Investing Billions - E324: How The University of Cambridge Built Their Privates Portfolio

Episode Date: March 13, 2026

What does it take to build a world-class private equity portfolio for an 800-year-old institution? In this episode, I sit down with Sam Sturge, Head of Private Equity at the University of Cambridge endowment, to discuss how he rebuilt the program with a mandate to generate inflation plus 5% returns for generations. Before joining Cambridge, Sam worked at Morgan Stanley and Partners Capital, and today he oversees a concentrated portfolio of buyout and venture relationships within the university’s £4.5 billion endowment.

So Sam, you've had incredible career going from Morgan Stanley to then Partners Capital. I want to start with how did you came to run private equity at Cambridge University? Six years ago now, our CIO had joined a few months before, was looking to rebuild the whole investment team and also just looking to increase the allocation to private equity substantially. I think all those kind of factors really kind of married with, I guess, my long-term ambitions and motivations, which for some reason I love private equity and the ability to kind of take this brand and use that to leverage to build a world-class portfolio. It was just too good an opportunity to pass up. You're building for one of the most historic institutions in the world, but you were more or less

building it from scratch. How did you go about doing that? At the core of it, what is the mission and objects as the endowment as a whole? It is to preserve or increase the real value of the endowment for not just decades but centuries to come. We have a distribution rate of 4% and we want to have a margin of safety so that means we have a target return for the whole endowment of inflation plus 5%. I'll admit that's a relatively high return target and so it's therefore really important for us to have a meaningful allocation to risk assets. We believe that priority should have the highest return out of all asset classes and so naturally made sense for us to have a large allocations to the asset class.

Why do we think that's the case? I think firstly, I'm going to, I think private equity for me and just trying to keep it simple because there's many different strategies, it's kind of focusing mainly on buyout and venture capital as the two core asset classes, or two core strategies here. Within buyout, we just believe managers have the ability to influence the operations in strategic directions of businesses. And they also have a longer term focused and say, in public markets where people are very focused on quarterly earnings and shorter term decision

making. And so managers that have that skill and differentiation should lead to kind of longer term revenue and earnings growth and actually then higher returns. On the venture side, I don't think we necessarily believe the market will have the highest absolute returns out of all asset classes, but we do believe investing in early stage disruptive technologies has the potential to deliver outlaw of success if you're partnered with the right firms who are investing in the right companies. It is a people business. A private fund can last for 15 years or more and as a considerable amount of time to be spending with these people and I think there is just a fundamental question of do you want to be in business for these people for that amount of time?

And within that there's a it comes down to alignment. Are the managers and centers and motivations truly aligned with what we view as success? How do you ascertain that? How do you look at incentives and figure out whether you as the LP are aligned with the manager? That's a really good question. The endowment is about four and a half billion pounds, which is obviously a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of financial assets is relatively modest, which I think gives us the real privilege that we are focused to deliver the best risk-adjusted returns rather than on deploying capital. And so that alignment really boils down to that, which is, are the key decision makers at an investment organization, are they motivated to deliver outlier returns rather than necessarily build a large business, focus on asset management and focus on gathering management fees? What do you find psychologically that drives those that want to be great investors versus great asset gathers? We spend way too much time or maybe it is the right amount of time talking about this amongst the team. If we look at our managers that have sustained our performance for a considerable amount of time,

it comes down to Jesus, in a, inert competitiveness. They want to win. And they view winning is generating the best returns compared to their peers. And they will move heaven and earth to do that, even after kind of reaching financial security. and in some ways doing it more for the love of generating those returns than the economic incentives that flow from that. 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 in 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 AlphaSense's 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. out for yourself at alpha dash sense.com slash how I invest. It's where the managers get their ego and their ego attachment. Some managers get their ego from, I have all this AUM, I have all these management fees, other managers actually get it from, I have the best fund. I don't, I'm not NASA

Gatherer. I have the best returns. I have the smartest strategies and I'm doing well for my LP. So it's really about where you get your sense of purpose and your ego. That's completely right. So it's double click on venture specifically. Andrews-Norwich just raised the largest venture fund in history. There's other venture managers that are very tactical and very capacity constrained and focus on having smaller funds. Where in the market is it an asset to have capital? And where in the market do you really want to be constrained?

A million dollar question, isn't it? We believe there are many ways to win. And I think kind of taking that example that, that you just highlighted with Andres. And I think at the end of the day, it comes down to people. And so how many exceptional people do you have that are seeking to invest the amount of capital that you have? And that can be in a fund of $20 million through to an institution that's raised $15 billion.

