How I Invest with David Weisburd - E318: The Biggest Mistake Investors Make When Building a Venture Portfolio

Episode Date: March 5, 2026

What separates elite venture LPs from everyone else… and why do most family offices underestimate the governance required to win? In this episode, I sit down with Michael P. Larsen, a longtime Partner at Cambridge Associates, to unpack nearly two decades of building venture and private equity portfolios for leading institutions and family offices. Michael shares why longevity may be the ultimate competitive advantage in asset management, how governance quietly determines venture outcomes, and why portfolio size can matter just as much as manager selection. We dive into power laws, spiky returns, growth equity’s overlooked role, co-invest best practices, and how benchmarking can help LPs stay disciplined during optically challenging cycles.

You've spent nearly two decades at Cambridge Associates, really building portfolios for some of the top institutional investors and family offices in the world. How has that experience shaped how you look at asset management today? I think that longevity in the role is really the superpower. That longevity gives you the patience. It gives you the perspective that are required for success. And when I think about the decisions that I've made on behalf of clients in terms of recommendations, or investment action over the last three years, I have no idea yet how those decisions will age,

but I have a lot more clarity on how those decisions I made back in 2010, 11, 12 have behaved. And I think it's important that you remain in place to see the fruits of those decisions. I think that culturally, too, we're a very open source firm. Every GP meeting we have at Cambridge Associates is an open meeting. And so in 19 years and change, I've sat in and on about 5,000 manager meetings.

So a year at CA in this seat is a dog year at a typical endowment office or family office. And so the amount of game film of understanding what works and what doesn't is very formative to how we look at things. Ultimately, you have to have longevity. And I think it's perilous to move on quickly and not see through. the decisions you're making to their eventual outcomes. Venture capital is idiosyncratic in how you create a portfolio versus other asset classes because most asset classes, they're not subject to the power loss. A good investment is a good investment.

In venture capital, a lot of it is about putting the right parts that together make a great portfolio. Talk to me about how you put together a venture portfolio versus, say, a private equity portfolio. What are the key differences? One is what you're looking for. You know, private equity and venture capital, there's a lot of light space between them. Private equity is often about process, underwriting, you know, the value impact that you can have on every investment.

Venture capital is a completely different animal. It behaves differently. To your point on power law, the results are dramatically different. And so I think key things we're looking for are right to win, network centrality, brand, both institutional and personal. These are the things that I think will play a bigger role in success. In terms of portfolio construction, manager selection is not to be underestimated. It's a vital part of the puzzle, but it's not, you know, in my mind, the most important piece of the puzzle.

When you look at how the best performing family offices over the past several decades, what they do differently. One of the things that they do differently is they are larger in their footprint in venture capital and private growth asset classes than their peers. So the size is just as determinant of success as the selection behind it. And it's somewhat not obvious. But if you have a 40% allocation to private growth, inclusive of things like venture, growth equity, buyout, odds are you will outperform one with exceptional, exceptional manager selection that's only allocated to 30%. The other thing that I think the best performing pools institutional or family office have in common is probably the

the least sexy thing, but it is governance. It is the ability to make a plan and stick with it. And that might sound simple, but simple is not easy because we're all human beings, because the world around us is changing a lot. And there's always going to be challenges. If you have to re-legislate your asset class strategy when you're trying to make a manager recommendation, a re-up decision, then that is a big point of friction to having a durable footprint in venture capital. It can break continuity. It can sever your credibility, your relationships. And so it's really important, I think, to have the governance very, very thoughtfully put together that affords you a chance to build. It's like building Central Park. You're building Central Park. What you're doing

is you're trying to build a future you can't see yet. And that's that's the daily job of implementing venture capital. You're laying the groundwork. knowing that it's going to be years before you have real good visibility into how well it's going or how, you know, if you've achieved your objective. And so it's the ability to withstand all of those outside pressures on, you know, it being too illiquid, too expensive, coming at the expense of other parts of the portfolio that may be doing very well. It's the commitment to something bigger than yourself and bigger than bigger than the, you know, the task at hand and seeing seeing a future that you can't really quite visualize yet. And so we have no idea what 2035,

