Investing Billions - E328: Why Most Funds Get Rejected in the First Five Minutes

Episode Date: March 19, 2026

What if the best venture returns come from managers no one else can access? In this episode, I sit down with Jorge Felippe, CEO of Almulla, a Dubai-based single family office, to explore how he builds high-conviction private markets portfolios while managing a multi-generational family and complex governance. Jorge shares why alignment, patience, and process matter more than flashy deals, and how a thoughtful approach to fund selection can capture early-stage alpha without the chaos of direct investing.

Last time we chatted, you said that we reject most funds before we even see the IRR. What's the main reason why you would reject a fund? I'll say there are three key reasons. First one is in terms of terms and alignment. Second on governance and third is around the way they are growing. So let's start with the main one for us is the alignment. The importance of alignment, you know, the fee structure, but also the alignment of the GP with the GP commitment. This is for us is a critical figure that we look at as a KPI.

and if it's anything below 2%, we reject straight away. So 2% GP commit, absolute minimum. What do you like to see? We like to see 10 plus. 10 plus. And we've been in funds that are 30% GP commits. It's been to funds which are 20, and we really shows the skins and gain.

On the governance side, there's a lot of things that we look for, but it's really how strong the systems are, how the structure is set up for us. We are based in Dubai and UAE. And of course, the tax situation is very favorable to us, so we need to make sure that it's kept throughout the structure of the fund. And finally, you know, we hate funds that just double in size for every vintage. Yeah. So we are very, you know, we want to see people motivated for the performance and not

the fees on the management fees. At some point, you end up in an asset management business versus an investing business. That's right. That's right. Where do you hit that point? Where is the fund start to feel more like it's making money off of management fees versus scary? Eventually it does happen. I think it's just part of the how things develop and how funds grow over time. But I think it's really one of the things we look at is also like who gets the carry. And you have situations when it's only really a very few number of people in the fund that gets that. We don't like it. We like when it's widely distributed across the investment team and also support functions and others.

But yeah, I think it's hard to put a number on it. But I think anything above a billion of AUM, it's measurement fees, you know, play a huge role already, right? I'm curious. There's obviously franchises that have grown successfully that have been able to scale AUM and keep their returns. Founders Fund comes to mind, among other venture firms. What's the common thread between the funds that are able to scale and still generate alpha? My view would be that they keep their edge and they keep their focus and their strategy. So there's no strategy drift. They keep doing what they're good at doing. Sometimes they could go up the chain and do bigger ticket sizes.

That's one reason why fund sizes can grow. But usually, you know, I think those managers have the discipline of keeping with the same focus, the same strategy, and they just repeat that consistently. That's consistency is the critical variable here. So if they're doing a non-lead, a smaller check and seed, and suddenly they're trying to lead series A, that's almost like just a whole different business. Exactly. Or they say we're going to grow the portfolio size from 10 companies to 50 companies. You know, it's a very different, it's a very different strategy. There are different relationship with the companies, right? You know, if you have to re-underwrite them in the new strategy, as if almost you have an investment.

That's right. That's right. So you're bullish on emerging managers and even specifically fund ones while most LPs are not deploying in emerging managers today. Why are you so bullish? Research shows that the best performing funds are the fun ones. The problem is that there are many of them and only a few of them actually do well. And very few of them will get to fund two, three, four, and so on and so. So you do get the alpha, you do get the performance, but it's just hard to find them. I think one of the reasons why they work is because it's basically your own shot. If you're doing your fund one, it has to work. Otherwise, you don't have the...

It goes back to the alignment. The alignment, you know, usually they have very strong pipelines. That's one of the things I noticed with fund ones. They've been working on that idea for a number of years, usually. And they would have a very strong pipeline of very high conviction deals that they are ready to do and they just need to raise them on. Of course, that is the hard part for an emerging manager. But I think the pipeline is there.