And I think the manager needs to know, or any. asset owner or manager needs to know what are their competitive advantages and what are their rights to win. Within venture, there is this reinforcing brand effect where people that have a desire to be successful want to be associated with successful brands and firms that have backed those amazing companies before. And in a world, which has never been so competitive, having that the scale and resources to make their portfolio companies heard.

sounds like a very attractive strategy. On the other side, whilst we're living in this era of incredible innovation, there's still how many truly transformative companies are going to be created per year? And how does that then, how many of those companies or what market share does a firm raise an amount of capital need to invest in? For endowments, where does your capital structure give you an advantage? And how do you push that advantage in venture? what i've just said in terms of the managers i think we need to put onto ourselves and i think i've talked about it a lot um with my colleagues where i think we need to look at ourselves and say well what is our advantages and i think yes we can go with endowments initially where

they are long-term perpetual called a pools of capital where they should have the ability to be consistent and loyal investors which and i think also another key point is that the returns are going to charitable and positive activities, which I think on the margin will investment managers do prefer. But I think then we have to look at ourselves and we can say, well, I mentioned our size before, which gives us an advantage where we can maybe make smaller commitments to managers. So with those capacity constraint managers, a $10 million commitment. commitment is a lot easier to get into these capacity constrain managers.

And that can still be very meaningful for us. We're also increasingly looking at how can we connect the venture managers with the research centers within the university. In the end, Cambridge is one of the world leading sense of excellence for artificial intelligence, for robotics, for quantum computing, for material science, which acting as a conjureate for that should be incredibly attractive for venture capital firms. Right now, there's this DPI crisis, as some people have labeled it, which is before 2024, you have on average 24% DPI per year.

Last two years have been 9% DPI in alternatives. So a lot of LPs are asking themselves, should we be deploying more into private equity, into venture or should we wait until more DPI is made available? The contrarian point to that would be everybody is vacating the space. Why not be offensive and capture market share? Where do you sit on those two sides of the continuum and why? I think it's great if everyone is saying not to invest. I think private equity is matured as an asset class over the last 30 years. And I think for us, I think as people kind of, that may be kind of more here for shorter term,

I think for us where we just fundamentally believe in what I talked about earlier in terms of the reasons why private equity has a right to generate significant returns above and beyond public markets I think net fewer limited partners competing for those best general partners and those general partners having theoretically less competition should be a great thing looking forward on the specific point on liquidity and DPI for us it's always been very important to manage our liquidity and not get over us as skis on the liquidity and be truly reliant on disputes in any particular a year.

How much do you trust your nav marks in your portfolio today? How much credence do you give to? It's a good question. We obviously speak to our managers on a regular basis, spend a lot of time traveling and spending time with them in person, reviewing the monitoring, the quarterly reports, and every six months, we do a big exercise across the portfolio when looking at the earnings growth and revenue growth and the margins and the leverage and everything. like that. So we have very good visibility into the underlying assets that we hold.

A job for us is not to question whether or not a company should be marked up or down by 5, 10%. But I think with that, you get a good feeling of whether or not a manager is more aggressive or more conservative on their marks. Our general bias has been towards more quality focus managers where they are more focused on, I would say, they prefer to give good news. And so we've generally seen more prudent valuations, slower markups as public comparables have risen up. And I think on average, we see a markup on exit of our buyout companies in the region of 20 to 30%. When we're looking, re-underwriting a man. We spend a lot of time varying through the historical portfolios and making sure that we feel comfortable with how they're marking and compare and contrast into the rest of the portfolio.

And so it's always interesting to see when you have a when you have a venture back company as owned by multiple managers within our portfolio. And we can kind of compare and contrast to see the valuations that each of them are holding at. And naturally, if one is holding it at a much higher valuation or even a much lower valuation than the others, that's good input. us to start a conversation. Do you think all things being equal, LPs have incentive for their GPs to actually mark up their book and mark more aggressively? It comes past the alignment point that we talked about before.

Because there's alignment with the manager of that pull of cattle. There's this principal agent problem that exists on the LP side as well. I can see that for us or say for me, whether time horizon looking forward and building this portfolio is for decades to come. I think the underlying value, you is what really matters and so and I think it is a far easier you build a you build a lot more trust with your stakeholders and with your limited partners and with the general partners I would say if you are conservative on those valuations and then you

surprise on the upside we do take a lot of notes when say if a manager that is not doing so well on the performance side ahead of the next subsequent fundraise. You start seeing markups in that portfolio. And I think that for us then is really important to when you have that underlying data of the revenue growth and the EBITDA growth. I think it's a far easier conversation to have with the manager when you say, well, you've marked up your portfolio by 30%, but your earnings are only up by 10%. Can you please explain to us why you've changed the valuation multiple of these companies? If you've been considering futures trading, now might be the time to take a closer look. The futures markets has seen increased activity recently and plus 500 futures offers a straightforward entry point.