2035 to 2040 will look like. We're trying to make decisions today that will age well over that type of time frame. A family office comes to you. There's a liquidity event. They're looking to build out a venture capital book. What are the first principles? How should a family office in 2026 build out their venture capital book? One of the hardest things of investing is seeing what's shifting before everyone else does. For decades, only the largest hedge funds could afford extensive channel research programs to spot inflection points before earnings and to stay ahead of consensus. Meanwhile, smaller funds have been forced to cobble together ad hoc channel intelligence or rely on stale reports from sell-side shops. But channel checks are no longer a luxury. They're becoming table stakes

for the industry. The challenges has always been scale, speed, and consistency. That's where Alpha Sense comes in. Alpha Sense is redefining channel research instead of static point-and-time reports. Alpha-Sense channel checks delivers a continuously refreshed view of demand, pricing, and competitive dynamics powered by interviews with real operators, suppliers, distributors, and channel partners across the value chain. Thousands of consistent channel conversations every month deliver clean, comparable signals, helping investors spot inflection points weeks before they show up in earnings or consensus estimates. The best part, these proprietary channel checks integrate directly into Alpha Census research platform trusted by 75% of the world's top hedge funds,

with access to over 500 million premium sources, from company filings and brokerage research to news, trade journals, and more than 240,000 expert call transcripts. That context turns raw signal into conviction. The first to see wins, the rest follow. Check it out for yourself at alpha dash sense.com slash how I invest. Step one is figuring out what you want to achieve and the tools you have to achieve it. And one is establishing like what is the footprint of tolerable illiquidity you can have. And that's a function of everything. It's a function of size, spending the generational setup of a family. But ultimately, we want to use our first interactions to determine the rules of the road

and what flexibility we have to tolerate illiquidity. And generally speaking, the more illiquidity you can tolerate, the longer out your horizon can be. And the more, you know, you can have access to asset classes like venture capital. So that is step one. Step two is establishing the cadence by which you're, you're going to commit. In the early days of a portfolio, life is fairly simple. You have a pipeline of potential opportunities. Oftentimes these opportunities represent a mix of establishment firms that

have, you know, we've been underwriting for a long, long time, maybe some new establishment or, you know, more emergent groups. You have, you know, establishment and emergent. You have generalists and specialists. And so if something is an establishment and its generalist or like a core role player, that is a larger commitment opportunity. Whereas if something is like hyper-focused as a specialized GP that's doing one thing specifically, maybe it could be biotechnology, for instance, then that specialization, you know, maybe it's like combined with if it's an emergent idea, is going to conspire to make that a smaller initial commitment. The life starts out fairly simple. What happens over time, though, is the complexity, if you're not actively, you know, compressing

complexity down. It will outstrip the growth of a portfolio. And when we on board a new client that's been at this for a long time, that's one of the first things you typically notice is the complexity. One of the things that I think separates the elite LPs from maybe the good LPs in venture specifically is that the elite LPs are willing to have spiky portfolios in terms of some managers might be up 7X, some might be flat or even slightly down in rare cases. To what extent is that true versus, say, equity. When we're implementing a venture capital portfolio for a family, you know, over time, you have power law outcomes that generate spiky, spiky, you know, company level returns, spiky fund level returns. And so it's, it is going to be lumpy. The impairment ratios are higher.

The lemons will ripen earlier. One of the things that I think really successful LPs do is they construct portfolios that resemble a generational succession the same way that you would, you would build if you're constructing an investment firm itself. You have the establishment senior partners. You have a middle band of new establishment at the making. And then you have this future generation where you don't know if, you know, what percentage of those may wash out or fail to materialize as durable brands. But having those options, I think is really a, an essential ingredient. There's this Andrew Carnegie quote, you know, first man gets the oyster, second man gets the shell. I think if you are a family office and you're waiting for obviousness

to emerge on who the strongest GPs are, chances are you will not get the allocation that you desire. When you look at deployment, typically funds are deploying over two years. Sometimes it used to be three years. How diversified do you have to be as an LP when you're investing into vintage funds. How important is that? It's important, but the number of funds can vary materially. I think we demonstrated some time ago that as few as six manager relationships effectively, you know, reduces your risk of capital loss to near zero. So you don't have to have, you know, a lot of roster, you know, you don't have to have a very broad roster to successfully diversify in venture capital. That said, I think it is handy to have smaller checks and commitment to effectively

