How I Invest with David Weisburd - E393: What 8,000 LPs and GPs Taught Him About Investing | Ron Biscardi

Episode Date: June 22, 2026

What if the biggest edge in investing isn’t information, strategy, or even intelligence—but relationships? In this episode, I sit down with Ron Biscardi, Co-Founder and CEO of iConnections, to discuss what separates the world’s best allocators and investment managers from everyone else. Ron shares lessons from building the largest capital introduction ecosystem in alternatives, with more than 26,000 members across 80+ countries representing over $55 trillion in assets. We explore the role of EQ in investing, why relationships compound into investment advantages, how emerging managers should think about fundraising, and why some of the most successful investment firms are built by entrepreneurs rather than investors alone. We also discuss conviction, illiquidity, LP decision-making, manager selection, and the realities of navigating capital markets over decades.

How much of a factor is having an anchor today? It's a big one. It's a signal to all the other investors that someone, hopefully, did the work to understand the strategy to evaluate the manager and got comfortable that both the manager, management team, and the strategy are worth betting on. People who get into the business and think they're going to raise money in three months or six months, you're just setting yourself up to lose. So you have to be ready for a long process.

And then it's really just a matter of getting out there and being in front of people as many times and as often as possible. What separates the top 1% of allocators from everybody else? I think there's a huge, like a ton of similarities between the top allocators and the top managers. Generally speaking, I feel like the most common thread is their interest in learning. They're constantly educating themselves, learning new things. Like they're approaching their job with this like voracious desire to learn new things and to get into the weeds and to all the details.

And I think there's also, while, you know, Wall Street is certainly known for its egos. In my experience, the best investors always have a very humble side to them. I mean, this is a business that is ruthless. the market doesn't care about anything. The market does what the market does. And it's our job to try and navigate that market. And I think the best investors approach it with a sense of humility because you can be really, really confident in your view and still be completely wrong because maybe you miss something. And this is all probabilistic, which means some percentage of the time it's not going to go the way it should have gone. You know, I'm a big fan of poker. And,

And when I'm playing a hand and I'm 75% to win, 25% of the time, I'm still going to lose, even though I was a favorite to win. And that's how the stock market works as well. So in my experience, the best investors are ones who are thinking that way. They have that humility. And they are just sponges in terms of reading and speaking to other people, digesting viewpoints that conflict with their own viewpoints. So that I feel like is kind of the most common characteristic.

There's the IQ aspect to it. What about it on the EQ? What's the pattern? EQ is absolutely huge. EQ enables you to use a network and relationships to gather more information. Basically, every super successful LP and GP I've ever met, they all have tremendous networks. They're all spending.

I was at an event with, you know, I won't mention the name, but I was at an event with absolutely one of the top tech fund managers in the world. And we're having a chat and a guy walks by and he sees him in his peripheral vision. He's like, that guy is part of Google's AI team. I've got to go talk to him. I looked at the guy. I had no idea who he was. I would have never had any idea.

He was part of the team. and I'm pretty sure, by the way, he was many layers down in the team. This was not the guy running, you know, Google's AI project. It wasn't Demesis. It was not Demesis. And but this investor knew who he was, knew that he was really smart, knew that he probably could learn something from him. And I think you have to have some personality, right?

If you're going to go build relationships with people who can provide information that's critical into your investment decisions. You do have to have some personality. It's not like you're sitting in a room and it's all math. I guess maybe in the quant area of investing, it's certainly more math heavy and maybe what I'm describing is less of an issue. But I think actually even for those guys,

when things don't go exactly well or you're trying to learn what other people are doing with their algorithms and their computer setups, it is still good to be able to lean on relationships to learn what are other people's approach, especially when it comes to problem solving because someone else has already seen that problem and solved it. They can really short-circuit the process for you. One thing I've noticed in the very top allocators, like Dan Fetter from University of Michigan, we've had chats about his philosophy. He'll come in early to support managers.