The platform provides access to major instruments, including the S&P 500, NASDAQ, Bitcoin, natural gas, and other key markets across equity indices, energy, metals, 4X, and crypto. Their interface is designed for accessibility. You can monitor and execute trades from your phone with a $100 minimum deposit. Once your account is open, potential trades can be executed in two clicks. For those who prefer to practice first, Plus 500 offers an unlimited demo account with full charting and analytical tools. No risk involved while you familiarize yourself with the platform. The company has been operating in a trading space for over 20 years.

Download the Plus 500 app. Trading and futures involves the risk of loss. This is not suitable for everyone. Not all applicants will qualify. When you want more, you start your business with Northwest Register agent. They give you access to thousands of free guides, tools, and legal forms to help you launch and protect your business all in one place. With Northwest, you're not just forming an LLC, you're building your complete business identity. From what customers see to what they don't see,

like operating agreements, meeting minutes, and compliance paperwork, you get more privacy, more guidance, and more free resources to grow the right way. Northwest has been helping founders and entrepreneurs for nearly 30 years. They're the largest registered agent LLC service in the U.S. with over 1,500 corporate guides, real people who know your local laws and help you every step of the way. What I love is how fast you could build your business identity with their free resources.

You could access thousands of forms, step-by-step guides, and even lawyer-drafted operating agreements and bylaws without even creating an account. Northwest makes life easy for business owners. They don't just help you from your company. They give you the tools you need after you form it. And with Northwest, privacy is automatic. They never sell your data

because privacy, by default, is their pledge. Don't pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for what you could get from Northwest for free. Visit Northwest Registeredagent.com slash invest free and start using free resources to build something amazing. Get more with Northwest Registered Agent at Northwest Registered Agent.com slash invest free. When you want more, you start your business with Northwest Registered Agent. They give you access to thousands of free guides, tools, and legal forms to help you launch and protect your business all in one place. With Northwest, you're not just forming, in LLC, you're building your complete business identity. From what customers see to what they

don't see, like operating agreements, meeting minutes, and compliance paperwork, you get more privacy, more guidance, and more free resources to grow the right way. Northwest has been helping founders and entrepreneurs for nearly 30 years. They're the largest registered agent LLC service in the US with over 1,500 corporate guides, real people who know your local laws and help you every step of the way. What I love is how fast you could build your business identity with their free resources. you could access thousands of forms, step-by-step guides, and even lawyer-drafted operating agreements and bylaws without even creating an account.

Northwest makes life easy for business owners. They don't just help you from your company. They give you the tools you need after you form it. And with Northwest, privacy is automatic. They never sell your data because privacy by default is their pledge. Don't pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for what you could get from Northwest for free. Visit Northwest Register to H&.com slash invest free and start using free resources to build something amazing. Get more with Northwest Registered Agent at

Northwestregisteredagent.com slash invest free. I think unless you have that transparency and the ability to kind of go into that amount of detail, it is always going to be a sticking point. And this may be one of the real benefits of the endowment where I think everyone has a long-term horizon where if I kept on coming to the boards that we have saying, look, we've had these amazing markups, but then coming back to them six months or a year or two years later and saying, oh, yeah, that great markup I told you about it ended up being sold for a discount to that. I think that would quickly erode trust between us.

So I think it's, again, you have to get the incentives right within us as an organization. And I think we need to be very much focused on that long term. turtles all the way are all the way down what are the incentives of the GPs what are the incentives of the people at the seat at the LP what incentives are the underlying capital pools doing with those people in those seats for example some organizations I interviewed the CIO of Calsters that was there for 23 years he built a very enduring team and as people see that they're incentivized to think more long term versus other organizations when they're turning people every three to five years, they're not going to have the same incentives as an organization

that's known for giving people a long runway. So it's really incentives all the way down. Completely agree. And I think I mentioned it briefly at the start. But I think that we have the time horizon of the institution, which the university is over 800 years old now, which kind of think really puts things into perspective. But I think also if you look at the time horizon of the team and of the individuals and without CIO joining in early 2020 and myself and my senior colleagues joining around a similar time, I think kind of having that mindset of the team where we're building something for the next 10, 20, 30 years and as all having that long-term time horizon, I do think brings a lot more alignment, a lot more trust.