a next generation basket of names that positions you well for future access. One of the challenges I think a lot of families face right now is this wavelength between funds. A relationship may have started five, ten years ago in another era when funds are coming back to market every three years, sometimes every four, when that wavelength condenses down to two years, a year and a half, one year, then it becomes a whole different challenge. Because one, the commitment you made to the last fund may have presumed some cadence. And when that cadence is a lot faster than was initially forecasted, that means the size of that relationship is now growing. Its role in the portfolio is expanding, perhaps beyond the intention.

What action could an LP take to prevent issues with deployment? A really simple way to approach this is not to make any investment decision without the understanding and the expectation that you're going to be committing to several funds. Whether those several funds come in the next five years or the next eight or nine years, is really in the hands of the GP and their kind of established hull speed for putting capital to work. And so I think about it oftentimes

is decisions around firms, not funds. Funds will happen. Sometimes funds will be raised faster. Support for today's episode comes from Square, the all-in-one way for business owners to take payments, book appointments, man and staff, and keep everything running in one place. Whether you're selling lattes,

cutting hair, running boutique, or managing a service business, Square helps you run your business without running yourself into the ground. I was actually thinking about this the other day when I stopped by a local cafe here. They use Square and everything just works. Check out is fast, receipts are instant, and sometimes I even get loyalty rewards automatically.

There's something about businesses that use Square. They just feel more put together. Experience is smoother for them and it's smoother for me as a customer. Square makes it easy to sell wherever your customers are, in store, online, on your phone, or even at pop-ups, and everything stays synced in real time. You could track sales, manage inventory, book appointments, and see reports instantly whether you're in your shop or on the go.

And when you make a sale, you don't have to wait to get paid. Square gives you fast access to your earnings through Square checking. They also have built-in tools like loyalty and marketing, so their best customers keep coming back. And right now, you can get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at square.com slash go slash how I invest. That's SQ-U-A-R-E.com slash go-slash-how I invest. With Square, you get all the tools store on your business

with none of the contracts or complexity. Run your business smarter with Square. Get started today. Support for today's episode comes from Square, the all-in-one way for business owners to take payments, book appointments, man and staff, and keep everything running in one place. Whether you're selling lattes, cutting hair,

running a boutique, or managing a service business, Square helps you run your business without running yourself into the ground. I was actually thinking about this the other day when I stopped by a local cafe here. They use Square and everything just works. Check out is fast, receipts are instant, and sometimes I even get loyalty rewards automatically. There's something about businesses that use Square.

They just feel more put together. Experience is smoother for them, and it's smoother for me as a customer. Square makes it easy to sell wherever your customers are, in store, online, on your phone, or even at pop-ups, and everything stays synced in real-time. You could track sales, manage inventory, book appointments, and see reports instantly,

whether you're in your shop or on the go. And when you make a sale, you don't have to wait to get paid. Square gives you fast access to your earnings through Square checking. They also have built-in tools like loyalty and marketing, so their best customers keep coming back. And right now, you can get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at square.com slash go slash how I invest.

That's SQ-U-A-R-E.com slash go slash how I invest. With Square, you get all the tools to run your business with none of the contracts or complexity. Run your business smarter with Square. Get started today. Support for today's episode comes from Square, the all-in-one way for business owners to take payments, book appointments, man and staff, and keep everything running in one place. Whether you're selling lattes, cutting hair,

running a boutique, or managing a service business, Square helps you run your business without running yourself into the ground. I was actually thinking about this the other day when I stopped by a local cafe here. They use Square and everything just works. Check out is fast, receipts are instant, and sometimes I even get loyalty rewards automatically. There's something about businesses that use Square. They just feel more put together. Experience is smooth. for them and it's smoother for me as a customer. Square makes it easy to sell wherever your customers are in store, online, on your phone, or even at pop-ups, and everything stays synced in real-time. You could track sales, manage inventory, book appointments, and see reports instantly,

