give LPs a little break to find their footing and tell them you’ll circle back in the summer to see if you can push to a fall closing. 

Capital calls should be maintained at a normal or slower pace if possible. LPs are unlikely to default; previous cycles were < 2%, almost solely individuals. LPs have little to lose if you haven’t called much capital. If less than 10% is called, you should keep a careful eye on it, as the cost of default isn’t so large. If you do have a challenged LP, we encourage GPs to proactively manage a secondary sale.

Be prepared for LP questions.A portfolio analysis in light of COVID-19 is a good idea if you haven’t done it already. Make sure to point out which companies are most at risk, which ones benefit from this environment, and which ones can weather the storm and still be potential fund drivers.

Capital calls for institutions should be fine, but it’s helpful to give them a heads up to set expectations for upcoming call schedules.

For individual HNW LPs, you may need to be flexible and give a little extra time. It’s a good idea to give them a heads up on your expected call schedule as well. 

One detail that was interesting. You might consider doing calls as close to the beginning of the quarter as possible. (If you have a call outstanding and not paid at quarter-end, you’ll have to reflect that in financials.)

Conversations we’re having with/about GPs

It’s important to acknowledge that we’re all humans.Likely to be fraught with emotion, people are tired, partnerships are stressed, maybe families are stressed. Really important to understand the full person across from you and their state of mind. And how their state of mind might affect their risk profile.

Human nature is to draw in risk appetite in those moments when you don’t see continued income. You stop spending, raise the bar for anything new and are not confident to add more mouths to feed in a constrained portfolio size/fund. 

It’s been a helluva few weeks. We are all rightly focused on our existing portfolio. We need to focus there until we “find the bottom” and feel comfortable that companies are responding, or at least scenario planning, appropriately. Most people are expecting to get through that by May 2020. 

Portfolios need to be examined in the context of individual funds. Important to understand which positions retain option value and where you must concentrate capital.  Now is the time to make hard decisions about which companies you can support.  Distilling your investments can be a good thing for the performance of the fund, though it forces tough conversations and expectation setting with your founders.  

The balance between supporting the portfolio (triage/firefighting mode) and looking at new deals is challenging. It’s more of a challenge for firms with large existing portfolios, especially with more mature companies.

Great opportunities will present themselves in this type of market, and at better prices. Many firms will remain active and even ramp up in this market. We should still be “crazy selective” on quality, and this group should keep working together. 

Painkillers > Vitamins. We should be investing in products that are critical to success. The nice-to-have products are the first to go in a downturn. Make sure you’re investing in solutions that customers can’t live without. 

Valuations are a real challenge in this environment. The general consensus is that we should all stick to our existing policies and see where the next quarter takes us. Q1 financials may take longer to finalize as we get a better sense for the macro environment, and we should all expect auditors to put footnotes in Q419 audit docs. 

Conversations we’re having with companies 

It is important to act swiftly (while you still have the opportunity to make decisions) versus waiting and hoping that conditions will change and create more flexibility. Founders must be willing to confront a situation before they are forced to confront it (i.e., not all companies will be immediately impacted by the downturn but may face consequences in 1-2 years if they don’t make the necessary decisions today)

There is more risk to underreacting than overreacting. In fact, overreacting might be a forcing function for reconsidering and optimizing business model, team operations, etc.

In a time of displacement and crisis, you must have a bias towards action and a lens for confronting reality, no matter how difficult it is.

Understand your existing investors.How strong are your individual leads at each fund?

How does the rest of the fund portfolio look?  Where do you fit in that portfolio?  Do they have reserves for you? Have they done bridge rounds (convertible notes) for other companies? 

You need to understand the size and total portfolio of the fund that you’re a part of.

Talent has been the biggest challenge for companies.Talent becomes more dispersed in up markets and more concentrated in down markets. You’ll be able to attract talent if you have a strong product/company/cap table.

Like it or not, there is about to be a huge reshuffling of talent. The good companies will attract stronger talent, perhaps much stronger than that of the employees they are trying desperately to retain. 

How are you playing offense during this time? You can’t just hibernate during a crisis. Instead, you sharpen your focus. You divest in some/most areas, but you need to be investing in some area. The goal is to come out of this stronger than you entered in at least one critical area. Online CACs have come down in some categories.

Do you have technical debt in the infrastructure? 

Do you have product work that can be prioritized?

FOMO that exists at the top of cycles has disappeared  As a result, startups will need to provide more data / demos / proof points to get VCs to bite. Think of venture funds as a table of diners that have just finished a big dinner, and you’re asking them to eat dessert. The best thing you can do is bring the tray around and SHOW them. Convince at least one diner to order the cake, and you may have others join. You’ll need to show more, demo often, provide more data, and recognize that your company has to be more compelling in this environment. 

This post was way too long but I hope it gives you a sense of some of the conversations and learnings inside our community. We hope that sharing them out helps others and we’re always glad for more input, thoughts, and debate.

