CQ | AI-Powered Asset Management Software for Smarter Fundraising

Chapter 1

Investment Thesis

Defining Your Investment Thesis

The “Bankable Thesis” Framework (Why you? Why now? Why this strategy?)
Mandate Alignment: Matching thesis to LP allocation priorities

Emerging asset managers are still getting funded, but the bar is high and diligence is unforgiving. Institutional programs remain selective, yet allocators are actively searching for the next durable franchises while private wealth channels keep growing. That means your thesis can’t be a slogan; it has to be a bankable plan that a skeptical LP can underwrite in a few meetings. In 2025, that typically means: sharper focus, evidence of sourcing and execution advantages, transparent governance and reporting aligned with LP expectations.

Below you’ll find a practical framework, Why you? Why now? Why this strategy?, plus case studies, a sourcing-advantage audit, validation gates, and the most common thesis mistakes to avoid. Where possible, I map recommendations to the Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA) resources that many LPs use during diligence.

The “Bankable Thesis” framework: Why you? Why now? Why this strategy?

Why you?

As a new manager, you win trust by proving the edge you already own, not by promising the one you’ll build later. Show where your access is “unnatural”: the communities that send you warm intros every month, the operators who pick up your calls, the buyer councils you can convene on a week’s notice. Quantify it, intros per month, first-meeting rate, diligence rate, and name the sources.

Make attribution legible. If you have prior-firm or angel/scout work, present an evidence file: your role, the decision you influenced, the memo excerpt, and the post-decision milestone. Pair this with basic governance: who approves deals, how conflicts are handled, and how you’ll report. LPs read this as capability, control, and repeatability.

Why now?

Place your thesis inside today’s allocation reality, not last cycle’s. Family offices and the broader private-wealth channel continue to lean into private markets, while institutions stay selective and process-driven. Explain how your fund fits both paths: co-invest readiness and communication rhythm for wealth platforms; clean DDQ, reporting, and references for institutional programs.

Tie timing to real market catalysts your pipeline faces right now. That could be new distribution channels, clear regulatory shifts, supply-chain redesign, or cost-curve changes in your sub-sector. Your goal isn’t macro punditry; it’s to show that your sourcing and underwriting exploit current conditions in a way a generalist can’t.

Why this strategy?

Constrain the box so an LP can see the machine. Name your stage, geography, and two–three sub-themes. Show how deals enter (owned communities and referrers), how you qualify them (a short, repeatable screen), and how you underwrite (the 3–5 questions you always answer before term sheets). Then connect it to portfolio math, check size, target ownership, reserves, and expected velocity.

Make the operating system inspectable. Add ILPA-style artifacts to your data room: DDQ responses, sample quarterly reports, valuation and conflicts policies, side-letter approach, and a one-page “Sourcing Engine” memo with live conversion stats. When diligence is legible, you shrink the perceived “first-time manager” risk.

Mandate alignment: Match your thesis to 2025-2026 LP allocation priorities

Family offices / private-wealth platforms. UBS’s 2024 Global Family Office Report (320 single-family offices, ~$600B of wealth represented) shows continued interest in alternatives alongside higher developed-market bond and equity allocations; Barron’s coverage notes U.S. family offices still allocate a majority of portfolios to alternatives, with growing attention to private credit yields. If you plan to raise into the private-wealth channel, directly or via feeder structures, calibrate minimums, co-invest options, communication cadence, and education for RIAs accordingly. 

Institutional LPs / fund-of-funds. Buyouts Insider’s late-2024/early-2025 emerging-manager coverage highlights an environment where track record, readiness, and operational discipline dominate. Increasingly, LPs also look for co-invest capacity and transparent reporting. Your thesis should declare a stage/region/sub-sector box that fits their workflows and bandwidth. 

Risk backdrop. Geopolitics remains a top concern for global family offices in UBS’s survey and Reuters coverage, which should shape how you discuss resilience and scenario planning with wealth allocators. Don’t over-index your thesis to a single macro assumption.