The hungrieness is there. They're hungry. It has to work. It's their reputation on the line. And they are fully... line on terms of performance, right? Because usually there are smaller funds and what really matters is the carrying on the management fee. Some of the best venture funds ever were actually not venture funds. They were the personal investment funds of Mark Andries and David Sachs before

they became BCs. And one of the reasons for that is they had just come out of the startup network. So they were literally just investing into people that had worked with, that they had long track records of knowing how somebody would be as a portfolio of CEOs. And as you go from Fund One to Fund Two Fund Three, your network actually sometimes starts to age out. Tell me about that. You know, I don't have the experience of being in a VC fund myself, but you can see how that happens. You, of course, for a refund one, you take your best contacts, the best network you have, and as you said, those people inside up. Because, you know, if you think about venture, especially early stage, you're investing in a person. The idea might even change or pivot later on.

But the people are really, you know, they are really what will make sure that investment works. So I think you have a huge advantage as a first-time fund, knowing, having that network coming out of that network is another. So one of the strategies we look at is also managers there, although they are the first-time fund, but they are either coming from another fund or established platform, or as you said, they are coming from that startup ecosystem where they do have the network.

So they might not have an institutional track record, but they have a track record working out a previous fund so that has some attribution, or they've been angel investing, they have that tracker. Exactly. It's always tricky to very fond. that and to do the audit of the attribution. That's one of the things we look for.

You know, the best fun one performers are also the ones that have that history, either as an Android or as a part of a larger platform. I want to double click on that because a lot of people think a track record is a track record, but sometimes history is a little difficult to ascertain who owns what, whose track record is it? Was it the brand? Was it the manager? How do you go about asserting a manager's track record and really figuring out whether it's actually them that achieve these routines? turns. We were looking at a hedge fund, not venture, but yeah, you know, a hedge fund that had a 12-year track record, but 10 out of the 12 years, the gentleman was part of the family office and he was

running, you know, the same strategy inside the family office with very limited growth, but a phenomenal performance. And somehow part of his deal with the family office when he left was that he could take the track record and a full attribution, et cetera. And that was the key question we had, the diligence. Is this real or not? Was it him, really? Was it the strategy? is that the same that he's doing? Because then he did for two years on his own as a fund manager. And ultimately, he had a BDO audit report that was shared. And of course, those things can be fabricated.

We check with BDO itself if that was a real report, if it was really done. Of course, they couldn't tell us if the numbers were, you know, correct or not. It's all confidential. But at least they could tell us that, yes, this is a BDO report. It's not a fraud. So there was a real example where we went lots of steps to try to really verify and make sure, because the whole investment idea was predicted that that track record was real.

So this is one example. I think overall in VC and funds, we ask for the information. It's very hard to verify if the information given is real. Unless it's coming from, let's say, the person is coming from another fund and then you can't call and verify,

is that true that he works on this, this, this deal. So that happened once, we did it. But overall, we just have to take a face value whatever is given. Otherwise, we don't have that many resources as well to go and do all those verifications. I think that's a particular case of the hedge fund because we were not going to do a meaningful ticket.

We did an extra surmire there. 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 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. It's all probabilistic.

People, I think you have a hard time understanding that the world in general is probabilistic. You can never know anything for certain, even if it was there a track record. Maybe now they're in different stage of their life. Maybe they just have kids. There's so many variables. You're trying to come to the best possible answer. I've had many conversations with LPs about attribution. I actually think there is a right answer.

Most things are a little bit nuanced. I think if you go, I think the source of truth is the CEO of the portfolio company. Why? If you go to the CEO of the portfolio company, they're going to tell you, A, why they made decision who provided the value. So that another way, they're the least corrupted in the entire... I'll be surprised with that.

I was in a real-life situation where I was in a P-Fund. And we had this portfolio company with the CEO, and I was very close to him. And he was then given as a reference, you know, for reference checks for all their LPs, etc. Or other... In this particular case, it was another portfolio company that we were looking to acquire.