原文链接Learnings from our community

https://www.ldeakman.com/archives/2020/05/learnings-from-our-community.html

三，LP选择GP的理由，不只是业绩

  如何评估GP：

在如今高估值的市场中，LP更加仔细地审视着自己与GP的关系，人才仍然是大多数投资决策的核心。GP面临着前所未有的审查和越来越大的压力，他们需要证明自己的收费标准，并准确定位他们的战略和团队。随着利率和交易倍数的不断攀升，GP创造价值的难度只会越来越大，具有前瞻性的LP开始意识到，人才评估在其自身投资战略中起了关键作用。

GP能认识到很多业务是被他们和LP的关系驱动的，但他们对这种洞察力采取行动的程度各不相同。LP会观察GP是否解决了一些基本问题，比如领导层接班人、培养下一代人才、创业文化以及决策透明度。

为了进一步了解LP的真实想法，并帮助GP在业绩和建立关系之间取得正确的平衡，咨询公司Heidrick & Struggles采访了从100名私募股权投资者中选出的知名LP，探讨他们在做出投资决策时如何评估GP。

1.LP确实重视GP的业绩数据，但和GP的关系更重要

在采访中，一个明确的主题是LP的评估越来越复杂。有了比以往任何时候都多的数据，LP可以深入研究，进行严格的分析。然而LP普遍认为，数据和定量分析只是评估过程的一个组成部分。“业绩数据是向后看的，” 一位LP指出，“重要的是你现在和未来在组织中所看到的。” 包括GP的结构、流程、基础设施，以及至关重要的人才。除了这些评估之外，几乎每个LP都谈到了在投资中建立良好关系的重要性。

一位来自全球十大LP之一的投资人明确界定了自己的职能：“作为LP中的领导者，我的职责评估团队动态、团队约束和团队决策过程。我们与团队讨论的是对关系的洞察力，而不是数据的精妙分析。” 随着市场的大趋势继续挤压私募股权交易的利润，这种对关系和定性评估的关注只会越来越大。

2.LP对共同投资的需求增加了

基于关系的投资增长，一个关键因素是LP对共同投资的兴趣增加了。事实上，两者是直接相关的：“LP应该建立长期关系和战略伙伴关系，尤其是考虑到共同投资的增长，” 共同投资让LP能看到GP业绩缺点以外的东西，专注于长期关系。美国一家领先的基金公司认为，“如果我们对某个GP团队有着内在的积极看法，以及我们与他们之间关系的优势，那么我们做出长期承诺和投资以及共同投资的愿望，会让我们在其他竞争对手中选择他们。”

3.LP太关注和GP之间的关系，会有风险吗？

几乎每个LP都谈到了在投资决策中人际关系的重要性。一位LP评论道：“我们和某个GP签约了10年，而在承诺之后，我们对此无能为力。因此，我们只与可靠的、信任的、行为端正的人合作。”

除了建立关系的初始工作外，GP需要注意培养和LP的持续关系。随着整合趋势继续增强，LP会更看重个人关系，即使他们明白对某些GP的偏好可能会让他们错失那些不太了解但是更好的GP。

LP和GP之间密切的情感关系会导致决策更为主观——LP可能会忽略业绩、文化或行为方面的警示信号，这并不一定会带来最佳回报。对于这一问题，北美一些领先的基金投资机构和LP能够系统地把投资人或团队从一个重要的GP关系切换到另一个，以避免主观性和个人关系偏差。

  Private equity What do limited partners think of the talent：

原文链接

Private equity: What do limited partners think of the talent within general partners?

https://www.flipsnack.com/FDF6D86EFB5/private-equity-what-do-limited-partners-think-of-the-talent-fh5wxs58t.html

四，结论

  GP&LP：

GP会定期评估现有或潜在投资组合公司的人才、文化和业绩能力，但很少对自己进行同样严格的审查。经验丰富的LP会分析GP对其投资组合公司采取的方法，他们希望看到GP对管理团队进行系统的、定期的评估，为决策提供数据，并产生积极的回报。反过来，这种分析方法也开始让他们对LP如何招聘、培养、领导和利用多样化的人才基础提出了自己的看法。

Heidrick & Struggles采访的LP一致认为，在定性的尽职调查中，许多GP会从第三方对其人才和文化的评估中获益。它们不仅有助于GP与当前和未来的LP建立更好的关系，也有助于建立发展前景无限的优秀组织。

“每个人都在谈论投资时间来培养人才，但大多数GP都太专注于‘现在’，”一位LP感叹道。事实上，真正成功的组织依赖于长期努力，以创造一种重视领导力、继承、未来一代发展和多样性的文化。

以上内容资料来源；溯元育新

原文资料；

https://www.ldeakman.com/archives/2020/05/learnings-from-our-community.html

https://www.ldeakman.com/archives/2020/05/learnings-from-our-community.html

https://www.flipsnack.com/FDF6D86EFB5/private-equity-what-do-limited-partners-think-of-the-talent-fh5wxs58t.html

商务合作：请加微信VCBLO1

添加微信请注明：地区-企业-职位-姓名

版权说明：投行VCPE部落专注于分享企业投融资案例以及岗位招聘信息！同时对于企业我们灵活运用资本市场的各项融资工具，在企业不同战略发展阶段，为中小企业提供解决“融资难”“融资贵”的利器，并量体裁衣地为企业提供个性化融资方案！部分推送的融资案例未及时与原作者联系·在已知出处的情况下均已注明来源，版权归原作者所有,若涉及版权问题，敬请原作者联系我们删除，感谢每一位作者的辛苦创作与付出！欢迎各位有经典的资本运作案例投稿!

投稿邮箱：[e-mail]