Podcasts about Cambridge Associates

In this episode of Private Markets 360°, we welcome Bob Belke, Managing Partner at Lovell Minnick, whose 26-year career began at TIAA and led him to help grow Lovell Minnick in its early days in 2000. Bob discusses what makes lower middle market buyouts different - especially the value of specialization, early outside institutional involvement, and a disciplined approach to investing - and how private equity has evolved over the past two decades. He also shares insights on today's market dynamics, the liquidity needs investors face, and why consistent value creation remains essential in a highly competitive environment. More S&P Global Content:  S&P Global, Cambridge Associates, Mercer Private Markets Performance Analytics    Credits:  Host/Author: Chris Sparenberg and Jocelyn Lewis Guests: Robert Belke, Lovell Minnick Producer: Georgina Lee Published With Assistance From: Feranmi Adeoshun, Kimberly Olvany   www.spglobal.com www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence

In this episode of The Private Equity Podcast, Alex Rawlings speaks with Daniel Pianko, Co-Founder of Achieve Partners, about Achieve's talent-led investment strategy, its $465 million exit of Optimum, and how the firm reached top 5% performance for DPI in Cambridge Associates' US buyout benchmark.Daniel shares how Achieve Partners invests in businesses where the biggest growth constraint is access to trained talent. Rather than simply competing for experienced hires, Achieve builds apprenticeship-style programmes inside portfolio companies, creating new talent pipelines that drive revenue, margin expansion, retention, and differentiated value creation.The conversation explores the relationship between private equity firms and operators, why data-driven decision-making matters, how Achieve partners with universities and underrepresented talent pools, and why doing good and generating alpha do not need to be in conflict.Key Takeaways:Private equity firms should empower operators to challenge assumptions with data.Achieve invests where talent shortages can be solved through focused training.Apprenticeships can increase capacity, margins, retention and scalability.Optimum shows how training pathways can unlock healthcare IT growth.Strong impact and strong returns can reinforce each other.Timestamps:00:03 – Introduction to Daniel Pianko and Achieve Partners00:29 – Daniel's career path and linking social impact with financial return01:52 – The mistake PE firms and portfolio companies make in the boardroom03:44 – How to avoid PE investors driving strategy without enough data05:10 – Achieve's unique strategy: investing where talent shortages constrain growth06:38 – Building apprenticeship programmes to solve supply-demand talent gaps07:08 – Daniel's Goldman Sachs training experience and how it shaped Achieve's model08:25 – Rebuilding the talent pyramid in lower middle market companies09:49 – Why Achieve focuses on business services, tech services, and healthcare services11:12 – Building talent programmes at the portfolio company level12:10 – Solving the gap between university education and first jobs13:04 – Why companies should stop searching for “purple squirrels”14:58 – Partnering with universities and building access to talent16:44 – The Optimum exit: $465 million sale to Infosys17:12 – Optimum's healthcare IT thesis and value creation plan19:00 – Building healthcare IT training pathways with universities and industry bodies20:56 – Challenges in expanding Optimum beyond its historic core22:24 – How Achieve reached top 5% DPI performance22:50 – Why Achieve sells when the underwriting target is achieved23:42 – How training programmes create a natural exit point25:07 – Aligning impact with alpha creation27:31 – Talent arbitrage, underrepresented communities, and overlooked graduates29:40 – Why solving major social problems can create superior returns30:08 – Daniel's recommended podcasts, books, and shows31:57 – How to contact Daniel Pianko32:23 – Closing remarksRaw Selection partners with Private Equity firms and their portfolio companies to secure exceptional executive talent. We focus on de-risking executive recruitment through meticulous search and selection processes, ensuring top-tier performance and long-term success.

Dave White is the founder of Wayfinder, a boutique advisory firm serving families and institutions across portfolio construction, manager selection, and governance. Before Wayfinder, he spent nearly twelve years at Cambridge Associates, conducting 400+ manager meetings annually across every major asset class.In this episode, Dave breaks down what he actually looks for after thousands of manager meetings, why the corners of the market matter more than what's in demand today, and what most families get dangerously wrong about risk, governance, and generational wealth transfer.⭐ Sponsored by Podcast10x - Podcasting agency for VCs - https://podcast10x.comWhat we cover:- Why the hit rate on truly great managers is 1-2% even after 400 meetings a year- The difference between time-weighted and dollar-weighted returns — and which one actually tells the truth- How to get a manager off script and why that's the only meeting that matters- What "stronger dollars, not faster dollars" means for GPs building a durable LP base- Why 70% of third-generation wealth disappears — and the governance fix most families skip- The crypto disconnect: institutions are building on it, but LP dollars have dried up- Why concentration, not diversification, is how the largest wealth in the world has always been created- What the first conversation with a newly liquid founder should actually be about- How AI is changing the pace and depth of manager due diligence right nowLinks:Wayfinder website - https://wayfinder.ioConnect with Dave White - https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-s-white/Connect with Prashant: https://linkedin.com/in/choubeysahabSubscribe to VC10X newsletter - ⁠https://vc10x.beehiiv.com⁠Subscribe on YouTube - ⁠https://youtube.com/@VC10X ⁠Subscribe on Apple Podcasts - ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/vc10x-investing-venture-capital-asset-management-private/id1632806986⁠Subscribe on Spotify - ⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/7F7KEhXNhTx1bKTBFgzv3k?si=WgQ4ozMiQJ-6nowj6wBgqQ⁠VC10X website - ⁠https://vc10x.comTimestamps:(00:00) - The Disconnect in Digital Asset Adoption (00:22) - Differentiating Exceptional Managers from Great Storytellers (00:33) - Biggest Misconceptions VCs Have About LPs (00:45) - A Contrarian Belief: The Power of Concentration (01:03) - Introduction to Dave White and Wayfinder (02:34) - What's Broken in Traditional Wealth Management (04:54) - How to Find Underserved Corners of the Market (07:58) - Working with Families on Non-Investment Fronts (09:05) - Timeless Principles for Investing Across Asset Classes (10:51) - Signals of a Truly Exceptional Manager (13:36) - What Limited Partners *Actually* Care About (15:07) - Why Some Families Thrive Across Generations (and Others Don't) (18:15) - The Critical Role of Involving the Next Generation (20:40) - The First Portfolio Conversation for a Newly Wealthy Founder (23:12) - "New Wealth" vs. "Old Wealth": Different Approaches to Investing (25:05) - The Consequences of Underinvesting in Governance (30:04) - Differentiating Factors for Successful Generational Wealth Transfer (32:18) - The Evolving Role of Family Capital in the Next Decade (34:02) - Manager Evaluation in the Age of AI (37:24) - The Single Biggest Factor for Long-Term Investment Outcomes (38:57) - The Future of Family Offices: What Top Investors Will Do Differently (40:32) - A Contrarian Belief: The Case for Concentrated Portfolios (43:15) - Where to Find Dave White OnlineNew episodes live every Tuesday & Thursday.

In this episode of Private Markets 360°, we welcome Matt Harvey, Global Head of Middle Market Direct Lending at PGIM. Matt discusses the dynamic landscape of private credit, explaining PGIM's core philosophy. He highlighted the importance of their geographic allocation strategy, the evolving investor ecosystem and the necessity of educating increasingly sophisticated clients.   More S&P Global Content:  2026 Private Equity and Venture Capital Outlook Report S&P Global, Cambridge Associates, Mercer Private Markets Performance Analytics    Credits:  Host/Author: Chris Sparenberg and Jocelyn Lewis Guests: Matt Harvey, PGIM Producer: Georgina Lee

In this episode of Private Markets 360°, we welcome Kurt Nye, CIO and Managing Partner at MAI Capital Management. Having helped grow MAI from a $2 billion boutique to roughly $70 billion in assets under management, Kurt shares his insights into how private market investing is evolving from an institutional-only allocation to a core component of wealth client portfolios. He discusses the importance of education and transparency, setting expectations around the J curve, the role of secondaries in smoothing returns and more.   More S&P Global Content:  2026 Private Equity and Venture Capital Outlook Report S&P Global, Cambridge Associates, Mercer Private Markets Performance Analytics    Credits:  Host/Author: Chris Sparenberg and Jocelyn Lewis Guests: Kurt Nye, MAI Capital Management Producer: Georgina Lee   MAI Capital Management disclaimer: Any investment in private placed securities entails a high degree of risk, including the risk of loss, and they may not be suitable for all investors. Please consult your legal, tax and/or investment professional before making any investment decision.  