And he gave a very positive... feedback and I knew that he wasn't happy with how things were going. There was a lot of micromanagement on the PE side and then I asked him, why did you lie? Why didn't tell the truth, right? He told me because if I lie, it means that I did a bad deal, right? Why did I sell to this particular fund and you look bad on me that I chose to give a, you know, as a majority stake? And I thought, wow, that is that is true. It will look bad on him if if it says that you know, okay. So I think, yeah, you have to be careful.

We have to be careful. We really need to know the person, which in most cases is very difficult, right? I think references are the most underestimated aspect of alpha in investing. Why? Because they're boring. They're hard. We talked about this earlier.

But also a reference is not a reference. You could have two institutional LPs on a single call. Let's say there's a third party asking the questions, and they'll have two completely different reads on the reference. Sure. There's an art to it. True. But among family offices, the beauty of it is that we share a lot of things.

So we... And we're not competing with each other. We're not competing for deals. We're not competing for allocation in funds. And if you ask a family office, even if you don't know the CIO, CO very well, they will give you, I think, most cases, an honest answer. You're right. You might hear different answers for the same manager.

One likes, one doesn't, which makes it hard in many ways. But at least, you know, the network is so strong that people are very open to share and give their honest opinion. Double click on that. I think family offices to 90s. 99% of the world are this very opaque, secretive community of essentially billionaires. Talk to me about how family offices work with each other and where there are areas for collaboration. Is there areas where there's competition as well? There's this myth that family offices do club deals or invest together.

And I think this is really the minority of the cases. I think in most cases, the collaboration is purely sharing, you know, opportunities, things that they like or they don't like. Referencing is super powerful. and I think overall people are always very open to disclose it. I think it's very different, for example, with sovereigns, they don't share anything. But family offices are very open to share. And in a lot of cases, you know, I don't see cases of competition, to be honest, I think, because you might have that in families that like to do direct deals.

And, of course, you have limited capacity, you have limited access. But that's not what we do. So I think, you know, that could be one situation where there is competition among family offices, but in general there isn't. You had this internal discussion, whether you should do direct deals or not. You decide not to do direct deals. Why is that?

We see direct deals not as an asset class, but as a capability. So unless you have the capabilities to do it, you know, you shouldn't do it because it takes a lot of effort. It takes a lot of bandwidth across, you know, among the team. And because they are single name checks,

you have to size the check very well. So usually you have to do smaller checks. And that creates a problem because you, You do all this work, and then at the end you write a very small check. So we rather do funds where you have also a lot of work to diligence. But once a fund is selected, then you can size it well. The other thing is the complexity to monitor and track a direct deal. It is very hard to get the information from the company.

It is very hard to aggregate those things to keep a close eye on it. When we do, for example, any audit. We need to have the numbers for December. And there's always a pressure. like when is the other coming out, et cetera. So directs are a headache in that sense. You have no control also around the exit timing. Usually they always say, oh, it's going to be the next 16 to 24 months.

And it never happens. It never happens. I used to say you're 18 to 24 months, but I guess it's now 16. Yeah, it's tough. It's tough. And you have such a small stake that you don't even have access to the company itself. So in our case, we only do directs if there's a real reason for us to be on the cap table. And in most cases will be, and we've done one or two where the company actually wanted to

expanding Dubai or the U.E. You have a right to win us. Exactly. Because, and especially what we say, especially Middle East, is that if a deal gets to my desk, is because it came to all the desks in New York and L.A., Miami, and Europe and London. In the Middle East, UAE, Saudi,

they're really focused on being the first call. Do you think that's evolving now that the Middle East is getting the first call on these because of the size of the checks, or do you think they're still kind of second to the U.S.? I think they're second. I think maybe the exception could be the sovereign funds because they have a lot of,

firepower and they have a lot of capital to deploy big checks. So I'm sure they are getting first calls for some of the strategic deals and you see that happening, right? But family offices definitely not. Definitely not. Speaking of fund investing, you just recently changed your investment policy to invest in the final close only. Talk to me about that. This came out of our portfolio four years ago, you know, when I joined the firm at zero private markets allocation, right, only real estate, but nothing on P.E. Venture, private credit. And we start deploying. And what we notice is that a lot of the funds will take a long time to come to their sort of fundraising end, right, the final close. During this entire period, they use