And I asked him the question, what kind of economics are you trying to give? by coming in early, and he's like, that's not the thing. I want to secure the relationship because the relationships are one at the early stage. And then you fast forward, there was a recent article that came out, which I could quote, University of Michigan has a $2 billion position in Open AI. And I think so much of the industry is focused on these zero-sum dynamics

of how do I push down the fees, and very few people are playing it at the game that a Dan is playing it. The fee thing, to be honest, this has never really made any sense to me. If you want access to the best investors in the world, I mean, the worst thing you can do is go at the fee. It's really no different than any other product in the economy. If you want quality, you have to pay for quality. And if they're going to generate a return of 20, 25, 30 percent, you know, if someone who's in those kind of ranges, are you really going to beat them up over the management fee? I mean, it seems crazy to me. And I've, you know,

we have a tremendous amount of data at I Connections because we've had so many GPs come through the system and download all of the details of their funds. And the top tier managers are absolutely being paid top dollar. And they should be paid top dollar. They're delivering the best returns. It's more efficient than not. I think it's more of a headline-grabbing thing. And it also, it obviously can be strategy-dependent. I guess it depends on what you're looking for. But when you said that, I kind of went straight to thinking about some of the venture funds I know. Two and a half and 30. If they have Anthropic and OpenAI and SpaceX in their portfolio, you should be pretty happy to pay those rates.

What about conviction? Is that something that you see in the top allocators? And if so, how does that play itself out? Especially in alternatives, you have to have conviction. You can't trade in and out quickly, right? in the alt world. I mean, even in hedge funds, which are a little bit more liquid, you generally, you're not buying it, selling it, rebuying it, selling it. It's just not really how it works. It's so for sure. I mean, our LPs are spending a tremendous amount of time getting to know the teams that they're about to give money to, understanding their strategy, getting to know them as people, getting comfortable, and ultimately developing real conviction about, you know, that allocation before they make it.

It's very important, but you also have to be careful of it because you don't want your conviction to override common sense because when things don't go well or everyone's belief that a particular strategy was the right way to go and then it doesn't play out and the market starts to show you that the thesis was wrong, you do have to adjust. I mean, the best investors are always willing to take in new information and make a new decision when you know when the information set changes you have to reevaluate but i do think it's definitely an industry that focuses on building that conviction before an investment decision is made you could chase conviction off the clip the most obvious example of that is game stop it was clearly

the right decision to short it and yet melvin capital and other funds blew up yeah it just it it It didn't go the way everyone thought it would. I crossed out the word conviction in my dictionary, and I have a new term for it. I call it Antonio Gracius. When I saw the news that Antonio Gracius had backed SpaceX 30 times, I was embarrassed because I had gone around and thought I had high conviction companies that had backed three, four times,

and I was off by an order of magnitude of 10. But what Antonio has done, and what several other funds, Founders Fund also has these crazy kind of conviction best. You have to see it to kind of believe it. Yeah, and Antonio is really unique because Antonio and the team at Valor are very operationally experienced. And they are in the weeds with their portfolio companies at a deeper level than almost any fund I've ever seen. So, you know, when Tesla was going through its crisis in developing its production line, and they went through the period where they had put too much automation into the production of the cars,

and they had to rethink all of that. I mean, Antonio was at the factory with Elon working through those problems. I mean, so when you're that deep into the investment, it enables you to be that much more convicted. So I'm sure that when other investors were looking at PE ratios and what year over year numbers looked like, Antonio understood at a much deeper level what was actually happening in the production process. And I'm sure that informed him in a way that made him comfortable committing. That's such an interesting point. In other words, the conviction is built by having a bottoms up understanding of the business. For sure. I think, I don't know.

another way of doing it because everything else is just bravado why are you convicted well i know for sure why do you know for sure you have the same information as every other investor exactly exactly it feels like a lot of talk to me without without a really deep understanding and obviously he's been a close friend of elons for such a long time and elon's first principles thinking i think has spread through the whole ecosystem of Tesla and SpaceX and all the companies he's touched. So I know that it's the way the folks at Valor think and for sure the way Antonio thinks. Speaking about how people think you get to see this pattern matching of thousands of LPs, thousands of GPs, you're just seeing this at every conference.

If you were a first time fun today, how would you raise capital? The first thing I would do is be prepared for it to take a very long time. You shouldn't really get in the game if you're not ready for it to take a long time because it probably will take a long time. It's not an easy business. People want to get to know you. In the beginning, no one has a reason to give you any money or to really test you out. So they want to spend time with you and get to know you. And you have to be prepared for just a very long sales cycle. But if you are prepared for a long sale cycle so that you're, like, humans are just so focused on our expectations being met, set your expectations.

far out into the future. And then it's fine to do that and then work really, really hard to exceed that expectation. But I think people who get into the business and think they're going to raise money in three months or six months or have set themselves up where they're in financial trouble if they don't raise the money in a short period of time. Like, you're just setting yourself up to lose. So you have to be ready for a long process. And then it's really just a matter of getting out there and being in front of people.