In this episode of Private Markets 360°, we welcome Jeff Diehl, Managing Partner and Head of Investments at Adams Street Partners. With over two decades of experience in the private equity sector, Jeff shares his insights into today's market trends, macroeconomic impacts, and the rise of retail access to private investments. He discusses the dynamics of hyperscalers in private credit, the discipline required in underwriting, the evolving expectations of LPs, and the rapid rise of the wealth channel. More S&P Global Content:  2026 Private Equity and Venture Capital Outlook Report S&P Global, Cambridge Associates, Mercer Private Markets Performance Analytics  Credits:  Host/Author: Chris Sparenberg and Jocelyn Lewis Guests: Jeff Diehl, Adams Street Partners Producer: Georgina Lee Published With Assistance From: Feranmi Adeoshun, Kimberly Olvany www.spglobal.com www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation And I think that’s the scariest piece. I mean, just to share some numbers, we in venture capital talk about vintages, right? Which year did your fund start in? Normally when you did your first close onto the fund, as we were saying before, close is when you get all your investors at that moment in time to come in and you do your first close so the next fund starts running. 2018 vintage funds, right? This is now almost 7 years ago. So you should start having— actually 8 years ago almost at this point in time. You should start already getting distributions or you start getting cash back if you’re a limited partner and investor in those funds, you should start getting cash back. Half of all 2018 vintage funds have returned $0 to their LPs. So they’ve had no distributions to their LPs. 2020 vintage, which was a very hot vintage, only 42% have begun any distribution. So 58% have distributed $0, right? 2021, only 25% have done any distributions. Now, I happen to have a 2018 vintage fund and a 2021 fund. My 2018 fund has already distributed over 3x net of fees in distributions, and my 2021 fund’s already over 10% distributed back in distribution. So we’re very proud of that. But in general, the numbers are awful. There’s no liquidity back to LPs. And to your point, that’s kind of a big deal because some of these funds have been going on for 7, 8 years, and where’s the liquidity going to come from? On the other hand, if you look at TVPI, so DPI is distributions to paid-ins cash on cash. But if you look at TVPI, which is total value to paid-in, which also includes the book value or the value that you’re marking it on your books, basically the paper value as we call it for the company, even on that, the median 2017 fund, so 2017 vintage fund has a TVPI, total value to paid-in, of only around 1.76x, which is well below what should be, which is sort of the 2 to 3x benchmark of a really good performing fund. So the median funds are doing very, very poorly overall. So if you add that to the fact of what’s happening and distributions are taking a long time, back to your point, Bertrand, it’s taking like— this should be a 10-year asset class, maybe 11, 12 years, and now it’s looking a little bit like a 15, to 18-year asset class, which is not what most limited partners sign up for. Part of this dynamic, I think, is that we’ve had tremendously overvalued private companies over the last few years, right? Secondly, these companies have just stayed private longer. And I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine, it’s like, hey, what’s this thing about companies are staying private much longer? Is there some dynamic around secondaries? And the reality is there is a dynamic around secondaries, right? Because if I’m a very large fund and I can get away with doing secondaries on my portfolio, I will get liquidity at some point, right? But someone else is stuck with private stock, which hopefully will IPO, but who knows, right? And so there’s this funny dynamic right now of because of secondaries, because of a couple of other things that are happening in the market, actually a lot of these startups are staying private for tremendous amounts of times, and some of them will IPO and they’ll be huge deals. Some of them might not and might not warrant the latest private valuations that they’ve exercised. And so there’s this tremendous noise that we’re seeing in the mid to late funnel of privately held companies where some are just waiting to be public. Some of them might not be able to go public at anything that is an up round versus private valuations that they’ve had in previous moments and in previous rounds.   Bertrand And obviously the 2 to 3x returns that funds are targeting, and obviously more 3x than 2x, I mean, that was good and nice if it’s a 10-year fund, but if it’s the same 3x for 15 to 18 years, it’s not at all the same rate of return annualized. So it’s a really, really, really big issue if you keep the return the same, but you extend the duration of the fund. Concerning going IPO, there is a lot of complexity going public, the IPO process itself, but also after that when you’re a public company. It changed how you can run the business. Some would argue that we have had an issue with more companies delisting than companies listing on the public market. So I think there might be also separate issues about the efficiency of the public market and maybe a need for change. We went very strongly in one direction for the public market, have post and run, but was it really ultimately the right thing to do? I’m actually not so sure.   Nuno Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, this is anecdotal, but when we tell prospective LPs at Chameleon about our returns, the last few funds, 2018, 2021, the first reaction is, “You must be lying, right? Surely you can’t have distributions already for 2021,” et cetera, et cetera. So clearly there’s almost a state of disbelief right now from limited partners. And liquidity does matter. So clearly you have to move forward. So how did we get to this point where we had this bubble 2021 all around that time space and now things don’t look so good. Well, the macro conditions have changed dramatically. I mean, rates when they were near zero, safer assets yield nothing or yield nothing. So basically you had to push capital into longer duration risk assets like venture capital. And so you had to push it. So the opportunity cost of capital also has fundamentally shifted. Obviously a 3x VC return in 15 years over 10 actually competes very poorly against 5% annual credit returns over several years. So there’s been a readjustment of stuff. And then the public equities in particular, the tech public equities have had a lot of volatility, but some of them have done extremely well, right? Chipsets, things like NVIDIA, the Amazons of the world, Alphabets, et cetera, et cetera. They’ve done very, very well. So why would I invest in a long-term illiquid asset that takes now longer to give me money back, and in some case doesn’t give me back, if I can invest just in public equities, and a variety of other things. The venture debt costs have increased dramatically. The burn rates that were sustainable back in the day with sort of the addition of venture debt, private credit, et cetera, now are overblown at this moment in time. At the end of the day, there’s been a lot of movements also overall in the pipeline in terms of valuations, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I would put a grain of salt into all the numbers I just told you. There still is a little bit of the haves and have-nots in startup land. Certainly in early stage where if you’re a hot AI company, you can get away with raising a Series C or $480 million. This is actually a true story. Series C, right? Not Series C, a $480 million at $4 billion pre-money valuation. Whereas if you are maybe in a space that’s less hot, you’ll have more difficulty in raising money at this point in time, might not be able to even raise a Series C, right? So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots happening on the VC side in early stage that has been really amplified by the macro regime and where we’re at, which is actively zero-rate era is done and now the new regime is quite different. And so I can get better returns by doing something else.   Bertrand Kind of makes sense. I mean, if you have some ways the SaaSpocalypse in the public market because there is that fear that AI is going to completely change the game for especially for the more typical software companies. Good luck raising private money to quote unquote just build traditional software companies. You cannot expect a warm embrace from the private market if the public markets are completely destroying that category. I’m not saying that this is there forever, uh, things might change over time, but for sure what’s happening on the public markets always have a very strong impact on the private market.   Nuno Indeed. So what’s happening in this relationship between limited partners and VCs, the general partners? Again, limited partners are the people that give venture capital firms and venture capital funds their capital to actually deploy. And they are a variety of different players, right? Could be endowments, like university endowments, pension funds, family offices, very high net worth individuals, fund of funds, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, in particular, if you look at the institutional investors, the endowments, the pension funds, the fund of funds, they have allocations that they do to different asset classes typically. And the feedback that we’ve received from the market is they are increasingly frustrated with what’s happening in terms of distributions. They’re not getting capital back. It’s like, I gave you capital 8 years ago, 9 years ago, 2017, 2018 vintages, and I’m not getting any capital back. So what the hell’s happening? On paper, it looks maybe the fund’s doing okay or it’s doing great in some cases, but where’s my money? And so that creates a little bit of wait-and-see kind of game on portfolio allocation. As we’re thinking through their re-ups, putting more capital into funds that they’re already actually put capital or putting in capital into new slots, into new fund managers that they want to put money into. They’re like, well, let’s wait and see. I want to get my money back or get some money back first before I redeploy it. Again, this is a little bit the haves and have-nots because we’ve seen, for example, a couple of top-end LPs in terms of returns that have a little bit the opposite problem, right? Because they are into funds that are performing extremely well. They actually are over that period and they want to actually redeploy. But to be honest, the average in the industry right now is a wait-and-see game. It’s like, I want to wait and see, which leads to what can only be characterized— I was hearing someone the other day, one of the top advisors in the LP community, saying this is the worst fundraising environment ever for venture capital. Not the last 20 years, 30 years, like ever, right? Since this became an asset class more institutionally in the late ’60s, early ’70s, Pulse Robo 2 as it was created, this is the worst fundraising environment ever. Oh, wow.   Bertrand And concerning TVPI, let’s not forget that typically it’s not mark-to-market. So the metrics in terms of TVPI, correct me if I’m wrong, you know, but the metrics in TVPI are based on typically the last fundraise. So if the valuation went down but there was no additional fundraise, we wouldn’t know by looking at the TVPI metrics. It will only be updated if there is a new Financing, equity financing, or an exit.   Nuno Yeah, normally most funds act like that. Some funds are a little bit more aggressive and do do mark-to-market, but normally funds would be conservative and say, hey, I’m being conservative, it’s whatever is the last known valuation of the company. And if there wasn’t a priced round, it’s a little bit more obscure than that, right, Bertrand? Because it might actually be the company has raised money on a note, or either convertible note or a SAFE note, and that wouldn’t count as a priced round. So I would say actually, even if it was a cap that’s below with a significant discount, I won’t recognize the assets as a down round. I won’t recognize the asset with a lower valuation because formally it wasn’t a price round. So it’s on the one hand conservative, on the other hand, it’s only relating to price rounds or exits to your point. So it’s sort of, you can be like, hmm, well, we opt to do that because we think it’s actually the most conservative route. Mark-to-market is extremely difficult to do. And who would do the mark-to-market for you, right? It’s like it’s some valuation firm, et cetera.   Bertrand I’m not saying a mark-to-market is easy, but I’m not sure I would call using the last valuation something conservative in the context that most startups will fail. So it’s not clear.   Nuno Well, in some cases it is, some cases it’s not, right? Depends on the startup situation, to be honest. Yeah, yeah.   Bertrand But yeah, at least that’s how it’s done. So for instance, to evaluate the impact of the SaaS apocalypse, it’s tough to know. We will have on the private market. I mean, we will see that in a few quarters. Because if companies still exist in that environment, if they still do additional truly price rounds after that, that’s when I will start to know.   Nuno I mean, just to share a little bit more data, like VC fund close time stretched to 15 months. Basically, it’s just taking a long time to raise money. It’s taking a long time to do your first close, get your fund running. When entrepreneurs complain to me that their fundraising is difficult, I always say, you have no clue how difficult it is compared to ours. First-time funds have collapsed. We had some numbers that only 77 first-time funds actually closed. I assume this is in 2025 versus 215 in 2023. So that’s a huge number. We did some internal analysis on our side and we did some analysis that emerging fund managers, emerging fund managers are normally people that are in their first one or two funds. Basically emerging fund managers gained some ground until 2017. Reaching by then a slice that was 63.7% of all capital raised in 2017. But since then, the capital deployed to emerging managers has been largely reduced to actually 24.2%, right? So it’s gone from 63.7% in 2017 to 24.2%. So this has been a culling of sorts on emerging managers and almost like a slaughterhouse of emerging managers. Compared to previous situations, which is obviously incredibly concerning if you’re an emerging manager starting your VC firm, et cetera, et cetera. So really tremendously problematic for those. We think capital’s not leaving VC. I think we see a lot of the institutionals saying— there’s some numbers as high as 33% of institutional investors plan to invest more in venture in the next 12 months. So I don’t think capital’s leaving VC. I think it’s really concentrating. We’ll come back to the concentration issue later in the episode. And part of that concentration comes from a topic that has been widely spoken in venture capital recently, which is differentiation. How do you differentiate in venture capital if you’re talking to a limited partner, right? How does my firm differentiate versus the firm next to mine? And that’s incredibly, incredibly challenging. Bertrand, what are your thoughts on that?   Bertrand Differentiation is always a question. I mean, if you’re an entrepreneur, Typically, you think fully about the best possible partner for your stage and for your type of business model. You want a VC who understands fully your business model, because if they don’t, then it’s going to be troubled down the line. But that’s true that another piece of the puzzle is that the best VCs help you get more visibility in terms of achieving potential customer deals, in terms of attracting the best talent. And that’s where VCs’ brand names can help. If you can say you have backing by some of the top, most visible names in the industry, and usually these are the mega funds because others have trouble to be as visible, then they have some sort of unfair advantage compared to others. So I can see that there is some level of concentration happening naturally, especially in the later stage from Series B onwards.   Nuno What Really Matters: Performance… Returns Yeah, I mean, we did some analysis internally about What are the top funds that invested in the top performing companies in early stage, Series C, Series A? And we looked at it by size of fund and the top performing normally are funds below $100 million, but in some cases very closely followed by funds between $100 and $500 million. And actually funds above $500 million, so $500 million to $1 billion and then $1 billion and above are actually tremendously underperforming. So this notion of the industry that says, well, the mega funds still see The top investments early on, because they still deploy in Series C and Series A opportunistically, in some cases even spray and pray if they have their own incubation and acceleration programs, is not true. Actually, we verified that over the last 12 to 13 years. It is not 12 to 13 years in vintage, right? So up to a 2021 vintage fund. So we went basically 12, 13 years back from there. And it’s not true. Actually, the most performing are 0 to 100 and then 100 to 500. And as I said, there’s 100 to 500 in a couple of years actually are a little bit better. Than the $0 to $100 million ones. So that’s the first thing that’s a conclusion. And actually, that’s not shocking. If we remember back in the day, Kleiner Perkins used to raise funds up to $600 million, Benchmark raised their $425 million funds. It seems like the sweet spot for a VC fund would be around $500 million at the top end, like maximum. And now somehow people are saying, well, I’m raising a $3 billion VC fund. It’s like, well, it can’t be a VC fund. The return profile is totally different, right? You can’t deploy that capital just based on early stage investing. And by the way, you’re not seeing the guys at early stage, all that you’re seeing, you’re going to make your returns in mid to late stage, right? Back to what we said at the beginning of the episode. So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots there. The big guys are raising more and more money, but they’re no longer venture capital. And I think limited partners that are a little bit more evolved, that are a little bit more conscious of this, that have been in the market longer, are realizing that shift. So it’s like if they want to have the alpha of venture capital, they need to deploy to the sub-$100 million funds or the sub-$500 million funds, right? That’s where they need to actually focus their VC capital. They can still deploy to mega funds, but they’re deploying to a different asset class. They’re deploying to a private equity, mid to late stage asset class, which looks maybe a little bit more like a growth fund or something like that. The second part of differentiation is the honest truth is most VC funds are like, I have proprietary network access, right? I’m ex-Stripe or I’m ex-Google or I’m ex-Facebook or whatever, and I have access to that. I mean, we know proprietary networks from that standpoint are no longer true. The whole thing that created Silicon Valley back in the ’70s of what I used to call the country club deals where there were a few people coming out of the big companies, the Fairchilds of the world, later on the Intels of the world, et cetera, et cetera, that made some money along the way that sort of bootstrapped their next companies, were well-known quantity to the existing VCs and raised money relatively easy on ideas, that doesn’t work anymore. Someone was telling me the other day one interesting thing that I wasn’t quite aware of, a lot of it had to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if you knew this, Bertrand, but like the fact that in California, it was sort of the Silicon Valley community sort of imposed this, we don’t sign NDAs thing and Boston continued signing it. And this whole NDA enforcement issue and non-compete, actually not the NDA thing, but more strongly that California did not enforce non-competes. I could leave Fairchild and start a company that magically was doing something that could be considered competitive to Fairchild. And that was sort of part of the acceleration actually of venture capital in California versus, for example, Boston, which was sort of hand in hand at the beginning.   Bertrand Yeah, I mean, I’m a big, big believer in California success coming from not enforcing or banning non-compete agreements. I think it’s a key part of the game. If you lock people into not doing something similar in the next 6 months to 24 months. And the industry has always been moving fast. So this is a significant time where you are blocked to do something very similar. I think it was really an issue. So I think it’s a key part of the game and it has been there. I don’t know how it started, but I think that non-enforcement of non-compete has been a key part of the success of California. I’m actually pleased to say that Washington State is going in the same direction. They are just signing a non-compete ban. And you might remember that at the federal level, I think in 2024, there was also a ban that was put in place to ban non-compete, but this has been reversed by the courts. So this is not there anymore. So that’s why we see a state like Washington State putting their own ban, and we might see more state by state moving in that direction. I think it was not helping at all, this non-compete. I mean, there is obviously stuff that needs to be done, like you cannot steal secrets, you cannot steal IP.   Nuno Yeah.   Bertrand Even stealing employees, there should be some restraints. We need to find the right balance, but you have to be careful there. That was key for the success of California, and I’m glad to see that this is a trend that’s going to go beyond California. And I hope most states will have a ban on non-compete.   Nuno Maybe just to close on the differentiation process, two things. One, I think there’s this notion When you talk to some LPs, that seems to be a little bit ingrained, some LPs that prefer specialized funds. We’ve also done some significant analysis internally and have talked to a couple of datasets other than our own, or people that own datasets other than our own, and the feedback has actually been not so fast. Actually, generalist funds over time cannot perform specialist funds. There seems to be a little bit of a sweet spot around generalist funds. We like to call ourselves multi-specialized at Chameleon, but ultimately from the perspective of specialized versus Generalist funds, the picture’s not as clear as specialized funds outperform generalists or generalists outperform specialized. We’ve seen there are pockets where actually generalists outperform specialized, in other pockets where specialized of a certain size can outperform generalists. So that’s one topic on differentiation that is a little bit broader. And then the final topic on differentiation, it’s really an industry that hasn’t innovated dramatically on where it creates the most value, which is really the picking stage, right? So it’s having great deal flow, very optimal, productive, efficient due diligence with very few resources and the ability to then get into those deals. That’s where most of the value is created. And then hopefully liquidating the asset if there’s an opportunity to do so at the right time, either through secondary trade sales or an IPO or something else. And what we’ve seen is the industry has innovated very little. I mean, the only thing I could point out in terms of core innovation at the top of the funnel has been the creation of the mega funds, the well-known funds, right? Like a16z, Union Square Ventures, et cetera, et cetera. But there needs to be more innovation on that cycle. And that’s why we certainly at Chameleon believe that the future is to have quant and AI-native VC firms that develop their own tooling, their own platforms. We have Mantis in our case that allow you to have this unfair advantage in how you source deals and how you do due diligence, how you get into the deals, et cetera, and how you take it to the next level. And we think that’s the beginning of the next stage is that the industry becomes more tech-enabled, shockingly enough, an industry that has made all its returns on tech or almost all of its returns on tech. That we need to be more tech-enabled ourselves. But I think the writing is on the wall there, and that will be a source of differentiation certainly over the next 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand One thing the industry has innovated somewhat and maybe could innovate even more is providing liquidity beyond trade sale and an IPO, because it’s clear that if VCs want more liquidity without waiting 18 years, you need that liquidity at different stage, not just when it’s time to do an exit, a full exit for the business. And for employees as well. I mean, it’s one thing to stay for a company for 4 years, which is your typical vesting. Maybe you extend that to 6 years, to 8 years, you have a great time at the company. But to think that maybe you have to stick around for 15 to 20 years in order to get liquidity on your stock options. I mean, that’s too much to ask for most people. I mean, people have a life, they have other things to do, other plans, they might want to move, they come at a different stage of life. So you need to provide them liquidity. The new game is we are not going to exit until 15 to 20 years, else it’s truly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but people will say, you know what, I’m going to go across the street, go work for Amazon or Google. I will have RSUs at best regularly that are liquid, and why bother? I mean, we need to find pathways to liquidity for both investors but also employees. There has been a change in that direction, but I think we need more of this change, and maybe not just reserved for the absolute biggest, most successful companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, but also us as well. Hopefully we can find a way.   