What LPs mean by a “spiky thesis” (vs. generic sector/stage)

Allocators frequently describe their favorite emerging managers as spiky: the thesis has a knife-edge point where access, insight, and post-investment capabilities obviously align. The opposite is the “Swiss-army” pitch, seed to Series A, across SaaS and fintech, any region, which doesn’t display a repeatable edge.

Your thesis becomes spiky when you:

  • Constrain stage + geography + sub-sectors tightly (e.g., seed-only, U.S. Medicaid-adjacent care delivery; or Prairie-region food/ag supply chain).
  • Name specific founder profiles you target (e.g., ex-clinical-ops leaders; Indigenous founders with community contracts).

Show mechanics: where warm intros come from, how many per month, your first-meeting and diligence conversion rates, and what post-investment levers you actually pull. LPs reward managers who demonstrate disciplined process over adjectives.

The 3-question working session

Run this as a half-day internal workshop with your core partners and one analyst. The objective is to convert instincts into a slide-ready thesis that an LP can diligence. Time-box each question to 60 minutes, leave 30 minutes at the end to stitch the outputs into a one-pager and a sourcing memo.

1) Where do we have unnatural access?

Open with a whiteboard of the last six months of founder conversations. Write down every community, referrer, and channel that produced a warm intro, then put counts beside each. Separate “net new” from “repeaters.” Your goal is to identify two or three owned channels that regularly yield qualified opportunities, not a long list of sporadic origins.

For each channel, quantify the funnel. If an operator community in your niche generates 12–15 intros a month and 40% convert to first meetings, say so. If your women-investor network in Alberta surfaces six founders per quarter but 70% fit your mandate, that may still be best-in-class. If Indigenous entrepreneurship groups trust you enough to introduce procurement-ready teams, record both the volume and the quality of those introductions.

Name the humans. LPs discount abstractions. Capture the top ten referrers with contact info, how you know them, and their average “hit rate.” Document the attributes that make these sources work: shared background, prior work together, or the specific help you provided that keeps them sending founders. This not only proves access; it tells you where to invest more time.

Turn this into proof. Create a one-page “Sourcing Engine” memo: sources, monthly intro volume, first-meeting %, diligence %, and term-sheet %. Add two examples where a referral from these channels beat cold outreach to a deal. Include screenshots of community posts or event agendas when appropriate. This becomes slide two or three of your deck and an exhibit in your data room.

2) What asymmetry do we exploit in underwriting?

Shift from access to decision-making. List the questions you can answer in week one that most managers cannot. In healthcare, that might be payer coverage pathways, medical economics, or procurement sequencing. In climate, you might decode incentives, interconnection queues, or vendor qualification. In supply chains, you may validate throughput, defect rates, and switching costs with two calls.

Design a “day-5 package.” Specify the artifacts you will always produce before you deepen diligence: a buyer-call transcript, a mini unit-economics table, a distribution map, and a risk heatmap with three kill-criteria. If you can consistently produce this package inside five business days, your asymmetry is real and repeatable.

Make the red flags explicit. Write down the three patterns that trigger an immediate pass and the thresholds that define them. Perhaps a Medicaid-adjacent product with no identified champion fails, or a climate project without a realistic interconnect timeline. If you can spot these earlier than peers, show how that improves your win rate by avoiding dead-end work.

Quantify cycle time and hit rate. Pull the last ten opportunities you evaluated. Measure days to “no-go” for the losers and days to “IC readout” for the winners. If your average time-to-decision is materially shorter than market anecdotes you hear, that’s evidence of asymmetry. Convert it into a bar chart for the deck and store the underlying notes in the data room for reference checks.

3) What post-investment playbook compounds?

Define the levers you can pull in the first ninety days after investing and the resources behind them. If you run a customer council, describe its membership, cadence, and how many pilots it has accelerated. If you maintain a hiring bench for first ten GTM roles, list the profiles, interview scorecards, and typical time-to-fill. If you operate an ESG or impact framework, show the baseline survey, metric glossary, and quarterly cadence you’ll use.