as many times and as often as possible. Like, we see that the funds that have the most success with us are the ones who commit to multiple events and they're just here every time. And, you know, the first time they walk in the door, it's probably pretty overwhelming. You know, we have thousands of people at these things, tons of LPs, and you walk through a room

and you can see lots of people know each other. You're probably not going to know many people the first time you're through. But by the third time you're through, you'll probably be looking at your 70th, 80th meeting, and a bunch of people who now you've seen multiple times feel like friends. So you just have to go at it with the mentality that I'm a newcomer, and I'm privileged to be in this room,

and I'm going to take time to really get to know people and build relationships and not put kind of undue pressure on them or myself to have to transact right away. I mean, in my prior business, which was a hedge fund and just all its fund seating business, I mean, we talked to investors for years in some cases before they allocate it. That's how it goes. And sometimes along the way you think you're going to get an allocation, then the market does something and it changes everyone's view. And now there's another delay. Like, it's a long process.

It's honestly, I can't really think of an area. the economy that has a longer sales cycle than this one. And, you know, the problem is people hear the handful of stories where, you know, so-and-so left and they walked out the door and a month later they had a billion dollars. Like, okay, it does happen. But it is such a small exception to the norm. I wish people just wouldn't even see those stories. It's the availability bias in startups. You have the same thing. You only see the headlines before it used to be. TechCrunch article would come out and there might be 30 companies that were in that space, but everyone saw this one article and everyone's comparing themselves to this one. That's exactly right. Yeah. And then if you look at

the guy who raised a billion, yeah, he spent the last 20 years working for Steve Cohen and every, you know, all the LPs knew him and everyone knew and believed in him. So when he walked out the door, he already had all the relationships and the credibility that you're trying to build. until you build the relationships and the credibility, it's a process. How much of a factor is having an anchor today? It's a big one. It's a big one. Can you explain that? Sure. I mean, an anchor investor is, in essence, the first person who puts money into a fund.

And it's important because it's a signal to all the other investors that someone hopefully did the work to understand the strategy to a evaluate the manager and got comfortable that both the manager, management team, and the strategy are worth betting on. You really need an anchor to get a fund started because that's the first story that you're going to build on. You're going to go to every other investor that you meet with and you're going to tell them that you have this anchor and they're all going to want to hear the story. How do you know the anchor? Why did this person make the bet on you? They're probably going to want to talk to that person who made the anchor investment. But I would say for most funds, you shouldn't really try to do this.

You shouldn't really try to get into the business until you have an anchor. Now, if you were trading in your basement and you turned 100 grand into 10 million or 20 million. Also game stop. There you go. Right. What was that guy's name? forget but yes growing kitty yes that's him um that's an anchor investment now it's not going to send the same signal to the other lps but at least you have a corpus that you can build on and and you're

managing enough money that you're credible right other lps might not look they're not going to look at it and say oh that's the same thing as someone giving you 20 million to manage but now as you build your track record and time passes, they're going to look at you managing that money very differently than they are when you were managing, you know, 100 grand in your basement. So, but, you know, most people are not in that spot. Most people need to go find an anchor investor. And I'd say, you want to at least get a very strong indication from someone that you can get that anchor investment before you really make the decision to jump into the business. Expert calls have always been one of the most powerful ways to build conviction, but today, investors are asked to cover more

companies, move faster, and do it with leaner teams. With Alpha Sense AI-led expert calls, their Tegis call service team sources experts based on your research criteria and lets the AI interviewer get to work. The magic is in the AI interviewer, purpose-built and knowledgeable based information to conduct high-quality context-rich conversations on your behalf, acting as a trusted extension of your team. Then they take it one step further. Your call transcripts flow natively into your Alpha Sense experience and become queryable, searchable, and comparable. So your primary insights plug directly into earnings prep, digital work streams, and pitchbooks with zero tool switching.

And with Alpha Sense expert call services, the AI-led expert calls are just one option, because we know the importance of a hybrid expert research approach. AI for coverage and efficiency. Humans for complexity and conviction. It's the institutional edge that scales research without scale. hailing headcount. For hedge funds, that means validating thesis assumptions across dozens of experts before earnings instead of a handful. For private equity, it means faster pre-IOI scans and deeper commercial diligence. For investment banks and asset managers, it means pulling real

operator perspectives straight into models and sector positioning without disconnected tools or manual handoffs. All of it lives inside the Alpha Sense platform, trusted by 75% of the world's top hedge funds alongside filings, broker research, news, and more than 240,000 expert call transcripts, turning raw conversations into comparable, auditable insight. Take advantage of Alpha Sense AI-led expert calls now. The first to see wins. Curious about online trading, but haven't taken the first step, you're not alone, and plus 500 futures is a great place to start.