Nuno Well, now we have these AI companies that actually grow so fast that they will IPO in one year. Now, isn’t that what’s going to happen? They raise They raised $500 million in Series C or $1.4 billion in Series C, and they’re going to IPO in 2 years. No? Is that not the new reality? I’m being facetious.   Bertrand At the same time, I mean, there are rumors that some of them are going to IPO this year. I mean, we talk about OpenAI, about Anthropic. I mean, OpenAI is quite old, but Anthropic is a relatively new business, quote unquote. So I think it’s a good time.   Nuno The Mega Fund Question So maybe it will be true after all. Moving to the next section, are mega funds still venture capital, Bertrand? Are they still venture capital funds?   Bertrand Yeah, I guess venture capital is a term that can encompass from small to very big funds. I truly don’t know. I mean, once you reach a growth stage, are you truly a VC fund? I don’t know. I think some of these definitions are kind of arbitrary from my perspective. What is clear is that you as a business need different providers of capital. And as we just discussed, you as a business, probably need to keep going and stay private for longer. One reason being, again, there is a tremendous cost to being a public company. There are some true strategic disadvantages. And at the same time, just practically, I mean, you need to get bigger and bigger in order to have a chance of a successful IPO. So you cannot just go IPO at a $500 million valuation. I mean, that’s like committing suicide, at least in the US market on NASDAQ. So my point is, you truly have no choice. You need to extend and If you need to extend, then you need to have capital providers that are there at later stage and therefore have more money. Is it still true venture capital? Is it true venture? I don’t know. At some point, it makes sense that from the startups to the capital providers, everyone adjusts to a reality where the life cycle is getting longer.   Nuno We don’t think it is. We don’t think mega funds are venture capital. We have actually some data that shows that they’re not in terms of actual returns. The alphas you can generate, the IRR that you can generate is actually not comparable. We did some analysis again with some of our datasets and from 2012 to 2022, so that’s the datasets that we used so that we had actual distributions and stuff we could take into account and so on and so forth. And looking at IRR, just to share some numbers in terms of IRR over those 10 years on sub-$100 million funds versus above $1 billion funds, the differences are incredibly stark. And this is true for global and US IRR, right? So just to quote some numbers in terms of average, sub-$100 million funds, global IRR of 22.9%, US IRR of 21.6% versus above $1 billion, 9.1% and 9.0%. Median IRR, if we just looked at median, 7.3% and 16.6% for sub-$100 million funds, 7.5% and 8.1% above $1 billion. Top quartile IRR, sub-$100 million, 31% versus 30.4% US IRR. And then above $1 billion funds, 14.7%, 15.5%. So it’s very clear if you sort of cut this in different ways, averages, medians, top quartiles, et cetera, over all these years that sub-$100 million funds are in a very different asset class than above $1 billion funds. They’re in different alpha that you can generate and so on and so forth. Now to the point you made, Bertrand, I don’t fully disagree with the point you made of the bigger funds should become bigger. I just think they’re becoming different things. Now, again, some of these funds will hide under the facts like, well, wait a second, we have all these assets under management, but they’re over different funds. Sequoia, we’re still raising small early-stage funds, $500, $600 million funds. And then we have larger funds for growth, et cetera, et cetera. Andreessen Horowitz, a little bit less clear what they’re actually doing. We heard that they’ve raised $15 billion across funds. I’m not sure if that’s the exact number at the end of the day. But the point is, if I’m a multi-asset class manager, like early growth, et cetera, et cetera, then it still applies what Nunu is saying. I’m still going after the $500 million, $600 million early-stage funds. Well, not so fast, right? Because you still have all this capital with managing general partners that are maybe across funds for which their incentives in particular, both carry and management fees are coming from the larger funds. Et cetera, et cetera. So there’s necessarily conflicts of interest. In many cases, the funds are just straight up big, right? And so they are above a billion. And so I don’t think a lot of these guys are in early-stage investing anymore, right? It may appear that they are, but I don’t think that’s where the returns necessarily are going to come from. And so if you are a limited partner, if you’re looking at your asset class allocation, again, you’re absolutely free to put money into mega funds because that’s the kind of asset class you want to play in. In terms of a blended private equity asset class that has a little bit of growth, a little bit of whatever, or actually a lot of growth, a lot of late stage, and maybe a little bit of early stage. And I want something that’s a little bit more blended, right? But if I still want the alpha venture capital, I need to deploy to funds that are early stage, right? And that’s like up to $100 million, up to $500 million. I think that’s my two cents on that topic. We see crossover things coming around, like guys who do both public and private markets. Again, that starts feeling a bit like a hedge fund. A lot of these funds have also become RAs, as we discussed earlier. So I feel the writing’s on the wall. The mega funds are going more and more after either some mechanism of edging or a mechanism that’s a little bit more blended in terms of private equity than classic venture capital.   Bertrand Yes, I think a few things. One, if you’re an LP, I can imagine that dealing with multiple $100 million funds might be more difficult. You, you need to know the partners, you need to have some background, uh, visibility. You need potentially to change regularly of VC investments. So I can see some level of simplicity if you just focus on the bigger ones, especially if you have a lot of assets you have to put to work. Another piece of the puzzle, I would guess that the bigger funds are able to return money faster because they are at later stage of the cycle. So instead of that 15 to 18 years, maybe they are more in a 5 to 10 year range, while the smaller funds being there more early might be the one who are taking longer to deliver. So I can see that Yes, there is an IRR picture, but there is also time to liquidity that is not the same. So that can probably also influence. And in terms of crossover PE hybrid model, I mean, for sure we have seen some of the public equity investors doing crossover, meaning going into private equity firms like Coatue, like Tiger Global and others. And for companies that are preparing for IPO, there is a lot of value to work with these firms because they have very good visibility and understanding of the public markets. And their presence in the cap table is also a sign of quality, typically for public market investors. So there is a lot of value and logic for them to be there on both sides of the puzzle. But again, the fact that firms keep delaying IPOs, that the market is not so much startup-friendly, makes this model a bit more difficult. But personally, I think there is value there.   Nuno Yeah, I think on the mega fund, just so that I’m not boo-booing everything, I mean, but there’s definitely angles in terms of the asset class that make a lot of sense. And there’s the scalability of the model. The ability to go after Series B, Series C, as well as mid-stage, as well as late-stage, even secondaries over time, to your point, in some cases even public equities. And that level of skill I think matters. We’ve also seen, as we’ve known, we won’t mention any brands, but people will know who they are, that late-stage hedge funds and investors, even if they’ve done okay-ish in growth in private equity, don’t necessarily do well in venture. So it’s clearly a very different asset class, right? So once you start getting venture teams together, The returns are not quite the same. Actually, sometimes they’re not even quite the same as the growth investments. So clearly they’re very good at the growth side, but not so good in early stage. But definitely there is a case for it. The Case for Smaller…Rightsized Funds But if we switch gears maybe to the small, or I would call right-sized funds, maybe just to quote a couple of numbers and then open up the discussion. Small funds do seem to outperform larger funds. There’s a lot of data in the market that shows some of that dynamic outperformance frequency. All the Very historical numbers from Cambridge Associates from 1981 to 2010. 19 out of 30 vintages were won by sub-$150 million funds. We did our own analysis as I was sharing before. Funds between $0 and $100 won most years between around 2010 and 2021. And the years that they didn’t outperform in terms of investing in the top-performing companies in early-stage Series C, Series A, they were outperformed by the $100 to $500 million funds. The $500 to $1 billion funds and $1 billion or above were never even in the same league in terms of performance, of having identified those top performers in terms of quantity over those early-stage investments. Top 10 funds by vintage, 2004 to 2006, 2016 numbers. Top 10 funds, 73% were sub-$100 million. 2004 to 2016, top 10 funds by vintage, 73% of those were sub-$100 million. So there seems to be a little bit of a case that actually smaller funds, sub-$100 million, sub-$500 million in some cases, are outperforming the larger funds over time. Now, these funds are complex in and of itself. The positive of it is small fund GPs like myself, we are deeply invested in our own funds. We’re not there to just make management fee monies. I mean, we’re not making $1 million, $2 million a year in management fees of salary ourselves, like some of the larger funds. So we are there to really get the carry and be less focused on management fees. And so I think there’s a little bit of alignment around that and really taking that kind of perspective on portfolio construction and liquidation, being also more aggressive on the individual time that we spend with our startups. On the negative side, obviously a lot of these smaller funds, not the case of Chameleon, but others out there are single GPs, very little teams or very small teams. And so it’s sometimes difficult to actually do a lot for portfolio companies as well. And this is where the mega funds, for example, a16z notably would say, hey, we have 600+ people that can support you, right? On market development, business development, communications, talent recruiting, all this stuff. Question mark whether that’s the right way to do it in terms of operating model, if technology is not a better way of supplying that value back to your portfolio companies, or if there’s no better way of doing it. But still, that’s one of the appeals of actually dealing with a larger mega fund if you’re a startup, right? That they will have the resources, also the financial resources to put more capital in you. But also, again, if there’s entrepreneurs listening to this right now, and hopefully there are, it’s a two-edged sword, right? Because if you have Andreessen Horowitz putting money in you, or NEA, or General Catalyst, or whatever, putting money in you on a Series C and then not doubling down on the Series A or the Series B, there will be questions, right? Because like they have the capital, they have other funds, so why the hell are they not putting more money in? Um, so, so it’s a little bit of a two-edged sword.   Bertrand Yeah, I think that one is a pretty big one. And on top of it, as we discussed, some of these big firms have multiple funds managed technically by different teams. So you might have convinced the early-stage teams, they have investors, they’re happy, but you don’t convince the growth-stage firm. As you say, it might raise questions because people might think that there is some communication between the early-stage team and the growth-stage team. So why the heck are they not deciding to invest? And as we also discussed, even worse possible situation, what happens if the growth-stage team has invested in your competitor? It’s even more trouble. So I think trying to understand how firms behave, what’s the reputation of the firm, what’s the reputation of the partner you are working with, I mean, can have tremendous importance and impact. When it’s time for you to work with a firm.   Nuno Indeed. I mean, at the end of the day, we still believe that the smaller fund— we at Chameleon discuss the notion that our limit should be $500 million per fund, right? And that’s the logic of it. We think that model is the model that works well in venture capital. We do recognize, as I said before, why mega funds keep raising more and more money, right? It becomes a harm’s race at that end of the market. As I said, probably a slightly different asset class, or if not a significantly different asset class as well. So seeing a little bit both sides of the market, I mean, we often compete with the mega funds, but honestly, a lot of the mega funds are kind to us and they let us in. And this whole notion of elbows out, we haven’t felt it that much in the market. And people see our value at the table. And in many cases, I, I do see the larger funds more and more seeing the value of smaller funds coming in on the same rounds and even in some cases co-leading early stage rounds like Series C. So it’s not like elbows are out everywhere across the board. So I don’t mean to say this is like an all-out war between small funds and big funds and the small funds need to win or the big funds need to win. I think actually there’s a lot of potential for coexistence. My point is more that the asset classes and the returns are quite different over time, and that’s how I would think through it. And if you’re an entrepreneur, you should think about that as well, right? What are the implications of taking money from certain funds versus others in terms of the expected returns, expected time allocated to you? For example, if you’re not doing very well as a as a company, right? Will the big funds spend the same amount of energy on you if you’re not doing great and all of that? So it’s a little bit sort of a beware, open your eyes, both for limited partners and for startups. What do you actually want, right? What do you want from your VC firm if you’re a startup? And what do you want from your VC firm if you’re an LP?   Bertrand I must say, as an entrepreneur, uh, a board member, I have seen some situations where the bigger funds are actually trying sometimes to elbow out the existing investors. Like, uh, we have that much money to put to work, we cannot do less. And you’re like, yeah, but I don’t need that much money. And then they’re like, okay, just don’t let your existing investors do their pro rata. I don’t think it’s great because an entrepreneur, if your investors, your VCs, trusted you earlier stage when it’s more risky, and when it’s becoming less risky, you don’t give them the right to their pro rata because you have to let this big guy come in. That’s not great. Or even if there is not this pro rata issue, when an investor tries to put more money to work than it’s really necessary, it’s also not a good idea as an entrepreneur to take more capital than you could use. It will dilute you more, it will set higher expectations in terms of valuation, it will push you to use that capital faster than maybe would be reasonable. So I think that’s something you want to be careful with the bigger funds. So don’t talk to funds that are in some ways beyond your stage and try to make it work in that context. Or don’t accept to have your strategy change dramatically for no good reason by funds that just want to put too much money to work in your business. And that for me is surprising because it should also be in their best interest not to invest in businesses that are not ready to accept that much capital. But as we have seen, there were in the past some funds that believe that capital is a moat. Was a good idea. So hopefully, I guess we’re a bit behind that. But yeah, I would say entrepreneurs, be careful, find partners that are the right partners for you at your current stage. Sometimes some big names look great, but at the same time, if it comes with a lot of issues, from too much capital to also taking the risk that these partners don’t understand the stage of the business you are in or your industry, Just be careful. There is a lot of value to have firms that are very focused on your stage, on your industry, are finely attuned to that situation.   Nuno What Comes Next? Maybe to end in terms of sections, what comes next? And maybe we can come up with some predictions that are a little bit provocative on what’s going to happen to the market. You, if you’re listening to us, feel free to interact with us on LinkedIn, on X. If you have our email address, shoot us an email as well. We’d love to hear from you if you think these are the right predictions or if we’re totally off. Maybe I’ll throw in the first one, Bertrand, and we’ll go one by one. So we’ll each put one at the table and see where we head. My first one is that we’ll have a huge culling of VC investors. We had this rapid expansion of the VC asset class with arguably at least tens of thousands of firms globally, maybe even over 10,000 in the US. I think we’ll have a culling and the culling will continue and we’ll have several firms sort of getting eliminated over the next couple of years that will have either because they’re having tremendous difficulty doing their first close in their next fund, or the returns are not there, or it’s a firm that has done 3, 4 funds, but for some reason the returns have just gone out of whack in the last few years during the bull years. And so therefore, actually they can’t justify to raise more funds out there. So I predict there will be a significant elimination of active firms in the next at least 2 to 3 years. So maybe by 2028, and we’ll be below, I don’t know, 30% of number of active firms that we are today. The other side of it is I do think if we look beyond that, 2029, 2030, and so on, we’ll have the reemergence of not micro funds, but nano funds where people will start deploying capital very, very early and writing small angel checks, but doing it in a way that it’s sort of not this cottage industry that we’ve had of angel investors. So I think angel investment will be disrupted by people that will use more and more of the AI toolification out there to actually manage their portfolios of 10, 15, 5K investments in a way that is a lot more professional, creating sort of an advent of nano funds.   Bertrand Yeah, makes sense. On my side, in terms of prediction, I think there is a possibility that the mega fund model keeps expanding and looks more similar over time to some PE models. So do we have the top 10 VC firms that look more like a Blackstone than a Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia used to be? That for me will be an interesting question and development. I think that there is some possibility that it keeps going in that direction. A lot of incentives are pushing things that way.   Nuno My next prediction is that DPI, distributions to paid-in cash on cash, just cash back, will become essential for limited partners. I think TVPI, total value to paid-in, that also has in there, as we just said, paper valuations. There’s a lot of disbelief now around the TVPI metric if there isn’t distributions going alongside it. For those who, again, don’t know what TVPI is, it’s total value paid in, but it also includes DPI. So it’s cash on cash component plus a remaining valuation to paid in, an RVPI. And the problem is the RVPI really, in reality, it’s that kind of on-paper valuation that never gets attributed. I think LPs, they’ve seen the writing on the wall and they’re like, dude, just show me your DPI numbers. I don’t care about TVPI. Some LPs will still ask about TVPI just to make sure that the rest is sort of looking in order. Like, show me the money, show me the cash. Actually, it’s not money, show me the cash, right? I want money back.   Bertrand But that’s an issue. I mean, if you’re supposed to raise financing every 3 or 4 years, good luck getting DPI to show for that. So you need to be at least on your third fund in order to be able to show DPI, I guess.   Nuno I mean, my corollary to that, Bertrand, is if you allow me just to have a corollary kind of prediction, is that we’ll see certainly for funds like $50 million and above, $100 million, $200 million, et cetera, even increased concentration, right? I really need to have anchors that believe in me over time. And we might start having, again, the advent— we had it some decades ago, the advent of cap table kind of VCs, right? Like Sutter Hill Ventures, right? Where they’re not really raising funds anymore. And so we might have the advent of that, that we’ll have structures that are created that have more permanent capital allocated to them, or at the very least more concentrated capital by very few players.   Bertrand Interesting. Me on my side, as I shared before, I believe secondaries are, are important and here to stay. Um, in the past, some could argue, is it a distress signal or something? I, I don’t think it’s true anymore. In a world where your average startup might take 15 to 18 years to exit through M&A or IPO, we need to have other options. For funds, for employees, they cannot be expected to stick around for so long and have no liquidity. I mean, it’s just pure madness. It’s just bad alignment at some point to do that. So I think secondaries are becoming the third liquidity pathway for VCs, for employees, and it should be more and more a key part of the game, a key infrastructure in the VC/startups tech industry.   Nuno I mean, on specialized versus generalist funds, I believe we’ll continue seeing the coexistence of those two models where the specialized funds will in many pockets actually outperform generalist funds, but where we’ll continue seeing that the large franchises, the tier one franchises will likely be generalist funds. I mean, we just saw it in the cycle. The AI cycle went upon us. We had a 2021 fund. We could easily adapt and go into AI and figure out that AI was growing very fast. I mean, if you have an ultra-specialized fund and that’s your remit and that’s the only thing you can invest on, very difficult to change even during our investment period. I will put a caveat on that. We don’t call, for example, ourselves at Chameleon generalist. We call ourselves multi-specialized because our scoring models for the verticals that we track are specialized within Mantis. Because the partnership is specialized, we all focus on different areas. And because we have the Kin network that allows us to tap into that level of expertise, Again, I think the world will be specialized coexistence. Some pockets specialized will do very well, certainly on the smaller fund size, but the big franchises will likely look a little bit more generalist. And as I said, multi-specialized from our perspective is the future. We’ll start seeing more and more funds that are multi-specialized like ourselves. Do you want to talk about AI and how it’ll distort the metrics? No.   Bertrand Yes. I think AI is an exciting moment in the tech industry. It feels in some ways that the same way we had a big distortion coming with COVID and work from home in 2020, 2021. 2021, where suddenly everyone and their mother will build a SaaS company or invest in a SaaS company. AI feels a bit of the same. I mean, to be clear, I truly believe it’s deserved. I mean, we are facing a dramatic shift in how computing is being done in terms of value you can get from software. So at the same time, AI will probably distort this matrix for a long time. We clearly see a split where investments are going, in what startups are being created. So I think, yeah, we will see some distortion. And we know that maybe 50% of all deal value is going to AI in 2025. We have seen single rounds reaching 40 billion, like to OpenAI. We have seen, as you discussed, some seed stage investment of 400 million. So AI investing and AI startups are definitely a beast on their own. And will distort VC metrics for a long time. And we might need two sets of metrics in parallel, you know, AI versus everything else. So that would be an interesting bifurcation in the industry in some ways. I would say it’s fair to separate AI versus non-AI. We reach a point where it’s two different beasts.   Nuno Conclusion So in conclusion, AI has changed the world and it’s changing VC as well, as we discussed earlier in the episode. We have a tremendous momentous occasion for the asset class where venture capital is really bifurcating into very large funds, which no longer are in venture capital or seemingly may be distributed between different asset classes, and the smaller funds, sub-$500 million and sub-$100 million, that keep having the better returns, but also with much smaller scale. We’re seeing a culling of the industry where the industry is definitely getting smaller and smaller and more concentrated at both ends, number of VC firms, as well as a number of limited partners per fund and the interest that some of these limited partners have of being more and more concentrated in their own portfolio allocations. And last but not the least, the discussion around specialized versus generalist, where it seems like there’s some clear winners on some asset classes, on some sizes, in some industries, but on others, there’s other kinds of winners. And so maybe the future is multi-specialized, as I framed at the end. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to check us out and if you want to comment, feel free to send us messages on X, LinkedIn, to both myself and Bertrand, as well as send us an email. Thank you so much, Bertrand.   Bertrand Thank you, Nuno.