Assign owners and hours. The playbook only compounds if real people have time to run it. Allocate partner hours per portfolio per quarter, note the advisors who will join, and cap the number of companies each person can support simultaneously. Add SLAs, such as “two customer intros within thirty days” or “first recruiter shortlist within fourteen days,” and track them.

Prove the loop back into sourcing. The strongest playbooks generate the next cycle of deals. When a portfolio company’s pilot leads to a public customer story, founders talk and future intros become warmer. When your hiring process lands a critical leader, that executive brings peers and vendors. Document two caselets where post-investment work created net-new pipeline, and quantify the lag from value-add to new intro.

Package this for diligence. Build a two-page “Value Creation OS” handout that mirrors your post-investment calendar: week-two council, week-four hiring sprint, week-eight commercial review. Add one anonymized case study with dates and milestones, and a short list of “kill-switches” if progress stalls. LPs care as much about your escalation logic as your enthusiasm.

Putting it together in slides and a memo

By the end of the session, you should have a three-slide story and two data-room exhibits. Slide one is the “Why You / Why Now / Why This Strategy” summary. Slide two is the Sourcing Engine with real conversion numbers. Slide three is the Day-5 Underwriting Package and the 90-Day Playbook timeline. The exhibits are a sourcing memo with named referrers and a value-creation handout with owners, hours, and SLAs.

Close by pressure-testing the numbers. If your current funnel will not sustain the portfolio math you want, check size, target ownership, reserves, decide whether to narrow the box or deepen a channel. Commit to a ninety-day plan to raise intro volume, shorten underwriting cycle time, or add capacity to your playbook. Re-run the session in a quarter and update the slides. The compounding effect comes from repetition, not rhetoric.

Why specificity beats broadness

Specific mandates don’t reduce opportunity; they reduce noise. Constrained stage/geo/sub-themes elevate signal quality (better intros, higher first-meeting hit rates) and help LPs believe your fund math (ownership targets, reserve planning, loss ratios) is achievable. Institutional buyers repeatedly say they prefer focus they can diligence quickly over “optionality.” Support that preference with ILPA-style materials and reporting samples to demonstrate what your investors will receive after close.

Case studies: “Spiky” theses in the wild

These managers illustrate how identity, community, region, and impact can create real access and discipline when paired with institutional process.

Raven Indigenous Capital Partners (Indigenous-led, North America)

  • Edge. Raven was created to address capital gaps for Indigenous entrepreneurs and to “decolonize the investment process,” enabling culturally safe investing. An Indigenous-led team and community ties provide sourcing and diligence context others lack.
  • Mandate and structure. Raven is profiled in the ImpactAssets 50 (IA 50), with work spanning equity and innovative finance for Indigenous-led ventures.
  • Lesson for your thesis. Identity- and community-rooted access is a defensible moat, but it still needs institutional scaffolding (clear policies, reporting, governance) to be bankable for LPs.

The51 (Gender + Prairie focus, Canada)

  • Edge. The51 is a women-powered capital platform founded in Calgary, tapping the Prairie region’s networks and mobilizing women investors and founders. The platform/community approach provides sourcing and aligned LP engagement.
  • Mandate and activity. Public materials emphasize democratizing capital for women and building a movement rooted in the Prairies; independent profiles echo the gender-lens focus and Calgary base.
  • Lesson. A region + demographic double-focus can produce proprietary deal flow and a sticky LP community, useful for first-close momentum.

Amplify Capital (Impact: Health, Education, Climate)

  • Edge. Toronto-based Amplify integrates impact measurement into diligence and ongoing portfolio support (e.g., B Corp support; ESG practices). The strategy is legible to LPs via transparent reporting and alignment with UN SDGs.
  • Mandate and validation. Listed in the IA 50 (2025) with stated AUM band and sector scope; the firm publishes an annual impact report that details the framework and portfolio outcomes
  • Lesson. A clearly defined impact lens + reporting discipline can differentiate sourcing, underwriting, and LP communication.