Hi, Professor Steve Kaplan on, he wrote a famous paper, do private equity funds, manipulate reported returns. And TLDR, on average, they tend to skew conservative, but managers on their fifth, sixth, sixth, seventh, eighth fund tend to be more conservative than emerging managers that may be struggling to raise capital. So there's also you have to look at those incentives. It's all fine and dandy to say the GP should have long-term incentives.

If they're struggling to raise and they have this existential crisis, they're going to be more likely to overinflate their marks. whether consciously or subconsciously versus somebody that's trying to build a 100-year relationship with Cambridge and wants them to invest for the next time funds. Completely agree. And I think that's where we're in a very privileged position where we run a relatively concentrated portfolio. So across buyout and venture capital, we have around 30 relationships. And you'll probably have a better number for me, but as well over. 10,000 venture capital firms and I think a similar number for the buyout firms. And so we have the privilege of being selective and kind of running through that. And again, it comes back to

this alignment point at the start. I think if we find a manager that and we do our diligence and we find something erroneous in their reporting or their valuations, it's very hard to start a relationship when you don't have that trust. We have a great. team and I think we're incentivized to not just look at past performance and it's really to think about future performance so I'm really proud that we have backed managers in the past that we're not the top performance and in some instances weren't even above the average in their performance and there were reasons for in the past what led to some difficult years of performance but it learned from

those mistakes or they've evolved their capabilities and now we believe that going forward they can outperform. Again, that requires more work, that requires more diligence, but as long as we believe they are applying some differentiated capabilities in a repeatable manner, then we will spend the time to unpick that and take a look. A lot of GPs, obviously very hesitant to be vulnerable. And certainly there's an art to the kind of mistakes that LPs, accept versus ones that are unacceptable, maybe double click on that and tell me about a case where somebody made a mistake and that actually helped them grow trust with you as they'll be. It's a great question and I think you can kind of take this multiple ways.

Going back to a previous point on managers to focus on what they're truly great at and we've had a particular manager comes to mind that was focused on a particular geography here in Europe. They were very transparent that they thought they had a reason they, they were software specialist manager and had a deep domain expertise in that area and software can go cross borders. And so they had a belief and an ambition to expand beyond their region in Europe to some other countries. And I think for us, what was important there was they reached out,

was said that they were thinking of doing that. We advised them not to and saying, you've got plenty of opportunity in your area and they did. And they did that by building a new office, hiring a new team, because they wanted people that could speed that particular language here in Europe. And that didn't work out.

But to their credits, they came to us and said, said, yes, this did not work out. We're going to take some time to reflect. Here are our learnings from this in the sense of we have a distinctive culture and trying to hire in that culture didn't work, which I thought was a, that shows true partnership with the manager, kind of opening up to their mistake and kind of, especially when we guided them otherwise. and actually a couple of years later,

so after all of that, last year they said, I find we're going to try again. But here is what we learned previously. This is what we're doing differently this time. And it's early days, but actually in kind of the year since they've done that, it seems to have gone exceedingly well.

And so I think if you have that dialogue, you can do that. Most people don't realize how incredibly difficult it is to actually have Alphillian. in the private markets, how much of a hurdle it is. And once they capture that lightning in a pan, they just assume, well, how about over here? And the right way to think about it is every new strategy is default debt. You need something exceptionally unique.

You need exceptional talent, exceptional synergies, or exceptional perspective and track record in order to capture alpha another part of the market. It's almost like underwriting a strategy from scratch. I completely agree. I think we say to our managers quite frequently and whether this could be with co-investments or continuation vehicles, let alone new strategies is there's a huge value to simplicity. What when you wake up in the morning was the first thing that you think about when how many place do you want to be juggling? How much time do you want to focus? Like you only have a certain number of hours in the day. or the week or a year and how can you use that to the best of your ability to deliver the best

returns that you can and we talked earlier there are some benefits to scan in certain situations but i think for in most scenarios we would argue that keeping things simple keeping things focused keeping things focused on those core areas of expertise will lead to better and more sustainable investment returns. As I turned 40, I started thinking about this finiteness of the year. Let's say there's 50 working weeks a year. There's five days, so 250 days. And I think high level thinking tops two hours per day of truly first principle thinking