What if climate change isn't an alpha problem but a beta problem? Listen to Jason Mitchell discuss with Simon Hallett, Cambridge Associates Head of Climate Strategy,; what investors, consultants, and asset owners can do to move beyond performative alignment toward capital allocation that actually accelerates the transition, and how investors should course correct without losing momentum or giving sceptics an opening to disengage entirely.

David Druley, CEO of Cambridge Associates, also shared with Barron's editor at large Andy Serwer how the investing firm has got its name. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode features audio from the first panel discussion of the day at Artemis ILS NYC 2026, our tenth catastrophe bond and insurance-linked securities (ILS) conference in the ILS NYC series, held on February 6th 2026 in New York.The panel was focused on the private insurance-linked securities market segment and titled Private ILS: Achieving portfolio discipline and resilience through the cycle.This private insurance-linked securities panel discussion was kindly moderated by Lorenzo Volpi, Deputy CEO and Managing Partner, Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP.He was joined on stage by: Jessica Laird, CEO, Nephila Capital; Michael Stahel, Partner/Portfolio Manager, LGT ILS Partners Ltd.; Eveline Takken-Somers, Head of Insurance Linked Investments, PGGM; and Dr. Raffaele Dell'Amore, Investment Managing Director, Global Head ILS Research, Cambridge Associates.Our panellists explored the track-record of private placements in ILS, which has been particularly impressive in recent years. They noted the still healthy premium environment, despite recent softening in reinsurance markets, believing strong performance can continue as long as portfolio discipline is maintained. The discussion also covered the attractiveness of private insurance linked securities placements versus catastrophe bonds, the importance of transparency and trust, as well as in educating new investors, or those looking to move on from cat bond strategies.Speakers also noted that the capital raising environment remains more challenged in private ILS and blended strategies, than for pure cat bond funds. But there was a general belief that conditions continue to improve and the track-record of private ILS fund strategies is now attracting increasing attention from institutional investors.Listen to the full podcast episode from our Artemis ILS NYC 2026 conference to learn more about conditions in the private insurance-linked securities (ILS) marketplace and investors attraction to private reinsurance investment opportunities.