The futures market are moving fast, and with plus 500, you could explore popular assets like oil, gold, S&P 500, Bitcoin, and more. From crypto to commodities, there's always something happening. The platform is super easy to use, so you could trade on the go right from your phone. You get started with just $100 and jump into the action. See something interesting? Once your account is open, you could trade it in just a couple of clicks. And if you're not quite ready yet, you could practice with a free demo count, no risk, no pressure.

With over 20 years of experience, Plus 500 makes trading more accessible than ever. Check it out at Plus500.com. Trading in futures involves risk of loss is not suitable for everyone. Not all applicants will qualify. Plus 500. It's trading with a plus. Managing risk for your business may be complicated, but your relationship with your insurance broker doesn't have to be.

NFP and Aon company can help you navigate insurance markets and negotiate with carriers to build the right coverage for your business, helping you turn your risks into leverage. NFP's advisors are total business partners who help you protect your business and connect you with solutions to your toughest financial and workforce challenges. Whether your goal is to manage risk more effectively, attract top talent, empower your workforce or grow your legacy,

NFP is ready to help you succeed. Visit nfp.com slash how I invest today to unlock your full potential. Managing risk for your business may be complicated, but your relationship with your insurance broker doesn't have to be. NFP and Aon company can help you navigate insurance markets and negotiate with carriers to build the right coverage for your business, helping you turn your risks into leverage. NFP's advisors are total business partners who help you protect your business

and connect you with solutions to your toughest financial and workforce challenges. Whether your goal is to manage risk more effectively, attract top talent, empower your workforce, or grow your legacy, NFP is ready to help you succeed. Visit nfp.com slash how I invest today to unlock your full potential. The rest follow. Learn more at alpha-sense.com slash how I invest. A lot of GPs are confused by why an anchor is so important. And they fail to realize the most important resource for LPs,

arguably is not even cash. It's their time. Every LP I've ever talked to has told me that they're understaffed. I've never met an LP that believes they're either fully staffed or overstaffed. And the framework that I have for this is I call it double gated fundraising process. The first gate is do we want to do work on that manager? And then the second gate is once we've done work, do we invest? I actually think from the second step to the third step, it's a pretty high conversion. Let's call it 40, 50%, but from the first to the second gate, it might be a 5% conversion. Yeah. And all GPC is, we talk to LPs and 2% of them commit, they don't realize that it's actually a double-gated process. And the reason that's all relevant is it's highly

rational for LPs to focus their time when they know the fund is going to close, fund is going to come together, and the terms have been decided because they don't want to have to do that all by themselves. That's absolutely right, I think. And also, you've got a distinction. between a liquid strategy like in a hedge fund where the anchor is important from a signaling standpoint, but the fund, you know, assuming they can manage their expenses or they've planned for managing their expenses probably out of their own pocket, the fund could operate on $10 million and build a track record on that. In a private equity structure, like what I think you're describing, it's a totally different ballgame. You're absolutely right. A Jeep or a

an LP is not going to want to spend time unless they look at it and they see, okay, there's an anchor and it's someone really credible and they are also going to be handicapping. What will other LPs think when they see this anchor? Because that's going to inform what the likelihood is that the fund closes. Because the fund doesn't close, well, then I just did all this work and all this diligence for nothing because they couldn't assemble the rest of the capital to achieve the closing. And the brutal aspect of that is the worst the market, the more the anchor matters. Because the worst the market, the more likely the fund will not close, and therefore you need that signal. Yeah, that's definitely true. I think we're moving into a much, well, I shouldn't say easier period. It's, I think we're just

moving into a period that is going to look more like the historical norm of private market fundraising and capital deployment. It's been a really tough three years. years, four years for private markets. We talk to LPs all the time and the vast majority of them have told me over the last five years, they have had either neutral or negative cash flow in their private markets portfolio. Now, their portfolio value has gone up because the investments have done well. But if you don't have liquidity, it's really hard to continue to invest in the future vehicles. So they have GPs coming at them where they gave them money in Fund 3 and Fund 4 and Fund 5 have seen minimal liquidity from those funds. And now the GP is showing up saying,