facilities or, you know, and they will not call any capital. So there was one particular case, where for two years we had 5% of the capital call, basically just to pay the measurement fee. And the principles, the mentality is like once you make an investment, the money goes out of the door, you start accumulating, you know, the returns, you get distribution, et cetera, et cetera. And of course, when you pitch, let's say a private equity fund, you're saying, oh, you know, we're going to get 20% IRA. And then when you report on a monthly basis,

and you see that, you know, the IRA is minus 5, minus 10, of course, it's the J curve, which is in itself a hard one to explain. 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 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 foreign. form, 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 Northwestregistered 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 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 Northwestregisteredagent.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. Let's be honest, subscriptions out of fast, streaming services, apps, memberships you forgot you even signed up for, and canceling them is usually a pain. That's where Experian subscription cancellation comes in. Experian can take the pain out of canceling subscriptions by

handling it for you. You just keep the ones you want and put money back in your pocket. Over 200 subscriptions are cancelable. You can also save money by letting Experian negotiate the rates on your bills. Keep an eye out for new deals and saving opportunities and negotiate directly with your provider on your behalf. And the best part, you keep 100% of your savings. Get started with Experian app today. Results will vary. Not all bills or subscriptions are eligible.

Savings not guaranteed. Paid memberships with a connected payment account required. See Experian.com for details. And to accept. You must feel it. It's hard to internalize until you feel it. Exactly. And for someone they never done it before,

they start asking questions, is the manager doing anything at all, right? Are they just sitting on the commitment and not doing deals? And then you explain, no, they are, but they are borrowing money. Why are they borrowing money for that? Why are we, I'm paying interest on this? And again, the capital, it creates a cash drag in the portfolio because we have that cash, let's say, we commit 10 million. You know, you'd think about, okay, two and a half million a year.

Yeah, I should keep this four year, four year capital costs cut. Exactly. So you, this two and a half million, I cannot have to sort of keep almost like cash or quasi like gosh. Why is that, you know, can't you put that money and put it in public securities? Typically, you have 10 days for a capital call to calling your money. Why not just put it into SMP 500 or MSCI or something like that? The reason is because we have an SAA, right, a strategic asset allocation where we have an equity target. Our case, for example, is around 25%. And, you know, if I take this $2.5 million and put in there, you know, that $25 will go up. So I would be

unbalanced. You'll be more over-allocated. Exactly. And again, We have our equity allocation, so I don't want to have to use that cash, the committed capital for that. So that's why we change to final close, because then at least in most cases, very quickly, you get that sort of 25, 30% of the fund out of the commitment, out of the door very quickly. The other advantage is that because we are targeting, you know, a high concentration on private markets, the quicker we deploy the better. So velocity is also important to us. You want your capital out work.

Exactly. We like, for example, every green funds, they are beautiful because of that, because you grow, rate. There's one capital call. Also, manager capital calls another headache. Yes. So you have one capital call, the money is out of the door, and you start, you know, accumulating. That's one reason why we also been doing a lot of evergreen. I've had pension funds on a podcast that are investing into evergreen funds because of this cash drag. Yeah. They realize that that two, 300 basis points they could get per year is actually alpha. And if you think in a long term, because you're 100% invested, if you think about a 10 year period, you know, comparing to the traditional fund where,

you know, you at best, on average, 60% invested. Uh, you need to, you need to, you need to a much lower IRA on the evergreen. I think the metrics are like to get a 2x, you need a 9% or 10% IRA versus a 20 in the traditional private equity fund. So it's a huge, half the, half the IRA get to the same like. This goes really at the heart of the incentives of private equity and to somewhat venture managers, which is they want to boost their IRA, which is why they're using the strategy.