As institutional and retail capital continue to flow into private markets, we believe the infrastructure supporting investment decisions hasn't fully kept pace. The real challenge isn't just access to opportunity; it's access to reliable, data.In this episode of Critical Thinking, Mercer's Global Head of Analytics and Portfolio Solutions, Rob Ansari is joined by Chris Sparenberg, Head of Business for iLEVEL at S&P Global, and Jad Stella, Senior Director on the Digital Product Management team at Cambridge Associates, to unpack the current state of private markets data and what could be possible if the industry came together to help deliver more consistent, timely information. *References to a "partnership" in the podcast are informal. The relationship described is a "collaboration". This content is for institutional investors and for information purposes only. It does not contain investment, financial, legal, tax or any other advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. The materials are not tailored to your particular personal and/or financial situation. If you require advice based on your specific circumstances, you should contact a professional adviser. Opinions expressed are those of the speakers as of the date of the recording, are subject to change without notice and do not necessarily reflect Mercer's opinions.This does not constitute an offer or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities, commodities and/or any other financial instruments or products or constitute a solicitation on behalf of any of the investment managers, their affiliates. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not formal investment advice to allow any party to transact. Additional advice will be required in advance of entering into any contract. Read our full important notices - click here 

On 30th September and 1st October 2025 we held our inaugural Money Maze Allocator Summit (MMAS). We gathered 120+ global investors & allocators - many of whom have been previous guests - for 2 days of fascinating investment discussions. It proved incredibly popular & much of that was a result of the quality of panels, moderators & topics! The moderator was the brilliant Annachiara Marcandalli, Global Head of Sustainability at Cambridge Associates.  The panel was Brian Menell (Chairman and CEO, TechMet), Per Lekander (CEO, Clean Energy Transition), Bill Orum (Partner, Capricorn Investment Group) & Kristin Eshak Weldon (Senior Managing Director, CCI).  The climatic changes challenging our world should not be in doubt. The responses, the consequences and the investment opportunities and risks are profound. The panel encompasses rare earths, electrification, power sources, uses and solutions, the EV charge, the continued role of hydrocarbons & much more… -- MMAS  - More Info & 2026 Event Registration - Please note that the 6th/7th October date indicated on the webpage remains provisional (as of 30/10/25). The Money Maze Podcast is kindly sponsored by Schroders, IFM Investors, World Gold Council and LSEG. 

This episode features the second panel discussion of the day at Artemis London 2025, a session focused on the catastrophe bond market segment, from our fourth cat bond and insurance-linked securities (ILS) conference in the City of London, UK, held on September 2nd 2025. The panel, titled Catastrophe bonds: Sustaining momentum as relevance grows, was moderated by Tanja Wrosch, Executive Director, Cat Bond Portfolio Manager, Twelve Securis. She was joined by: Joe Tolen, Senior Investment Director, Credit Investment Group, Cambridge Associates; Gina Hardy, CEO, North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association (NCIUA), North Carolina Joint Underwriting Association (NCJUA); Andre Rzym, Partner and Portfolio Manager, Man AHL; and Andy Palmer, Head ILS Structuring EMEA & APAC, Swiss Re Capital Markets. Our expert speakers discussed the growth of the market as well as potential challenges in sustaining that through different and increasingly competitive reinsurance market conditions. The need for efficient market processes was highlighted, as well as a desire to continue attracting and supporting new cat bond sponsors, including corporates and governments.  The panellists also recognised that cat bonds and other ILS can still be a difficult sell to investors, with education and transparency remaining critical, while communication with sponsors was also highlighted.  The discussion also covered the impact of ESMA's recommendations on UCITS asset eligibility and how this might affect the cat bond market over-time, as well as the potential for product innovations in the catastrophe bond space. Listen to this full podcast episode from our Artemis London 2025 conference to learn more about the state of play in the catastrophe bond marketplace.

In this episode of The Distribution, host Brandon Sedloff sits down with Katie Riester, Managing Director at Felicis Ventures, for a wide-ranging conversation about the evolution of venture capital and the lessons she's learned across her career on both the LP and GP sides. Katie reflects on her path from early experiences at Vanguard and Cambridge Associates to her current role helping shape one of the industry's most adaptable early-stage firms. She shares insights on how Felicis identifies opportunities across emerging tech waves, what makes a successful founder, and why listening and authenticity remain critical in the world of investing. They discuss: • Katie's journey from institutional investor to leading capital formation at Felicis Ventures • The changing dynamics between LPs, GPs, and founders in venture capital • How Felicis adapts to new technology cycles while maintaining its core principles • What it means to be an “AI native” founder and why it matters in today's landscape • The importance of communication, curiosity, and relationship-building in fundraising Links: Felicis Ventures - https://www.felicis.com/ Katie on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/katie-riester-91793b8/ Brandon on LinkedIn - ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/bsedloff/⁠ Juniper Square - ⁠https://www.junipersquare.com/⁠ Topics: (00:00:00) - Intro (00:02:45) - Katie's early life and career beginnings (00:20:43) - The evolution of venture capital (00:30:15) - Adapting to tech waves (00:34:33) - Importance of diversification (00:40:04) - Felicis Ventures (00:47:32) - Traits of successful founders (00:52:10) - Current and future tech waves (00:59:17) - Conclusion and contact information

At the EUVC Summit 2025, Cherry Ventures' Christian and Elsa Deseilligny from Cambridge Associates offered a behind-the-scenes view of what it takes to stay true to your mission while building a firm that lasts. At the center of it all? The founder.For Cherry, “Founders First” isn't just a slogan. It's a system.“Putting the founder at the center—doing everything to make them thrive—that's the foundation of how we build.”– ElsaThat principle doesn't stop at deal selection or portfolio support. It shapes how Cherry builds its own team, firm, and platform. Every strategic decision—from hiring to productizing services—is filtered through one lens: Will this help our founders thrive?And when it comes to fundraising?“Your right to win with LPs ultimately ties back to that clarity of mission.”Christian addressed a tension many top-tier funds face: how big is too big?He acknowledged the importance of honest, iterative conversations with LPs—but also highlighted a view shared by allocators like Cambridge Associates:“There's a sweet spot—where a strategy is still repeatable, but hasn't lost its edge.”In VC, scaling up can mean professionalization—but it can also lead to dilution of edge. The best funds find the institutional footing they need without drifting into sameness.“You want to reach a size where you're clearly outperforming with discipline… but then stop there. That's where true long-term relationships are built.”The insight many LPs quietly share?They're often betting on managers before they peak.“Ideally, we find the manager early. We scale with them to that sweet spot—and then, no one else can get in.”It's not just about performance. It's about conviction. The best LP–GP relationships are forged when the firm still feels like a startup—when the ambition is high, but the capacity is still intimate.Cherry's message was clear:If you want to build a lasting firm, don't chase scale for the sake of it. Build around your mission. Build with intentionality. And stay small enough to stay sharp.The founders will notice. And so will the LPs.A Platform Built Around “Founders First”Scaling with Intention (and Limits)The Emerging Manager Advantage

Rich Carson (Managing Director, Private Investments, Cambridge Associates) and Jerry Smith (Private Markets Product Strategy Lead, Mercer) join our hosts to discuss a new private markets collaboration between their firms and S&P Global. They explain how this initiative will improve the communication between GPs and LPs and support decision-making, by enhancing the sharing of performance data. Rich and Jerry also share their thoughts on the evolution of the private investment industry. More S&P Global Content:  Software, services & solutions to power growth in the Capital Markets [Blog] As LP-GP relations evolve, the need for a clearinghouse of data is increasing Credits:  Host/Author: Chris Sparenberg and Jocelyn Lewis Guests: Rich Carson, Cambridge Associates and Jerry Smith, Mercer Producer: Georgina Lee www.spglobal.com www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence   FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR USE ONLY. The information contained in this video is provided for educational and illustrative purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast or investment advice, and is not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. The opinions expressed are subject to change without notice. The material was prepared without regard to specific objectives, financial situation or needs of any investor. Reliance upon information in this video is at the sole risk and discretion of the viewer.

Today's guest is Mark Hays, Director of Sustainable & Impact Investing at Glenmede — a firm managing $48 billion with a client-to-employee ratio that keeps conversations personal and strategy focused.Mark's journey into finance started early — running a lemonade stand to save up for a Sega Genesis and learning about markets through a third-grade stock project that didn't go as planned. That early curiosity eventually led to a career spanning Cambridge Associates, OMERS, Flat World, and J.P. Morgan — where he became the firm's first U.S. sustainable investing hire.Now at Glenmede, Mark helps clients align their portfolios with their principles — not just in theory, but through tangible investments. Glenmede offers investment management, wealth planning, fiduciary, and advisory services to high-net-worth individuals, families, endowments, foundations, and institutional clients.It has $48 billion in assets under management, but keeps a 4-to-1 client-to-employee ratio and promises, in Mark's words, “the experience of a $200 million family as a $10 million individual.” That approach means every client gets tailored advice, deeper conversations, and impact reporting that goes far beyond ESG scores.Nearly 20 percent of AUM sits in strategies that fit Glenmede's four-category investment taxonomy (Integrated, Mandated, Thematic, High-Impact Concessionary) and span almost every asset class. Mark's through-line is what he calls “sustainable prosperity” — the belief that helping those with the least doesn't take away from others, but actually creates more opportunity and value for everyone.At Glenmede, that vision shows up not only in where the money goes but in how clients are engaged. Mark and his team don't just plug people into products — they guide multi-generational families through deep, often difficult conversations about values, legacy, and measurable impact. That means starting with inquiry, moving through education, assessment, and implementation, and ending with real measurement — not in vague ESG scores, but in tangible results like gallons of water saved, emissions avoided, or communities reached.Mark knows that impact is a moving target, but he also knows how to hit it: by staying curious, staying human, and staying honest about what money can and cannot do.Tune in to hear how he turns that approach into measurable impact.—Connect with SRI360°:Sign up for the free weekly email updateVisit the SRI360° PODCASTVisit the SRI360° WEBSITEFollow SRI360° on XFollow SRI360° on FACEBOOK—Additional Resources:

Our guest for today's podcast is Richard Chau, Chief Investment Officer of the Tulane University Endowment. Richard joined Tulane in 2013 and was promoted to CIO in 2021. Prior to Tulane, Richard helped manage a multi-billion dollar global private equity portfolio in Bessemer Trust's Private Equity Funds Group. Before Bessemer, Richard worked in the investment office at The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. His previous experience also includes investment banking at Houlihan Lokey and investment consulting at Cambridge Associates.   Richard has a BA in Economics and Chinese from Williams College and an MBA from Columbia Business School.   Without further ado, here is our conversation with Richard Chau.