I want you to commit to Fund 6 at the same level as you did the last three. And the LPs are saying, you have to start returning capital because I need those cash flows to make these future commitments. So where maybe I did $10 million in the last three, I can only do $5 million now. That comprehensive conversation has been happening a lot for the last three or four years. So I think the SpaceX IPO, the Anthropic IPO, the Open AI, these things hopefully will really jumpstart the IPO market. We have not had a normal IPO market for five or six years. If the IPO market gets back to normal, it's going to be great for public markets, in my opinion, because that influx of liquidity, it's going to also drive a lot more M&A activity,

especially these deals happening at trillions of dollars. I think the liquidity coming into private markets will drive much, much more activity than what we've seen. It's been a very hard fundraising period. Is that how you find that LP's think in that they deploy as DPI comes available in a specific asset class? In other words, even though the public markets might be up 50% in several years,

they're not redeploying into private markets until they have DPI? No, I wouldn't say that. I think the most sophisticated LPs know that in private markets, a really, really important element is getting capital into each vintage. Because you really need the power of that diversification, because there's too many outside factors that impact the performance of these funds. So the managers may be great at generating. deal flow and picking the right management teams, but the environment that these businesses are

being built in is changing constantly. And you really need to invest in each vintage, in essence, to get the diversification across market conditions. Investing in a business that started in, when I think about the dot-com era, 1998, 1999, like, that vintage probably didn't do so well. But the Vintage a year or two later did really well because it was just a different market. I mean, think about it right now. Investing in a business that, you know, was being valued in the 2021 market when especially SaaS businesses were like super highly valued versus investing in a software business now that has AI at its disposal.

I mean, those two businesses would just look so different internally. A business today requires a fraction of the number of people to accomplish the same amount in terms of code output. You want as an investor to be able to catch, you know, you'll need probably today's vintage or maybe last year's vintage to be able to offset the dynamics of that 2021 cycle. So I think private market investors are thinking much more about making sure they do catch I don't think the LPs were saying, I'm going to skip your next fund because I don't have the cash flow. I don't think they want to do that.

I think they want to be in that next fund. But it just became much more stressful as to how they're going to manage their cash flow to be able to do it. It comes back to the EQ that we talked about before. It seems like being investors shouldn't be that hard. Why you have a portfolio and on average it goes up. But when people look back on the S&P 500, it returns 10% over 80 years per year. It's hard to internalize that volatility. Sometimes you're up 20.

Sometimes you're down 30. And that ride is what makes it hard. Yes. If you want to invest in something that's predictable, 5, 6%, maybe you do bonds or maybe you do treasuries. But to get that extra 4 or 5% in the S&P and in Ventures even more, some would argue, higher beta thing, you really need to have your behavioral dynamics. you really have to have your EQ dialed in.

So the sophisticated LPs will not try to do anything overly heroic, will understand their behavioral biases and structure around those. It's totally true. Like when I think about someone like Warren Buffett, Warren was obviously brilliant as an investor and his analytical skills were incredible. But I always was so impressed at his ability to just do the opposite. of what everyone else was doing.

And until you actually have capital in the market at risk, you don't realize how stressful it is to ride out a bad market and to not sell at the bottom. And we all read that you're supposed to buy low and sell high. And we all read, the worst thing you can do is sell at the top, or I'm sorry, buy at the top and sell at the bottom. But yet so many people still get caught in that. trap, it really does take a lot of EQ to be able to, like, manage your own anxiety around it.

And, you know, it's different for different people. Obviously, you know, when you're a principal in a family office and it's your capital, that's a different spot than when you're part of an investment team at an endowment or a foundation and you're running someone else's money. And now you're kind of thinking about the career risk of what I'm doing here. Look, I think over the long term, Warren's approach obviously is the way to go, but it is definitely harder said than done. It's like playing poker without real money. Yeah, right, exactly.

Like, you'll never become a great poker player until you're risking money. It's really fascinating to see how different the experience is if you just play a game with chips and then the next game you have to put money in to buy those chips. It's a completely different experience because in the second experience, you have to really manage your anxiety. You don't want to lose that money. But if you let your anxiety win, you'll probably make worse decisions. It's become increasingly less difficult for me to deal with these EQ issues. And that's when I listened to Stanley Drunken Miller. I listened to him on podcasts and he said, nothing looks as cheap as after it's gone up 40%.