whether you're in your shop or on the go. And when you make a sale, you don't have to wait to get paid. Square gives you fast access to your earnings through Square checking. They also have built-in tools like loyalty and marketing, so their best customers keep coming back. And right now, you can get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at Square.com slash go slash how I invest. That's SQUA-R-E.com slash go slash how I invest. With Square, you get all the tools to run your business with none of the contracts or complexity. Run your business smarter with Square. Get started today. Sometimes it'll be deployed faster. You know, one way a family should think about this is the firms, the partners you want to have,

and then, you know, calibrating as need be so that if it's a, if it's a, if it's a, if it's a, firm you can kind of count on coming back very quickly, you want to have the, the horizon in front of you to think, you know, we can commit to these three funds, this next series of funds that they raise and, you know, reassess some years down the road. I mean, obviously, we're going to reunderwrite, but when you raise a new fund two years on the heels of its predecessor, there's not a ton of of information to re-underwrite. All you can do is look, you know, to the organization, is it, you know, is there cohesive, cohesion, is there continuity there? Is the strategy being like generally adhered to is the right to win on display?

Things of that nature. You can kind of re-underwrite a process, but you can't re-underwrite the outcomes because those outcomes are so early in their lives. What are some mistakes that family offices make when they first invest in venture? One of the most important things to nail is setting expectations. And so when we sit down with a family office for the first time, and we lay out. out an asset allocation that has, you know, venture as, you know, maybe one third of the private investment, you know, allocation, maybe it's a quarter. And it's complemented by growth and

private equity and maybe opportunistic investing. I think a really important conversation is setting expectations on in five years time, what will this look like? What will the average commitment size be? What will the range of commitment amounts be? How many managers in each of these categories should they expect. And importantly, when it comes time to make a re-up decision, what will the basis of that, what will be the basis of that re-up decision? Because we know that there won't be distributions, there won't be realizations. There may not be a ton of new information. Oftentimes, the information gleaned is actually from a prior body of work, you know, a company from a fund that long predated this relationship has generated liquidity and that liquidity is great.

and it's kind of creating more clarity on their pattern recognition as a team or their abilities as a brand. But I think setting expectations is really important. Another important factor is how do you benchmark it? How do you know if you're actually doing any good? And this is a really interesting time in benchmarking territory because often if you look at like since inception returns over like long periods of time, venture capital is going to handle the outperform.

It's public market equivalent. If you look at a one or a three year basis right now, that is a, is upside down owing to the mag seven owing to other you know forces of of correction that's happened since since 2021 this is a really interesting time to look at you know performance on a relative basis i would say it's the most one of the more optically challenging times to be an lp in venture land where you have to justify its role in the portfolio and i think this is where data is incredibly powerful in offering you know a defense of its role in the portfolio if you look at all of these periods in history, post-GFC, post-tech rec, when you see this inversion happen where

publics are handily outperforming their venture capital or their private equity brethren. In the rolling three-year average following those correcting periods, it reverts right back, oftentimes with even greater premium than before. And so it's really important to, I think, you know, have a benchmark and to have historical data as perspective. You know, when we think about benchmarking, try not to overcomplicate it, we, you know, We want to answer two questions. One, are you getting rewarded for liquidity?

And that's where you measure things against an NPME. The second is, are you good at choosing managers? And that's where, you know, our colleagues who run the CA, venture capital, private equity benchmarks, you know, have an immense amount of data that we can measure against. And so you can take all of these decisions that have been made in some cases, like dozens and dozens of decisions over the past several years. And you can basically use that as the scale for, for whether you're adding value in your manager selection

because you can measure everything back to a median. You're approaching 20 years at Cambridge. So you've seen these dynamics change over time. What are the games that long-term LPs are playing in order to win in venture capitals? Venture Capital is like the engine for innovation and growth. You want to have a material footprint there. I think that there's overlooked food groups also,

like growth equity. I think about beach volleyball, where to most of the misses happens is when the ball falls on the seam. And if you consider the typical design of an investment office, you might have heads of venture capital, heads of private equity. There's when a ball is missed, it's usually under the presumption that someone else is taking priority on that idea. And growth equity has been just a magical third bowl of porridge in the typical family office portfolio. You have a, immensely high growth, you have capital efficiency, you have entry pricing that typically