In this episode of The Distribution, host Brandon Sedloff sits down with Maria Surina, Managing Director in the Real Assets group at Cambridge Associates, for a wide-ranging conversation on how real estate and broader real assets are evolving within institutional and private wealth portfolios. Maria shares her unique career journey—from growing up in Russia and studying real estate finance in Canada, to working across appraisals, operating companies, endowments, and now advising clients at Cambridge Associates. She discusses how early lessons in valuation continue to shape her view of investment opportunities today, and how Cambridge helps clients build customized real assets portfolios that balance growth, diversification, and income. The conversation also covers: How demographics, digital infrastructure, and energy transition are reshaping real assets The rising importance of operationally intensive real estate strategies How family offices and institutions are thinking differently about private markets exposure The challenges and opportunities facing GPs as the capital-raising environment evolves Why finding true differentiation in managers often comes down to execution, culture, and people Maria offers an inside look at how Cambridge evaluates managers, constructs portfolios, and helps clients navigate a shifting investment landscape—highlighting why long-term thinking, relationship-building, and sector expertise are more important than ever. Links: Cambridge Associates - https://www.cambridgeassociates.com/ Brandon on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bsedloff/ Juniper Square - https://www.junipersquare.com/ Topics: (00:02:02) - Maria's background and career (00:15:33) - Endowment Capital (00:18:11) - Transitioning to Cambridge Associates (00:20:42) - What range of clients fit the Cambridge portfolio? (00:23:28) - How clients should be thinking about their real assets (00:28:48) - Shifts in views toward private investments (00:32:27) - What are you seeing in the markets? (00:35:17) - Narrowing the funnel to find the best of the best managers (00:37:47) - Things and themes to look for in GPs (00:41:38) - Insights for operators to think about before approaching a Cambridge-type organization (00:44:12) - What is your outlook for real estate over the next 12 months? (00:49:24) - How are GPs thinking about their businesses right now? (00:56:05) - How to learn more about Cambridge

In a world where the gender funding gap remains stubbornly wide, women are on a mission to change the game. Erin Harkless Moore is at the forefront of driving breakthrough innovations and social impact through strategic investments. In this episode, Erin shares her journey from Wall Street to impact investing, and the powerful strategies she's employing to empower women-led funds and companies that are reshaping industries and communities. From tackling the challenges of biased funding practices to championing the importance of diverse decision-makers, her insights offer a roadmap for anyone passionate about leveraging the power of capital to create a more equitable future. This week's episode 148 of How Women Inspire Podcast is about driving breakthrough innovations and impact! In this episode of How Women Inspire Podcast, Erin Harkless Moore is sharing the importance of aligning your work with your personal values and actionable steps you can take right now to level up your leadership qualities. Erin Harkless Moore is the Senior Director of Investments at Pivotal Ventures created by Melinda French Gates to accelerate social progress in the United States. She leads the organization's fund and direct investment decisions, overseeing a diverse portfolio that drives breakthrough innovations and impact for people in this country. Erin has nearly 20 years of investment experience previously working as the Managing Director at Cambridge Associates.Some of the talking points Julie and Erin go over in this episode include:The importance of aligning your values and your work with your professional interests.Challenges and opportunities for women in the venture capital space.Recognizing the biases that hold women back from raising capital.Erin's biggest lessons that have defined her career.Thank you for listening! If you enjoyed this episode, take a screenshot of the episode to post in your stories and tag me!  And don't forget to follow, rate, and review the podcast and tell me your key takeaways!Learn more about How Women Inspire at https://www.howwomenlead.com/podcast CONNECT WITH ERIN HARKLESS MOORE:LinkedInTwitterPivotal VenturesCONNECT WITH JULIE CASTRO ABRAMS:LinkedIn - JulieHow Women LeadHow Women InvestHow Women GiveInstagram - HWLLinkedIn - HWLFacebook - HWL

As colleges and universities attempt to navigate today's challenging economic environment, they are increasingly relying on their endowments to fund operating costs. That sometimes means spending beyond their endowment's spending policy guidelines, which presents a difficult dilemma: How do they serve present needs yet also safeguard the institution's long-term financial sustainability? In this podcast, AGB's David Bass speaks with Cambridge Associates' Tracy Filosa about the balance that institutional leaders must strike between, on the one hand, meeting current demands and, on the other, ensuring that adequate resources will be available for future generations of stakeholders.

In episode 16 of the Alternative Allocations podcast, Kate Huntington joins Tony to discuss her years of experience partnering with family offices, endowments and foundations and how she approaches incorporating alternative investments into her clients' portfolios. They delve into the importance of due diligence and understanding the role of each asset class when working with clients to determine the best strategy for each situation. Whether it's an individual investor or large family office, often the investment thesis is the same – it's about enhanced returns, diversification, and having a long-term mindset. Kate Huntington, Managing Director, Head of Advisory Solutions Group. Kate leads the Advisory Solutions Group within Fiduciary Trust which brings comprehensive investment advisory solutions to ultra high net worth and institutional clients. Kate has an expertise in both private markets and sustainable investing and previously was the co-head of the research and manager selection team at Athena Capital Advisors. Kate's prior roles include working as a Consulting Associate at Cambridge Associates where she supported consultants in managing, advising on, and reporting on a variety of institutional clients' investment portfolios. Kate started her career as a Research Analyst at Stonebridge Associates, a real estate investment and advisory firm, and then transitioned to economic consulting with both Capital Economics and LECG, where she was an Economist/Consultant providing economic analysis and market research to support high-profile anti-trust litigation. Kate earned her Master of Business Administration from Yale School of Management and her Bachelor of Arts in economics from University of Virginia. Kate is Co-author –Diversity and Inclusion Framework, December 2019; Co-author –Investing in Gender Equality, January 2018; Co-author –Impact Investing: History & Opportunity, January 2017; Co-author –Social Finance and the Postmodern Portfolio: Theory & Practice, Journal of Wealth Management (Spring 2016). Kate currently holds the Series 7, 24 and 65 licenses and is active as a Member, Board of Trustees, Becket-Chimney Corners YMCA. Kate Huntington | LinkedIn Fiduciary Trust International Alternatives by Franklin Templeton Tony Davidow, CIMA® | LinkedIn

Anthony Maniscalco, Managing Partner and Head of Strategic Capital Group at Investcorp, joins our hosts to discuss the dynamic realm of GP stakes. In this episode, we explore Anthony's professional journey into GP stakes investments, how Investcorp operates in this area, and advice for newer entrants into private markets.  Don't miss our Interact conference in New York on October 15-16! The first day will be dedicated to developments in private markets, with speakers from KKR, Blackstone, Cambridge Associates and others. Register now.    More S&P Global Content: Click here to register to Interact 2024   Credits: Host/Author: Chris Sparenberg, Jocelyn Lewis Guests: Anthony Maniscalco, Ninety One Producer: Nicholas Hamilton, Georgina Lee www.spglobal.com

While we're busy pulling together stories for the fifth season of Unseen Upside, we thought you might be curious about what it is that Cambridge Associates actually does. In a nutshell, we have the privilege of partnering with some of the world's top institutional investors—like nonprofits, universities, hospitals, pension plans, and even private families—and we try to help them reach their investment goals.Recently, we had a conversation with four of our non-profit clients from institutions with assets ranging from $200 million to $850 million to understand why they chose to outsource day-to-day portfolio decisions so they could focus on bigger picture strategy for their organizations. Their stories offer insight into how we collaborate with clients so they can do even more for the communities they serve. Don't forget to check back this fall for the latest season of Unseen Upside: Investments Beyond Their Returns.Unseen Upside: Investments Beyond Their Returns is developed in partnership with PRX, an award-winning podcast media company. Cambridge Associates is a global investment firm that works with endowments, foundations, healthcare systems, pension plans, and private clients to implement and manage custom investment portfolios that aim to generate outperformance and maximize their impact on the world. Cambridge Associates delivers a range of portfolio management services, including outsourced CIO, non-discretionary portfolio management, staff extension, and asset class mandates.

While we're busy pulling together stories for the fifth season of Unseen Upside, we thought you might be curious about what it is that Cambridge Associates actually does. In a nutshell, we have the privilege of partnering with some of the world's top institutional investors—like nonprofits, universities, hospitals, pension plans, and even private families—and we try to help them reach their investment goals.Recently, we had a conversation with four of our non-profit clients from institutions with assets ranging from $200 million to $850 million to understand why they chose to outsource day-to-day portfolio decisions so they could focus on bigger picture strategy for their organizations. Their stories offer insight into how we collaborate with clients so they can do even more for the communities they serve. Don't forget to check back this fall for the latest season of Unseen Upside: Investments Beyond Their Returns.Unseen Upside: Investments Beyond Their Returns is developed in partnership with PRX, an award-winning podcast media company. Cambridge Associates is a global investment firm that works with endowments, foundations, healthcare systems, pension plans, and private clients to implement and manage custom investment portfolios that aim to generate outperformance and maximize their impact on the world. Cambridge Associates delivers a range of portfolio management services, including outsourced CIO, non-discretionary portfolio management, staff extension, and asset class mandates.

Highlights from this week's conversation include:Chris Shen's Background and LP Career Journey (0:52)US-China Geopolitics, History, and MacroEconomics (3:27)Developing Relationships with Asian Allocators (8:02)Flavor of GP and Navigating Family Offices in Asia (11:31)Understanding LP Motivations (16:52)Importance of Liquidity for Investors (18:35)Working with Corporate Venture Capital Groups (22:15)De-risking Perception for Corporates (24:28)Diversity of VC Ecosystem (30:53)Insider segment: Focusing on the Innovation Economy (32:01)Learning the ropes of venture capital (38:18)Advice for junior investors (40:30)Personal experiences and growth in investing (43:27)Asian American foundation and the Committee of 100 (45:33)C100 organization (49:57)Connecting with Chris and Final Takeaways (50:27)Chris Shen has over 15 years of financial services, investments and legal experience in both the United States and Asia. He is the co-founder of Revere, which is building a tech-enabled, data-driven platform specializing in emerging managers – like Cambridge Associates for the modern allocator. l. Previously, Chris was a managing director at LQ Pacific Partners, a Hong Kong based merchant bank focusing on tech investments. Chris was also a founding partner of West 22nd Capital Advisers, a Hong Kong-based single family office and SFC-licensed investment firm. Chris led investments in external asset managers, established the firm's operations and was a member of the investment committee. Before moving to the buy side, Chris was a senior corporate finance and investment funds lawyer with Baker McKenzie, with a pan-Asia practice representing large corporates, financial institutions, and fund managers.Gunderson Dettmer is the preeminent international law firm with an exclusive focus on the innovation economy. The firm serves market-leading venture capital and growth equity investors and pioneering companies through inception, growth and maturity, as well as groundbreaking public companies that result from the global venture capital ecosystem. The firm's clear-cut focus and well-honed technical skill enables an accelerated pace and unmatched efficiency, delivering best-in-class value at each phase of a client's business. Learn more: www.gunder.com. Swimming with Allocators is a podcast that dives into the intriguing world of Venture Capital from an LP (Limited Partner) perspective. Hosts Alexa Binns and Earnest Sweat are seasoned professionals who have donned various hats in the VC ecosystem. Each episode, we explore where the future opportunities lie in the VC landscape with insights from top LPs on their investment strategies and industry experts shedding light on emerging trends and technologies. The information provided on this podcast does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this podcast are for general informational purposes only.