And this was arguably the greatest trader or one of the greatest traders in history. And when I realized even Stanley Drunken Miller has to deal with these trading biases, my mind switched from trying to make these heroic trades or even training my brain to react. And I thought of how do I structure my investments and my behavior in such a way that I don't need to out Stanley Drunken Miller, Stanley Drunken Miller? humble or not, because at least I have some level of humility to know that, I will never be able to do that. No. You know, that's a high bar. He's pretty good at what he does. I have this paradoxical belief that a lot of investors should be illiquid and a lot of asset classes.

I call the virtue of illiquidity, which is all things being equal, which they're not. But if all things were equal, you rather have illiquidity in certain. asset classes, including venture or anything with a lot of volatility. Mostly because it protects you from making bad decisions. And the more volatile, the more illiquid you should be. Yeah. No, I think that's true. I learned this from crypto funds.

When I would talk to them on camera, they would talk about all their thematic trades and all their contrarian views. And then off camera, they would always say the same thing. Well, I was just really lucky I was illiquid in this one position. It went up 10x. It went down 2x. And, you know, I ended up being in a levered Bitcoin trade. that returned 40x, everything else.

I don't really know what I'm doing. And I kept on hearing this meme that illiquidity is what saved them. And finally, I had the switch, which is maybe illiquidity is a good thing. I was chatting with someone yesterday telling them that I, like, I don't really have any public market investments.

I'm basically struggling in alternatives, like startup companies I've invested in or funds that are mostly illiquid. and I do find it is an interesting experience to not be able to sell. Like, I've made these bets. It's comforting. It kind of is comforting. It's just like, look, it's in their hands.

They have to manage it to the best of their ability. I think I've picked smart people because I've made those bets. But if I had the same capital, sitting in the public market, I know I would be way more tempted to start buying and selling, which probably would be worse for me. Cliffassness calls this volatility laundering. He previously went on the podcast. He talked about this concept where private equity doesn't have as much as volatility,

but that's just because you don't see the volatility on day-day basis. It actually has the same volatility as the public markets. And my response to that is so what? Yeah. That's the thing. Yeah. The thing is that you shouldn't be able to trade on daily business. Yeah, we're probably hurting ourselves.

I mean, there's not too many people who could trade on a basis and win. One of the hardest things in private markets for LPs to do is to distinguish manager skill versus luck. How does LPs go about doing this? Wow, that's a good question. I mean, some of the stories I've heard over the years, I feel like, they tend to invest in packs. I think that's one way they try and get at it. Meaning they're investing in things

that other investors that they respect and trust are also investing in. Almost a wisdom of crowds. Yes, yeah, exactly. In some strategies, you can do the math to try and figure it out, right, to calculate. There's some kind of confidence in our seating business years ago, we worked on a strategy with guys who had come up with a way to analyze private banks

by comparing them to an equivalent set of public banks. And in the banking space, there were enough really small, similar-looking public banks that you actually could get a decent comparison set to compare it to the private banks. and they were able to do this alpha analysis, which actually was pretty predictive. It worked reasonably well. But I think in private markets, it's really, really hard to do.

And I think, I don't think, I don't find that investors are spending a tremendous amount of time. They're certainly not doing it analytically. I think they're mostly doing it. Like, you kind of can only do it. it over a period of time.

Which is why LPs have this bias to wait, which a lot of GPs don't understand. Yes, they totally have a bias to wait. And I think it's also why they're biased towards picking things that they see their peers picking because it gives them a sense that they're not the sucker at the table. They're not the one betting on someone who actually just got lucky when they see other people. Now, it doesn't always work because if I remember correctly, FTX had the most amazing rock star list of investors. And I think everyone was kind of assuming everyone else had done the work.

But in private markets, I think the only way you can really make that assessment is over. You have to look at someone's performance over a longer period of time. Obviously, in the public markets, it's easier to do it analytically. And people are doing it analytically there. But in the private markets, you just kind of have to watch it over. time and because it you will figure it out over time someone who's really good you're going to see consistent performance and someone who just got lucky you're probably not going to see because you know they're more the one-shot wanders you were gp seating years ago you've seen these gps play out

what surprised you the most about the gps that made it i don't know that i was ever really surprised about the GPs who made it. I think the common thread of the GPs who made it is they were also great entrepreneurs. There's... Firm builders. Yeah. They were not just focused on the trading strategy.