They're not doing it to annoy the LP. They're doing it because they want to show a higher RR when they go out to fundraise for their next fund. That's right. That's why they use it. That's why, you know, IRR for us is not a key variable. It is important. But we like Moik. We like, you know, the DPI, of course. You know, track record on that is very important. You know, you have situations where you have funds, you know, back to the VC world where, you know, it is a 27, you know, 2018, 2020 fund with zero DPI. You know, it's a massive red flag for us. You know, how can in seven years they couldn't distribute a single dollar? It's not a good sign. Right. I had Alex Ambrose from the Allicator Training Institute. He was formerly at Cleveland Clinic and a bunch of other institutions. And he gave me the stat, 50%, 50%, 50% five zero funds of the 2000 vintage are under 0.1xdb. 5.0.

So you have a 50, you have heads or tails, whether your fund that you invested six years ago has returned less than 10%. Yeah, exactly. What are the downstream consequences for endowment makes sense. They have to pay tuition. They have to do all these things. Where are the downstream consequences for family offices when they don't get their capital back? We're fortunate that we have capital inflows coming every year. The family still has, you know, they still own operating businesses that generate dividends.

I'm not involved in those, but they do get this inflows every year. So we don't have a problem that, you know, we have to have a self-funded portfolio, which I think most of the endowments have. Yeah. So in that sense, we're okay. We are patient, you know, we don't have that pressure that we need a DPI to fund uncommitted, you know, to fund the commitments. But I think for someone that, you know, endowments are classic case where by design, they built a self-funded portfolio, they're definitely in trouble, right?

If their capital doesn't come, they cannot, they can- The Davis-Wenson-YL model assumed a 25% DPI per year. 20-24, we had 9%, 20%, which was the lowest, I think, since 2000. 2025 we had between 9% and 10%, it's not yet finalized, and that's the exact, that's a new. So two and a half times less liquidity than the model suggested, and that's just having all these problems in terms of liquidity, in terms of asset allocation. So it's a huge... It creates a good opportunity on secondaries.

Yes, tell me about that. It's something we like as well as a diversifier, but also because we started investing four years ago, it's great to have access to secondary so we can get it 2000, 2000, you know, sort of not 2000, 2020, 2021, 18, 19 vintages, which again, secondary is also have a role in terms of generating DPI quicker. So we like that as well. So it's an opportunity. We like it.

It's a huge diversifier for our portfolio. I obviously love venture, but a strategy is only as good as you could apply. And if you're not getting DPI to year eight, the worst thing that happens is people stop investing to venture. The venture is something that you have to stay in. If you're in a good fund and you miss a fun, you're in the penalty box forever. So having that mitigated J-curve could really keep you in the game,

which is the most important thing. That's right. That's right. Speaking of venture, you have a bar-belled approach to investing in venture. Tell me about your investment. One side, we like early stage, either through emerging managers or established managers as well. And we like the pre-IPO. So one is really for the true potential venture, like a lot of potential,

investments that you have from early stage that can really return the fund. And on the other hand, we have this pre-IPO approach where you're investing companies that don't have the market fit, the challenge, they're already generating revenue. That's a lot of times profitable. The cream of the crop, kind of like the private max. That's true. It's also a great way to, you know, as you're thinking that the stakeholders I have to manage, a lot of them like direct deals.

They all want to be in the exciting names, you know. SpaceX, Anthropic, as an AI. You name it. So doing a pre-IPO fund is a great way to get access to all of those, you know, with a diversify, you know, approach and having, you know, hopefully, you know, fund life, which is much shorter. You're telling me you invested in a fund with a two-year investment period and a six-year... Four-year.

Four-year. Four-year. Four-year. Four-year. Do you see the venture capital model changing from a 10-year to an eight-year? The early stage is very difficult, right? It's going from 10 to 14. Yes, it's actually going the opposite way.

So I don't think it will. I don't think it will. I think it's one of the challenges is exactly that companies are staying private longer. So the pre-IPO or the grow funds or they have the winner's funds, those sort of vehicles, I think these are going to grow. Because these companies are not going to the public market and people want to have access to them. So there are ways to get this access. of course they're all access constraints. So I think that would be something that I see a trend of more and more funds in that space.