Join hosts Pat and Konch on the Dakota Fundraising News Podcast as they dive into recent job changes, advisor activity, and institutional investment updates. This episode unpacks key job transitions, including Alex Sawabini's move from Cambridge Associates to BCG, John Patterson's new role at Wilshire Associates, and Scott Chan's appointment as CIO of CalSTRS. Learn about William Blair's expansion in Philadelphia with the acquisition of Fernberger Wealth Management and LPL's addition of two advisors from Cetera, boosting their managed assets significantly. Our institutional coverage highlights significant investment actions and upcoming searches at various pension systems, including the Boston Retirement System's plans for a Private Equity & International Small Cap manager search, and notable commitments by the Santa Barbara County Employees' Retirement System in alternative funds.

This week, I am pleased to welcome Doug Macauley, Partner at Cambridge Associates and member of the firm's Private Client Practice. Doug works with both G1 entrepreneurs and multi-generational families and specializes in developing asset allocation strategies and investment manager structures for families with a broad range of investment objectives and risk tolerances. Doug is a CFA charter holder with over 25 years of investment industry experience in performing due diligence for clients on managers across public and private asset classes and advises families on a range of issues, such as structuring pooled investment vehicles, managing concentrated stock holdings, integrating estate planning within the investment portfolio, and establishing investment governance. A big and recurring topic in Doug's work with families, both newly liquid ones and multigenerational enterprise families, is asset allocation. He tells us how families are thinking (or should be thinking) about asset allocation and lists some of the important considerations surrounding this topic, such as liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and distribution policies. Another important theme that comes into Doug's conversations with his client families is active vs. passive investments. He shares his views on how families should be making these tradeoffs and offers his suggestions for families to consider as they look to juggle the sometimes-competing priorities of returns, control, risk, and complexity. One important practical piece of advice Doug has for families and family offices is to make sure they fully understand their exposure within their investment portfolio. He offers some valuable tips and suggestions for family leaders and family office executives on the various methods and tools to do that. Another critical best practice Doug recommends is stress-testing the family's portfolio. He talks about how families and their enterprise offices should be doing that and unveils a number of resources they can lean on to accomplish this objective. Don't miss this instructive and insightful conversation with an expert practitioner and thought leader representing one of the most thoughtful and respected investment advisory firms in the private wealth and family office space.

Join us on this inspiring episode of "What Gives" as host Erin Satzger welcomes two distinguished guests, Emma Off and Sarah Douglas, from CincyTech. Emma, the CEO, President, and Partner at CincyTech, brings her extensive legal expertise and deep-rooted community involvement to the table. With a rich background in mergers and acquisitions and accolades such as "Lawyer of the Year," Emma discusses the critical role of legal frameworks in nurturing high-growth companies and how these structures support entrepreneurial success.Sarah Douglas, a Director at CincyTech, shares her journey from analyzing investment portfolio performance at Cambridge Associates to leading venture capital initiatives that transform scientific research into groundbreaking commercial products. She delves into the excitement and challenges of funding technologies that promise to change lives, providing listeners with an inside look at the venture capital process and its impact on healthcare and technology sectors.Together, they explore how their roles intersect and complement each other in driving innovation and supporting startups. Whether you're a seasoned philanthropist, a sports enthusiast, or just passionate about making a difference, this episode will inspire and equip you to contribute more effectively to your community.Tune in to discover how these two leaders use their expertise to solve complex problems and encourage community engagement through thoughtful investment and legal insight.

Letitia Johnson is the CIO of Amherst College, where she manages the school's $4 billion endowment. After thirteen years working with twenty-five clients and attending over 1,000 Investment Committee meetings at Cambridge Associates, Letitia developed a view about investing that differs from many similar pools of capital and has applied that view over the last five years. Our conversation covers the subtleties of managing an endowment with a concentrated, bottom-up manager-selected approach for the long-term, including portfolio construction, risk and liquidity management, long-term investing, and competition for capital.   Learn More Follow Ted on Twitter at @tseides or LinkedIn Subscribe to the mailing list Access Transcript with Premium Membership

David Druley received his BBA and MBA from McCombs and currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of Cambridge Associates. He interned as an investment analyst at the Teacher Retirement System of Texas and started his own investment management firm, called Druley Investment Management, for 9 years.  In this episode, host Firdous Khezrian spoke with Druley about risk management and tolerance in business and life, the traits of some of the best portfolio managers and the legacy he hopes to leave as a Longhorn.  --- This podcast was produced by The Drag Audio Production House. Want to work with The Drag? Reach out here.  

Artificial intelligence is transforming healthcare, unleashing new investment opportunities. From cancer screening to drug discovery, AI promises to augment clinical decision-making and improve care. We'll explore the surging ecosystem of medical AI innovations, from the emerging tech landscape to practical deployment. But what are the challenges facing real-world implementation? Which applications show the most promise? Join us as we investigate how artificial intelligence can change healthcare for the better while examining what it will take to do it well. Guests include: Bob Nelsen, Co-Founder and Managing Director at Arch Venture Partners Daphne Koller, Founder and CEO at insitro David Baker, Ph.D., Director at the Institute for Protein Design and Professor of Biochemistry at University of Washington Theresa Hajer, Partner and Managing Director of Venture Capital Research at Cambridge Associates Unseen Upside: Investments Beyond Their Returns is developed in partnership with PRX, an award-winning podcast media company. Cambridge Associates is a global investment firm that works with endowments, foundations, healthcare systems, pension plans, and private clients to implement and manage custom investment portfolios that aim to generate outperformance and maximize their impact on the world. Cambridge Associates delivers a range of portfolio management services, including outsourced CIO, non-discretionary portfolio management, staff extension, and asset class mandates.

Autoimmune diseases like lupus impact over 5 million patients globally, but treatment options remain limited. Now, decoding the once mysterious "dark genome" could bring new therapies. Over 90% of our DNA was once considered "junk"—but we've learned this dark matter regulates gene expression and human disease. This episode takes you to the pioneers who are unlocking the dark genome's potential to correct root causes of complex conditions like lupus. We'll chat with those illuminating this uncharted territory and developing novel approaches. Guests include: Rosana Kapeller, M.D., Ph.D., Co-Founder, President, & CEO at Rome Therapeutics Steve Kafka, General Partner at S32 Keri Mastrogiacomo, mother of a Lupus patient Katherine Cavanagh, Associate Investment Director at Cambridge Associates  Unseen Upside: Investments Beyond Their Returns is developed in partnership with PRX, an award-winning podcast media company. Cambridge Associates is a global investment firm that works with endowments, foundations, healthcare systems, pension plans, and private clients to implement and manage custom investment portfolios that aim to generate outperformance and maximize their impact on the world. Cambridge Associates delivers a range of portfolio management services, including outsourced CIO, non-discretionary portfolio management, staff extension, and asset class mandates.

Obesity is a global health crisis, with over 650 million adults affected worldwide. This drives massive economic and disease burdens. Yet new treatment options like GLP-1 drugs offer hope. This episode analyzes the investment landscape and future of obesity therapeutics, focusing on transformational GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic that curb appetite. Join us as we investigate the promise and challenges of emerging anti-obesity drugs, learn about one patient's journey taking them, and discover what the future of weight loss medicine could look like. You'll hear from leaders in the space as well as a current patient taking these medications. Guests include: Rod Wong, Founder, Managing Partner, and Chief Investment Officer at RTW Investments Raymond Stevens, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer at Structure Therapeutics Dean Dimizas, Partner and Managing Director at Cambridge Associates Kathleen Mikaelian, Patient Unseen Upside: Investments Beyond Their Returns is developed in partnership with PRX, an award-winning podcast media company. Cambridge Associates is a global investment firm that works with endowments, foundations, healthcare systems, pension plans, and private clients to implement and manage custom investment portfolios that aim to generate outperformance and maximize their impact on the world. Cambridge Associates delivers a range of portfolio management services, including outsourced CIO, non-discretionary portfolio management, staff extension, and asset class mandates.

#BRNAM #1665 | Considering Private Real Estate as a Foundation for Multi-Asset Defined Contribution Plan Investment Options  | Jonathan Epstein, DCALTA, Jani Venter, J.P. Morgan Asset Management,  Clint Cary, Cary Solutions & Hayden Gallary, Cambridge Associates   | #Tunein: broadcastretirementnetwork.com #JustTheFacts | For more information visit https://www.dcalta.org/  

Precision oncology represents an exciting shift in cancer treatment from a one-size-fits-all approach to personalized care based on each patient's unique cancer and molecular makeup. In this episode, we'll explore how precision oncology is transforming the landscape of cancer care and improving outcomes at leading hospitals like St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. We'll discuss the latest precision diagnostic technologies enabling doctors to analyze a tumor's molecular profile and match targeted therapies to save lives. Join us as we investigate the promise of precision medicine to make cancer treatment more effective and more equitable. Guests include: Rick Shadyac, President and CEO at ALSAC, the fundraising and awareness organization for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, a Cambridge Associates client Matt Gevaert, Co-Founder and Board Member at Kiyatec Jason Robart, Co-Founder & Managing Partner at Seae Ventures Jeff Blazek, Partner and Head of the Northeast & Midwest Endowment & Foundation Practice at Cambridge Associates, who works with ALSAC/St. Jude as one of his clients, in partnership with Anurag Pandit, CIO of ALSAC/SJCRH, and the Investment Department.

Thanks to medical advances, we're living longer lives but with that comes rising rates of Alzheimer's disease. Currently 6 million Americans have Alzheimer's, and that could triple by 2050. This episode explores emerging innovations offering hope against neurodegenerative diseases. We'll discuss promising new drugs that could slow cognitive decline and the strides scientists are making towards understanding causes and developing therapies—and how these breakthroughs are giving hope to one family fighting to save their mom. Episode two explores the history of Alzheimer's, its current challenges, and the promising therapies made possible by innovation and investment. You'll hear from: Dr. Asa Abeliovich, Neurologist, Molecular Geneticist, and Founder and CEO at Leal Therapeutics Carl Gordon, Managing Partner and Head of Global Private Equity at OrbiMed Ham Lee, Co-Head of the Healthcare Practice at Cambridge Associates Randi Casciano, Director of Global Public Relations at Cambridge Associates Unseen Upside: Investments Beyond Their Returns is developed in partnership with PRX, an award-winning podcast media company. Cambridge Associates is a global investment firm that works with endowments, foundations, healthcare systems, pension plans, and private clients to implement and manage custom investment portfolios that aim to generate outperformance and maximize their impact on the world. Cambridge Associates delivers a range of portfolio management services, including outsourced CIO, non-discretionary portfolio management, staff extension, and asset class mandates.

Aakar Vachhani, Managing Partner at Fairview Capital Partners, explores the crucial role of limited partners (LPs) in the venture capital ecosystem. He delves into the distinctive characteristics of venture capital as an asset class and sheds light on Fairview's role as a fund of funds, culture, investment strategy, areas of focus, and bullish stance on emerging managers. Additionally, he shares insights on trending topics that could influence the future of the venture capital industry.In this episode, you'll learn:[6:15] Fairview employs a dual investment strategy to cover both established and niche areas in private markets.[13:02] New, appropriately sized VC firms focusing on specific stages have the opportunity to generate significant returns.[16:53] The venture capital landscape has undergone substantial changes in the past 30 years.[27:00] Technology's pervasive influence creates vast opportunities for disruption across various industries.[32:34] Advice for investors, especially emerging managers: Be a great investor and entrepreneur; value collaboration and sharing best practices with peers.The non-profit organizations that Aakar is passionate about: San Francisco Achievers, New Breath FoundationAbout Aakar VachhaniAakar Vachhani is a Managing Partner at Fairview Capital Partners and a key member of Fairview's investment committee. In this role, he actively engages in research, due diligence, investment monitoring, and business development for Fairview's venture capital and private equity portfolios, as well as direct co-investment initiatives. He established and leads Fairview's San Francisco office.Before joining Fairview, Aakar worked with Cambridge Associates, a prominent investment advisor catering to foundations, endowments, and corporate/government entities. Earlier in his career, he gained experience at MK Capital, a multi-stage venture capital firm with a specific sector focus on software and cloud services.About Fairview Capital PartnersFairview Capital Partners is a Connecticut-based investment management firm specializing in cutting-edge segments of the private markets. Founded nearly three decades ago, Fairview has evolved into one of the largest minority-owned investment firms in the United States, managing over $10 billion in fund capitalization. With a clientele including leading foundations, endowments, pension plans, and family offices, Fairview Capital's innovative and inclusive approach, coupled with its entrepreneurial spirit, continues to make an indelible mark on the venture capital industry.Subscribe to our podcast and stay tuned for our next episode.