Your Sourcing Advantage Audit (turn this into a deck slide + data-room note)

Show the mechanics that link your thesis to fund math. Build this as a single “Sourcing Engine” slide and mirror it in the data room as a 1-2 page memo.

Inputs (top-of-funnel)

List the named communities, councils, and referrers that generate predictable founder intros. Example inputs might include an operator guild, a women-investor community in Alberta, or Indigenous entrepreneurship networks. Include monthly intro counts, not just logos. (LPs will probe whether volume and fit hold up over time.)

Qualification

Define the “five-factor screen” you apply in week one (e.g., buyer proof, distribution edge, regulatory pathway, early unit-economics signals, founder-problem fit). Be ready to show hit-rate metrics across these factors for recent pipelines.

Conversion math

Publish actual intro → first-meeting, first-meeting → diligence, and diligence → term-sheet rates for the last 6–9 months in your seam. Then show how those rates, combined with check size and ownership targets, support the portfolio shape you propose.

Compounding flywheel

Document the post-investment assets that generate the next cycle of deals (customer councils, referenceable case studies, founder content). For impact managers, link to your impact framework and reporting approach.

Evidence and governance

End with links to your ILPA-style DDQ responses, reporting samples, and key policies (valuation, conflicts, side-letter management), so a skeptical LP can see the operating system behind the engine.

Validation checklist

Think of this as a go/no-go before you hit the road:

  • Volume reality check. Have you spoken with ~80 founders in your exact seam over the last 6–9 months? (Heuristic, not a universal law.) If the number is single-digits, your top-of-funnel likely isn’t deep enough to sustain portfolio construction, fix the sourcing inputs first.
  • Fit rate. Are 30–40% of those conversations squarely in-box for your stage/geo/sub-sectors? If not, your mandate may be too broad or your channels mis-targeted.
  • Conversion math. Do your recent conversion rates support the fund you’re proposing? If your term-sheet rate is ~10% off a modest diligence base, that implies you need at least X qualified diligences per quarter to hit ownership goals.
  • External signals. Do you have third-party validation: referenceable founders, advisors, and early LPs who can articulate your edge?
  • Diligence legibility. Is your data room ILPA-aligned, with samples of the reporting LPs will receive? If not, you’re asking allocators to take on process risk.

This checklist is intentionally conservative. The point isn’t to meet a magic number; it’s to avoid the avoidable, months lost chasing a thesis that isn’t yet an operating system.

Common thesis mistakes

Too broad

“Sector-agnostic, early-stage everywhere” rarely survives a 2025 diligence process. Narrow to one stage, one region, and two or three sub-themes that match your access and insight. LPs say focus and readiness are winning traits in a hard market.

Misaligned with your experience

Your thesis should amplify your career evidence (operator background, buyer networks, prior-firm deals with documented attribution). Treat attribution like a spreadsheet, not a story.

Unsustainable sourcing wedge

If your deal flow depends on a paid list or a one-off scout program you don’t control, the edge will decay. Replace with owned communities and content/council flywheels that compound.

No fund math

You’re not pitching a collection of deals; you’re pitching a portfolio construction plan. Tie check size, target ownership, reserve ratios, and expected loss rates to the conversion math from your sourcing audit.

Impact claims without measurement

If your thesis includes impact, publish the framework (what you measure and why) and show historical reporting samples. This is exactly what LPs expect in part due to the widespread use of standardized impact and ESG templates in diligence.

Dated or non-standard reporting

If your templates don’t align with LP expectations, you’ll stall in diligence. Borrow liberally from ILPA resources for your DDQ and reporting samples so LPs can evaluate apples-to-apples across managers.

Thought leadership as proof: use content to demonstrate the edge

LPs don’t fund blog posts; they fund managers who operate with clarity and repetition. Thought leadership is your way to show that operating system in public. When it is specific, regular, and useful, it becomes a soft signal that you can run the same disciplined process inside the fund.