happens leagues below the entry pricing of venture capital. And the landscape itself has just been radically transformed over the past 20 years. A lot of, I think, investors, when they think about growth equity, they might think about these big established brands that began as growth equity investors, minority growth investors at a small scale in the 80s, but it's since graduated to, you know, a different weight class. Behind them is this landscape that has been now filled up by a new, new, a whole new generation of growth firms that are a fraction the size that have checkwriting ability down to, in some cases, you know, five million dollar levels that can have really powerful

originating platforms to discover companies that are bootstrapped or very lightly funded, that haven't even crossed a million in ARR. those businesses can be really attractive investment opportunities. They can be backed by, you know, by growth equity firms at meaningful levels with, you know, entry error multiples of anywhere from, you know, eight to 12 times. And they can grow. And they can grow without having to pivot into focusing on capital efficiency, oftentimes because they were born with capital efficiency. One of the trickiest things for family offices to get right in venture is co-invest. Sure.

several decades, you've seen many variations of co-invest programs for family offices. What's the best practices? So much of it begins with establishing the strike zone of what you're after. And our co-investment team here at CA studied this for so long before getting into the practice of doing it. But the observation, like one of the most core observations around co-investments is that there's there's obviously a ton of risk of adverse selection. I think those risks are amplified in venture capital. Again, coming back to the YU challenge, right? The way that our team has addressed that is so much of the history of our firm is in underwriting managers.

And when you underwrite managers serially and you get to know the people and the partner level attribution and the sector level attribution of how funds, funds deliver. You start to develop a very high fidelity picture of what types of investments will odds on be successful investments for every GP. So that's one big piece of the puzzle is, is understanding the selection. Another part of the puzzle is having access in the first place. And as a flow through entity, you know, investing on behalf of our clients, it matters to have the scale to be one of the first looks in seeing that flow. And that's where, you know, decades of relationship building, decades of supporting P's through, through, you know, ups and downs of market cycles and creating a pretty

sizable, you know, footprint as an aggregate or as an aggregate LP earns and earns right to win and right to play in co-investments. And so I think I think about those two as being like really big factors, you know, venture co-investment is it's spicy. I think that sometimes less spicy food is also very interesting in that there's a lot of opportunities for growth equity and lower middle market co-investment that can be found, again, because there's massive diffusion in those markets. And then the companies that inflect, you know, those are machines that will benefit from more capital. And sometimes those capital needs outstrip the GP syndicates ability to deliver it all themselves. And so

it does create a nice lane for clients. I asked this exact question, former CIO of Calsters, Chris Ellman, who is their CIO for 23 years. And he said they tried everything at Calsters. And the thing that really worked was systematic and rules-based co-investing. Do you subscribe to that belief

that it really needs to be on the GP level? And can you build a co-invest program on the investment level? It's an interesting approach. I don't think I have a firm point of view to challenge that necessarily. However, one thing I think is an interesting quirk is to get into co-investments. You have to start somewhere. And starting somewhere is it's kind of its own mathematical challenge in the first place.

You're probably familiar with optimal stop theory, which is you need to see 30, I think it's like 32. different samples of something before you can actually understand like the full breadth of what's out there in a population to understand like what quality looks like before you can confidently say, okay, we know what quality looks like. And so I think starting somewhere is important. I think, you know, honestly, one of the bigger recipes or ingredients there, and the Calsters, you know, rep said it well. It's like have a plan and stick to it. And so if the plan is to move, you know, capital at scale, then having more, you know, architecture around it, rules of the road, I think is important. If it's, if it's a smaller component of what you're doing, I think that,

you know, you can probably maneuver without a systematic allocation policy and be more opportunistic. I think that there's many different ways to win. And there's not one right way, I think. And I think a lot of it depends on what the scale, the operation is and what you want to achieve. Well, Mike, this has been absolute masterclass. Thanks so much for jumping on the podcast. and looking forward to continuous conversation live. Thanks for having me, and thank you for what you do. Really great conversations you've been staging. So thanks again for the opportunity.

That's it for today's episode of How I Invest. If this conversation gave you new insights or ideas, do me a quick favor. Share with one person in your network who'd find a valuable or leave a short review wherever you listen. This helps more investors discover the show and keeps us bringing you these conversations week after week. Thank you for your continued support.