So either the co-co invests, the winners, the pre-IPOs, etc. And you're accessing early-stage managers in a fund-of-fun. So Fun-of-Fund is somewhat of a dirty term and implies you don't have access. But you've chosen to use a fun-to-fund around Fun-Wans. Tell me about that. Again, going back to the idea that, you know, fun-ones do perform better, but it's hard to find them. You know, who is best

place to find them? Someone that has access and knows a lot of them and look at hundreds of them and then choose the best 10, 12, 15 funds. So that was the approach we took and said, listen, this is an elegant solution for that.

We have one fund, so it's one capital call cycle, et cetera. You, of course, you have to trust the manager that you'll be able to sort of source or identify who will be the winners. But then you have access to,

15 different funds that you never invest by yourself so many. So I thought there was a good way to get that sort of early stage. Kind of have this double-edged sword and fund ones where they are the best returning, but sometimes they do really bad, sometimes they do really good. You have the spikiness with a fund you're able to flatten that and capture some alpha hopefully. Yeah, that's the goal. That's the goal. We'll see how it goes. It's early, I was still a few years in. So it's performing well, but it's, you know, you need to wait at least seven years to get a good picture.

So we'll see how it goes, but it was one strategy that we thought very contrarian to do both a fund of funds with a merger. It's a low ego way to capture alpha. A lot of people, to your point, the opposite of fun of fun is doing the direct deal, doing the SpaceX and the 2 in 20 SPV and the 2nd 20 SBV. That's very sexy, probably not the best strategy. Doing a fun of funds is not very sexy. It's a humble way, but it's a way to capture early stage alpha. You came from the private equity world and you joined Almula four years ago, which is single family office. What have been your learnings about being the CEO and CIO of family office?

I underestimated how challenges to manage your different stakeholders, because you have very different stakeholders, very different interests. Family and money are things that don't make so well, to be very honest. And there is a whole investment part is the classic CIO role. But the CEO role is quite interesting as well. You have to think about their philanthropic efforts, their art collection and how you manage that, things that I never done myself in the past. So you learn a lot, which is great. Governance is a huge topic, right? You have to, you know, a family office, particularly in my case, it was already established,

but they didn't have a proper governance framework. How many generations are you dealing with? So I'm dealing with two. And there is an ongoing effort to engage the next gen, the third generation. But they're still high school, undergrad, age. So we started engaging with them. And it was also very interesting. But definitely like two generations is the-

Taking off your Almola hat, just in general for single family offices, what are some best practices for establishing the best governance? You have to start from having a very clear mission and vision. You won't believe how many family offices don't have that. Why do you exist? Exactly. Why exist? What do you want to achieve? It's so important to have that clarity. What's your goal? Are you looking for capital preservation?

You're looking for growth? Are you looking, do you need the money for your expenses? Right. So there's so many things which are so important. And I think the governance, it's very important to, it was interesting. Someone told me that and it was true that the most important is not where you get to, but the journey to get there. You could have beautiful documents and bylaws and charters and all of it. But the most important is engaging the family on building these documents. And I remember telling them that, you know, you need consensus.

And consensus doesn't mean you agree to something, but you accept it. Yeah. Right. Disagree and commit. And it's so important. And the only way to do that is by bringing the family together through, you know, extended periods of time, through extended length of time so that they can digest, mature, reflect, and then you build the consensus around it because, you know, for sure,

not everyone will be happy with the outcome. But at least because they were part of that journey, they would accept it, right? And this is so important because, you know, a lot of family offices, the main goal is that they will keep that for generations to come. And it's not usually what happens. So governance and building that process together as a family is so vital. And in our case, we spent nine months doing that. And it was worth it. Tell me about that process.

Started with the vision and mission, you know, the very basic. How do you articulate that? What do you want, et cetera? What do you see yourself? And then, you know, structuring that, you know, we did a whole new structure of the IFC foundation in EEO. And we created a family office as a separate entity. that manages the assets of the foundation. So that, again, was a whole effort.