or very high output thinking. So you have 500 hours per year that you could focus. Where are you going to focus those 500 hours? I think people assume they're off by an order of magnitude. They think it's 5,000. or 50,000 hours, but it's really 500 hours of really high level thought you have in a year. I completely agree. I think you could argue maybe even less for a lot of people. Like one of the real joys of this job is, and the seat that I'm in is that I get to spend

a lot of my time speaking to some of the most successful intelligent people in the world. Most of the managers that we're investing with have been near the top of their fields. they've got anywhere from five to 50 years of investment experience. And so actually every interaction, every meeting that we have, there is something to learn. Which I think, I think it's just an incredible place to be or position to be in. But I think to your point, you can either look at it as a benefit or a pro or a con of what we do where I'm coming up to six years here. I think we've built a truly world-class portfolio where we have these 30 relationships. And so I think what is really turning to now is unpicking with the managers that we have

where we have our highest conviction, what has led to them being so successful and what has led to us having that conviction in them. And what are the learnings that we can take from that to then say, okay, well, when we're meeting that next manager in that first meeting, what are those questions that we can ask to kind of quickly get to that point where we think, do they have those capabilities or values that we've seen successful firms before? Where is alpha in venture capital today? Great question. It's clear that the ask class has never been so competitive. Not just from a number of managers and a capital raised perspective, but also from the number of underlying companies that are

competing against each other, trying to do the same thing. Investing in Ventures, investing in innovation and it's just clear that we're living in unprecedented times at the moment. And so therefore, we do believe there is a lot of value to be created. But this competition has really kind of switched our ventures worked over the last 30 years. And they've gone of the days when a founder would have to go up Sand Hill Road in Palo Alto, kind of meeting the 20 firms and asking them for money to now the power very much relies with the founder. I think and those the founders that have the highest potential know that they have a choice over which venture capital firms they partner with them take money from. And so the alpha really relies with those venture capital firms that have a differentiated proposition or a reason why an exceptional founder would want to pick with them and work with them for the next decade of their journey.

What about structural alpha in venture? In the end, you have to say there is structural alpha where there are a number of firms that consistently generate superior outperformance compared to the rest of the markets. And then I think the question becomes, well, do you think they can continue it? Or do you think, like, at some point, all of these story venture firms, they started themselves at some point and then they got themselves into that position. That's the art and the science. The science is being quickly commoditized by AI.

You put in the portfolio returns over the last five funds and AI will give you the right answer whether it was a good fund. The art is will they continue to perform? We spend a lot of time analyzing historical performance and was it luck, was it judgment? Do we think it's repeatable? But in the end it's a people business and it comes down to our assessment of those people, what are their skill sets, what are their motivations? And I think it's really important to have those dialogues of managers and try and get a sense of when you think

those skills, capabilities, motivations will be changing or waning or passing on to the next generation and how you think about all of that is incredibly important as you think about the life cycle of an investment. In the end, we want to be invested with managers for multiple fund cycles having this long-term horizons. So spending that time so we can either double down and increase our commitment size next time around or decide to part ways is a really important part of the job once you are invested with the manager.

Going back to another Professor Steve Kaplan study, 52% of top quartal funds have persisted in state top quartal, which is why LPs are so focused on this top quartile. But said another way, 48% do not persist. So you have a coin flip and figuring out who's going to continue to be great and who's going to revert to the mean is the hard part. If you could go back to 2012 when you just started your career at Morgan Stanley, what is one piece of timeless advice you'd give a younger Sam that would have either accelerated your career or helped you avoid causal mistakes? Network is incredibly important. I don't think you can ever invest early enough from your network and build that up over time.

and over time it becomes a compounding benefit. And I think a lot of, well, a young Sam was very focused on making sure that their call that model was done correctly on the day. And I think actually spending that time, whether it be finding mentors you can learn from, finding peers that you can collaborate with and share ideas, finding people that may not actually seem directly relevant right. then but over time can do and and over time that compounds and really puts you in a very strong and privileged position. And for example, now I would say nearly all, nearly all, if not all, of our

venture capital investments that we've made over the last three years have come from referrals from our network, whether that be other limited partners or existing managers in our portfolio or even when we've spoken to founders and entrepreneurs, they've mentioned some other firm and connected us. You have to understand who's playing the long-term games and who you spend your time on, where you focus your time. That is upstream of everything. If you think of people as downstream, as the most important upstream of it is what people are in your network and what people talk to on day-day.

Sam, this has been an absolute masterclass. Thanks so much for Jump-Hound podcast. Thanks having me. 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.