Endowments and foundations are some of the most consistent investors in private equity, and they often have some the highest allocations to the asset class. But have the challenges private equity has faced over the last 12 months dented their appetite? What are some of these investors thinking when it comes to their private equity portfolios? In this episode of Spotlight, senior editor Adam Le sits down with Jill Shaw, a managing director at global consultancy Cambridge Associates, to find out what advice she is giving her clients when it comes to private markets portfolio construction and which investment strategies are most attractive to them.

The future of healthcare is here. Get an an inside look at the innovations transforming lives on season four of Unseen Upside, premiering Tuesday, February 6. This season, we pull back the curtain on cutting-edge advancements at the intersection of technology and medicine, learn how AI is revolutionizing diagnostics and treatment, discover the potential of GLP-1s to combat obesity, and how breakthrough Alzheimer's therapies are offering hope to millions. We'll also uncover creative approaches to solving the mental health crisis. Powered by the global network of Cambridge Associates, join us to explore healthcare investments beyond their returns.

Lorenzo Simonelli, CEO of Baker Hughes, joins to discuss the company's earnings and outlook for 2024. Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Industrial Services Analyst Scott Levine joins to discuss the earnings as well. Anna Rathbun, CIO at CBIZ Investment Advisory Services, gives her market outlook. Mark Douglas, Founder and CEO at MNTN, discusses the latest news and earnings from Netflix. And Andrea Auerbach, Head of Private Investments at Cambridge Associates, joins to discuss her view on the markets and current investment opportunities. Hosts: Paul Sweeney and Alix Steel See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We recently hosted a group of global institutional clients from 23 different countries for an educational event in our San Mateo headquarters. This feature episode is a panel discussion that Tony moderated with Brooks Ritchey, chairman of K2 Advisors, and Peter Blue, head of Alternative Solutions at Franklin Templeton Investment Solutions. We hope you enjoy this special edition of our podcast series. *********       Brooks Ritchey joined K2 Advisors (a hedged strategies division of Franklin Templeton) in 2005 and is currently a Portfolio Manager and Chairman. He is also a voting member of the K2 Investment Committee. Prior responsibilities at K2 include Co-Chief Investment Officer, Co-Head of Investment Research & Management, and Head of Portfolio Construction. Mr. Ritchey works with clients and investment management teams to analyze market and macroeconomic conditions, help determine asset allocation tilts, and manage absolute return and multi-asset hedged portfolios. Mr. Ritchey began his investment career in 1982 as a proprietary trader for the NYSE Specialist Firm of Conklin, Cahill & Co. Since 1987, Mr. Ritchey has successfully managed multi-asset mutual fund and hedge fund portfolios for institutional and registered portfolios while located in New York and Paris. Prior employers include Steinhardt Partners, Citibank, Finch Asset Management, Paribas, AIG, and ING/Barings. Mr. Ritchey graduated from Franklin & Marshall College in 1982 with a B.A. in Business Administration and is Series 3 NFA registered. Peter Blue is the Head of Alternatives Solutions for Franklin Templeton Investment Solutions. He is responsible for the development and implementation of multi-asset alternatives capabilities for the Solutions team.  Most recently, he was a client portfolio manager, also for Franklin Templeton Investment Solutions. Mr. Blue focuses on designing, managing, and maintaining multi-asset investment solutions for institutional clients in the Americas. Prior to joining Franklin Templeton, Mr. Blue was an investment analyst at QS Investors, a quantitative multi-asset and equity manager, where he was responsible for leveraging the breadth of QS' capabilities in the creation of new and custom investment solutions. QS Investors combined with Franklin Templeton Multi-Asset Solutions in October 2020 to create Franklin Templeton Investment Solutions. Before QS Investors in 2019, Mr. Blue was an alternatives product specialist at Legg Mason. Previously, he held product development, business development, and investment analyst roles with Guggenheim Partners, AlphaMetrix and Cambridge Associates, respectively. Mr. Blue holds a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration from Washington & Lee University, where he graduated magna cum laude. He also holds the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst (CAIA) and Financial Risk Manager (FRM) designations. Mr. Blue is a member of the CFA Society New York and the Global Association of Risk Professionals (GARP).

IBM sent shockwaves through the retirement industry recently when it was revealed that the tech and computing giant is halting its 5% 401(k) match in favor of a 5% contribution to a new, portable, immediate-vesting pension called a “Retirement Benefit Account.”Joining us to discuss this move and its wider implications within the retirement industry is someone who knows the defined benefit market very well in Brian McDonnell, Head of the Global Pension Practice at Cambridge Associates. There he oversees the firm's work with more than 150 plan sponsors, and also works directly with clients as their OCIO.He'll explain why the move happened, whether (and why) other plan sponsors might be considering it, and key trends he sees impacting the defined benefit space in the coming year.

⭐ My guest today is Micah Kotch, Partner at Blackhorn Ventures. Blackhorn Ventures invests in companies redefining industrial resource efficiency. Their portfolio serves enterprise customers across Energy, Construction / Real Estate, Supply Chain / Logistics and Transportation – interconnected industries that generate $3T in annual revenue and account for the vast majority of global greenhouse gas emissions. They've raised three funds totalling over $270 in AUM. Their investments in 60+ seed and Series A ventures is performing in the top quartile of all comparable VC funds, according to Cambridge Associates. Micah was previously part of the BMW Group, where he served as Managing Director of URBAN-X; the platform for startups reimagining city life. He is also a Founding Partner of C3, an AngelList syndicate backing companies working to reduce emissions, mitigate the worst effects of climate change, and help humanity adapt to a changing world. ---

In this episode, we speak with Andrea Auerbach, Head of Global Private Investments at Cambridge Associates. Cambridge Associates is a global investment firm that works with endowments, foundations, healthcare systems, pension plans, and private clients to implement and manage custom investment portfolios. With 50 years of institutional investing experience, the firm delivers a range of portfolio management services, including outsourced CIO, non-discretionary portfolio management, staff extension, and asset class mandates. Andrea leads a 50-person team sourcing and underwriting private equity, growth equity, distressed, and venture capital funds, as well as direct, co-investment, and secondary investment opportunities, resulting in over $10 billion being invested annually across these strategies. She is also a member of the firm's Leadership Team and leads CA's Discretionary Private Investments practice. I am your host RJ Lumba.  We hope you enjoy the show.  If you like the episode, click to subscribe.

Gordon Barnes is the Executive Vice President and the Head of Portfolio Group on the Bain Capital Partnership Strategies team, a group that manages assets primarily for Bain Capital's partners in strategies that diversify away from the equity-orientation of the firm's core. Colin Campbell, the group's co-head, was a previous guest on Capital Allocators, and that conversation is replayed in the feed for context on the group's approach to investing in esoteric assets. Prior to Bain Capital, Gordon was a Managing Director and Global Head of Operational Due Diligence at Cambridge Associates where he helped build the firms ODD practices. Our conversation covers Gordon's perspective on ODD from his time at Cambridge, becoming knowledgeable in uncommon fund strategies, some case studies from his work with managers, and what makes his role one of a kind. Learn More Follow Capital Allocators at @tseides or LinkedIn Subscribe to the mailing list Access transcript with Premium Membership

    Isela Rosales is the Managing Director, Head of ESG & Sustainability at Bridge Investment Group, a leading real estate investment firm. Isela is based in San Francisco, CA. Prior to joining Bridge, Ms. Rosales lived and worked in New York City for nearly a decade in the financial services sector building and managing large institutional client relationships for multiple global asset management firms.    She pursued and earned the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst designation in 2016 and decided to expand her financial services background from the hedge fund industry to include private real estate. She began her career at Cambridge Associates, working in Menlo Park following her graduation from Stanford University before receiving a promotion that would take her to the firm's Boston headquarters.    Ms. Rosales received her dual Bachelor of Arts degrees in International Relations and Spanish from Stanford, graduating with honors distinctions, and achieved top of her class ranking from Elsie Allen High's first graduating Class of 1997. She is fluent in Spanish and competes in Ironman and marathon competitions in her spare time.    Isela was the first alumna to start giving back to Elsie Allen through her Ironman competitions prior to the Foundation being established. She currently serves as a Community Member on the Board. Show Highlights A platform of strategies in renewable energy ventures and in secondaries in the real estate value arena to meet where the market is heading. Where real estate meets technology with the five areas of PropTech and ESG/sustainability is one of those five.  Tips to determine what to put effort into, what's important, and  selecting frameworks, scoring systems, and which plaques to go after. Unpack the vast menu of building certifications from the smallest to the largest that exist around the world.  What you need to know about PRI and PRI Signatory to achieve important milestones. The secret to ESG with some high level tips. What to consider for your organizations employee engagement, developing  talent and supportive measures for DEI. Selecting programs that make sense for a given property type.    “The S of ESG, does not represent sustainability, it actually represents Social - you can have the most efficient building out there, but you still have to factor in the People side of the equation. I really believe that when the topic of the S comes up, it's important to look at it from two perspectives. One, as the S relates to your company, what is going on for the employees of your company. And then the S is also for your company's investments in society.” -Isela Rosales        Show Resource and Information Connect with Charlie Cichetti and GBES   GBES is excited our membership community is growing. Consider joining our membership community as members are given access to some of the guests on the podcasts that you can ask project questions. If you are preparing for an exam, there will be more assurance that you will pass your next exam, you will be given cliff notes if you are a member, and so much more. Go to to learn more about the 4 different levels of access to this one-of-a-kind career-advancing green building community!   If you truly enjoyed the show, don't forget to leave a positive rating and review on .  We have prepared more episodes for the upcoming weeks, so come by again next week! Thank you for tuning in to the !   Copyright © 2023 GBES

Humans have fantasized about flying cars for decades, but they've yet to leave the pages of our sci-fi books...or have they? Join us as we visit Joby Aviation out in Marina, California to witness their eVTOL (electric vertical take-off and landing) aircraft take flight. With plans to operate like ubers in the sky, eVTOLs are the closest thing we have to flying cars—and they could be a commercial reality by 2025. The companies creating them promise a faster and greener mode of transportation, but who's investing in them? Are they safe? And how will they change our transportation infrastructure? We'll discuss these questions and more with Eric Allison (Joby Aviation); Andrew Beebe (Obvious Ventures); and Doug Carlson and Alex Innes-Whitehouse (pilots affiliated with Cambridge Associates).

Season three of Unseen Upside: Investments Beyond Their Returns by Cambridge Associates explores the innovations turning science fiction to fact and the people investing in them. Powered by the global network of Cambridge Associates, discover the investments being made that will redefine our future. Join us to uncover the Unseen Upside.

John-Austin Saviano is the founder of High Country Advisors, where he serves as a strategic advisor to both investment firms and the institutional pools of capital that back them. Before starting High Country in 2017, John-Austin served as an allocator for nearly two decades at the Moore Foundation, Cambridge Associates, and as the first CIO of UC-Berkeley's Endowment. Our conversation covers John-Austin's career path from direct investing to allocation and insights gleaned across his roles. We then turn to his work at High Country, including lessons he shares with emerging managers to help tell their story and navigate a difficult fund-raising environment and those he shares with allocators about governance and investment committees.   Access Stream by AlphaSense Free Trial Learn More  Follow Ted on Twitter at @tseides or LinkedIn  Subscribe to the mailing list  Access Transcript with Premium Membership