And then you have to create your charter, your bylaws, your board, your family council, your investment committee. None of that was properly established before. And the process, as I said, is really bringing the family members together, you know, the key, you know, the first and second gen that need to be on board and build the consensus that this is how it's going to work. This is how it's going to work on the event of succession. Nobody likes to talk about it.

But it's the one thing that you know for sure is going to happen. Succession sooner or later will happen and how are you going to deal with it. And so we, you know, it was quite an interesting, you know, and you as an outsider, you have an advantage that, you know, you're not part of the family. I think it would be very difficult to do just among family members. But having an outsider facilitating the process, I think, helps. There's obviously challenges in working within a family office, just like there is an endowment, pension fund foundations.

If you look at the capital markets and you're competing with other types of LPs, where do family offices have an edge? Family offices, I think they are more patient and they are more flexible and they are easier to deal with as well. So I think those three things are very important. So starting from the last one, you know, our diligence process is much simpler. You know, we don't have consultants. We don't have their policies going with 200 DDQ questionnaire and all of that.

So I think it's a lot easier to deal with a family office than a large institutional investor. Then on the flexibility, again, we're very flexible. Like we, you know, from a geographical point of view, from a strategy point of view, you have institutional that they just want to do German real estate. So if your fund, there's one deal outside of that. Oh, no, no, no, you're not. So I think that flexibility is something that we have. And I think it's valuable for managers.

And I think the long term, the patience, I think it's also something that family offices do have. It's a long-term patient capital. It doesn't mean that we'll be accepting underperformance for a long time. But the view and every manager we invests, we're not just investing in that particular fund, but the idea is to invest for the longest term possible, right? In the next fund and the following and so on and so forth. We don't want to have too many managers. We don't want to have, you know, too much complexity in the portfolio.

So if you find a manager that delivers in that strategy, you know, usually at maximum, we're going to have two managers per strategy. So that's how we see it. If you go back to 2008 and just graduated London Business School, and you could give Younger George one piece of timeless advice that would have either accelerated your career or helped you avoid costly mistakes. What would be that one piece of advice?

Focus on your strengths and work with people that you like and that complement your strengths. You know, absolutely so important. Life is so short. Don't work with people you don't like. You know, don't try to, you know, force yourself to be good at things that you're just not naturally good at. I think that would be my advice.

People have this tendency to focus on their weaknesses. Do you think that's downstream of the school system? What is that? I think it is. I work for BCG and it's the typical case. Like even in the interview, let's say I'm interviewing you, David, and you're not very good at maths. We have this one of the criteria, your numbers, etc.

What I'm going to do in the next round? I'm going to tell the interviewer for the next round that, oh, he's not very good at math, so you have to scrutinize his maths. And if you don't do well, it's a fail. So, and when you join is the same thing. You know, you have your strengths. You have your weaknesses. The focus is always like, oh, okay, we have to fix those weaknesses.

Instead of, okay, how can we take advantage of your strengths? And I think that's the corporate world. I think academic world is similar as well, right? And it's a big mistake, yeah, it's a big mistake. I think it should definitely, people can go much further if they focus on the strengths. And of course, and the beauty of being aware of your weaknesses is that, as I said, You work with people that can complement your weaknesses, and then together you achieve much more. As you get older, you start to have more confidence, you start to accept your weaknesses.

And for a while, it's hard to accept them, and you're afraid that somebody might be like, you're not good at math, even if you're good at something much more valuable. We also realize, like, our limits, I think, as you get older. Yeah. And you have to deal with that, right? What is your superpower? My superpower. Or, you know, I think I have a very, you know, I have a high emotional intelligence. I think that helps me a lot in building connections and working with people.

I can really understand the other side. And I'm not the bully, the pushy, the alpha that tries to always get my way. And not a zero-sum thinker. Yeah. Well, on that note, thank you, IConnections, for hosting us. Thank you so much, George, for coming on and looking forward to doing this again soon. Pleasure. If you found this conversation valuable, please click.

follow how I invest so that you don't miss the next episode with the world's top investors.