They were focused on the trading strategy, the marketing strategy, the brand building, the relationship building, recruiting. They wanted to be entrepreneurs. There's a lot of people who get into the business who probably should be employing.

in a bigger shop where they show up every day and the Bloomberg is there and the systems work and the internet connection is always reliable and they don't have to get into the weeds on they probably would be happier I think a lot of them sometimes richer yes I absolutely think that we saw a lot of people over the years who were great at whatever their trading strategy was but they didn't have that they didn't have that entrepreneurial drive when I started my first business, one of the first things I heard that it's always stuck with me was the CEO has to be the best salesman in the business

in the beginning. I've met so many traders who, you know, they don't want to go to networking events, they don't want to go to dinners, they don't want to go to cocktail parties. It's like, well, how are you going to, how are you ever going to grow your business if you don't want to spend time with people?

You know, on the flip side, a guy comes to mind who built his fund business to probably a billion five and had a tremendous amount of success with it. And you could have told this guy there was $5 in London that he might be able to scoop up and he'd be on a plane the next day going to scoop up that five bucks.

And that's the mentality that I think you have to have if you're going to be successful in this. I'm not going to ask you to name funds, but are there funds with slightly above average performance that have built these enduring financials? because they were so good at these other things. Oh, 100%. Yeah.

Not one. I mean, I've consistently been surprised at how many funds have mediocre performance and they're running tens of billions of dollars. But they were great entrepreneurs. They were really good at building a team. They were great at marketing. They knew the importance of it and they respected it. Like, my background is engineering.

And I have to say there's like, there may not be a career that has more arrogance in. than engineering. Because like it's a, it's really hard. You know, the math I went through, the physics, like try learning quantum mechanics and like having to do the math of quantum mechanics. It's brutal. When you graduate after getting through a program like that, you know, you think you're smarter than everyone else.

And okay, you're pretty smart, right? It's not an easy program to get through. But it doesn't mean that you have the skills to lead, to recruit people, to, to there's so many other elements to building a successful business that you don't have any idea about those things. I think the trading world, it reminds me a lot of engineering because they're all super, super smart people.

And I think they come out with this thought that if I just am really great at this one thing, everything else will take care of itself. And that's just not true. And the guys who maybe were okay at the trading, but really nailed all of the other, elements of the business are the guys who are putting up, you know, slightly better than the average returns and running billions and billions of dollars.

You've had a storied career. What's the hardest truth that you've had to swallow throughout your career and lesson to learn? The market, life is unfair. I'll never forget this. I was trying to raise, it was in the seeding business. I was trying to raise money from a big public pension fund. and it was a really big strategic deal. They were going to allocate somewhere between $1 and $2 billion across a whole set of deals that we were working on.

And it would have completely changed the trajectory of the business. And the week it was supposed to go to an investment committee, the guy who was leading the deal quit. Now, this was a guy, like great guy, really smart. But he was probably a guy making an average salary. I don't know, call it $150,000. a year. And then someone, the asset management firm, probably offered him three times that amount to leave the state pension fund and move over. So he did what made complete sense for him and his family. But it was devastating to the deal that we were working on. So the whole thing collapsed.

And I called a friend of mine who was really successful and had been in the business forever. And I was telling them the story. And his answer to me was, wow, the public pension fund didn't give me a billion dollars. And I just started cracking up on the phone as devastated as I was in that moment. It was the funniest thing. But that is the reality. Like that is just all of these things are just elements in a marketplace. And the marketplace doesn't care about your feelings.

The marketplace is just functioning. And it's our job to navigate that marketplace. And that is a really, really harsh. reality. And if you're not willing to live, like, I have grown to love that reality. Like, I know that's the reality I'm living in. And I, by the way, I live in constant fear that there's something around the corner that I don't know is coming that's going to run us over and I connections will be out of business. And it can totally happen. Some percentage of the time it will happen. It's very scary, but I'm at a point where I like knowing that that's the reality and my job is

to protect us and be able to navigate it while still growing as, you know, to the best of my ability. But some people just can't really deal with that reality. And those are people who really are better suited to be employees because all of it is just too anxiety producing too stressful. But I do think that is the harshest reality that I've kind of accepted and learned to deal with. there's nothing more brutal or harsh than the market. No. Ron, this has been an absolute masterclass.

Thanks so much for jumping on. Hey, it was great, David. Thanks for being here, man. Thank you.