Start with a monthly “seam memo.” Pick one narrow bottleneck inside your mandate and explain how to unlock it, step by step. Keep it 1,000 – 1,500 words, include a simple diagram, and close with a short “what we learned” box. Quote two or three real stakeholders, buyers, partners, or founders, so readers hear the market, not just your voice.

Each quarter, publish two founder playbooks that codify your post-investment help. These should read like instructions, not opinions. Show the order of operations, the timeline, and the failure thresholds. Add a lightweight template or scorecard so a founder can apply it in one sitting. LPs will recognize these as the same artifacts they expect to see in your data room.

A “what we won’t do” post each quarter signals discipline. Define the edges of your box and give examples that nearly fit but don’t. This reduces off-thesis inbound and builds credibility with allocators who dislike mandate drift. The most persuasive versions explain why the exception fails and what would have to be true for you to say yes.

Prioritize channels you own first. A newsletter is the backbone: send the memo, summarize the playbook, and link to one mini case. House everything on a /library page with filters by theme and stage so founders and LPs can navigate quickly. Once the library exists, repurpose each piece into a short thread for LinkedIn or X and a ten-minute audio or video brief.

Tie public content to diligence. In the first folder of your data room, include a one-page “Content Index” with links to your best memos and playbooks, plus your DDQ and reporting samples. The goal is to show that your external voice matches your internal operating system. It also reduces back-and-forth during diligence because allocators can self-serve the context.

This works because it compounds. Useful content earns shares inside the exact communities you rely on for deal flow. The right founders show up with the right problems. Your meetings start closer to diligence because prospects already understand your approach. And when an LP sees consistent, narrow writing over time, they infer repeatable judgment, not one-off insights.

Build a small editorial system so this cadence survives busy weeks. Assign topic selection and final edits to a partner, research interviews to an analyst, and light design to someone who can turn templates into clean PDFs. Work on a six-week rolling schedule: interviews and outline in week one, draft and review in week two, publish in week three, then rotate playbooks and case notes over weeks four to six.

Measure what maps to fundraising. Track new subscribers, average read time on memos, and how many replies come from founders who fit your box. Count warm intros generated by each piece and note which topics get referenced in LP meetings. If a memo doesn’t produce qualified inbound, the topic was likely too broad; tighten the seam, not the cadence.

Mind compliance, especially if you’re US-based. Keep case studies about process and learning rather than performance. Avoid unsubstantiated claims. If you use testimonials or external ratings, follow the eligibility and disclosure rules and keep records. Maintain a simple content log with sources, approvals, and versions so you can evidence your controls.

Squeeze more value from each insight. From one memo, create a two-page PDF, a short thread, a video walkthrough, a founder workshop, and an internal “field note” explaining how the learning changes your screening. Reuse is not filler; it ensures the same truth reaches the founder, the allocator, and your own team.

Common pitfalls are predictable. Don’t publish laundry lists that any generalist could write; focus on the knot your founders keep hitting. Don’t let perfect block the schedule; shorten the piece but ship on time. And don’t forget the artifact, every memo should produce a template or checklist that someone uses within a week.

In a selective market, this is your quiet edge. Narrow, regular, evidence-heavy content proves you have a system, not a slogan. It improves the quality of inbound, accelerates diligence, and makes your thesis legible to the people who matter most: the founders you want to back and the LPs you want to partner with.

How to Fundraise Your First Fund in 2025

Defining Your Investment Thesis

LP Targeting: Family Offices to Fund-of-Funds

Building Your Sourcing Edge

Running Your Fundraising Process

Fund Structure: 506(b), AIFMD & ELTIF

First Close: Funnel & Metrics

US Marketing Rules & SEC Compliance

The Final Close Checklist

EU Fundraising Routes

LP Reporting & Communication

Building Your LP Data Room & DDQ

Secondaries & Continuation Funds

Scroll to Top