The infinitely eloquent Maya Angelou offered a most poignant conceptualization of the past, stating, “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.” These words cut deep into the essence of the advantages of truthfully representing the building blocks of our past, which form the foundation of who we are today. The assessment of history plays a huge role in private assets investing, particularly for an investment analyst trying to understand a GP’s DNA. This endeavor typically occurs at the onset of engagement and can either smooth or roughen the journey that follows. There are several scenarios in which an accurate depiction of a GP’s history is absolutely critical to the furtherance of due diligence work. For brevity and efficiency, I will focus on the two situations that most readily come to mind.
Scenario 1: You meet an emerging manager who has not yet built a reputation of any sort, so the narrative behind the GP is some mix of the individual histories of the principals, aspirational statements, and the prospective LP’s intuition informed by historical learnings about desirable GP attributes. In this scenario, it is essential that the manager presents all relevant and verifiable facts about its past that can serve as fodder for the prospective LP to deftly sculpt for internal purposes. I have seen too many emerging managers shoot themselves in the foot by either overexaggerating roles at previous shops, downplaying the advantages their previous organizations provided them, intentionally omitting past mistakes, and/or glossing over areas within their current investment arsenal that are lacking.
Scenario 2: You commence due diligence on a manager who has some history that you are not intimately knowledgeable about. The manager is typically raising its third, fourth, fifth (or beyond) vehicle. In some cases, the strategy you are assessing is a new offshoot of a manager that has been around for some time. You have not participated in any of the GP’s prior funds, perhaps because of a lack of access, low demand, unfamiliarity with the manager, etc. However, as an analyst, you need to quickly catch up on the manager’s trajectory and the key developments that got the GP to where it is today. The track record is just one piece of the puzzle, and historical turnover is another, but there are other things, both subtle and monumental, that need to be understood for the mosaic of the manager’s essence to start becoming discernible. Many GPs in such situations have some sort of timeline depicting important historical events. More often than not, this timeline has a positive tilt – almost everything within it portrays growth, ascension, and seamless progression – there is typically very little depiction of stumbles (at least not in writing). This is somewhat understandable because we have been trained as investors to focus on the future, so GPs are inclined to summarize the past as efficiently as possible and concentrate on what they can do for the investor in the future. Hence, it is up to the prospective LP to decide whether to rely solely on the positively summarized GP narration of its history and concentrate on the future, or to dig deeper into the manager’s past to develop an independent view that is usually very useful in determining the likely future.
There are a few reasons I believe GPs should not be lackadaisical about explaining their past. I believe there are more landmines in erring too much on summarizing rather than being thoughtful about providing the right amount of detail about key past happenings. I provide some of these reasons below:
- Trust squandered that early can be impossible to regain: LPs conducting due diligence on a private assets manager are doing so in order to potentially lock up capital for a relatively long period of time. LPs are typically on high alert and jittery at any time during the period leading up to the signing of the subscription documents. Finding out about any misrepresentation, glossing over, or embellishment of facts can lead to the complete jettisoning of opportunities, and these discoveries can be passed on to other LP peers infinitely. Discrepancies in seemingly simple (or serious, depending on the assessor) things like past titles, roles of folks who have left the firm, reasons for departures, reasons for strategy pivots, timing of strategy pivots, historical/pending lawsuits, etc., can cost GPs valuable LPs. It is better to be accurate and lose a potential LP because they are not comfortable with actual occurrences than to be too cute with the truth and forfeit any chance of future reengagement.
- Bleeds into everything else: I am constantly telling my kids about the pitfalls of one too many divergences from the truth. This makes it difficult to believe any or all of what they say, many of which might actually be true. This theory applies to many aspects of life, including GP backstories. One seemingly inconspicuous omission or soft pedal can taint everything else, particularly core competencies or differentiators. It is crucial for GPs to be fully cognizant of what butters their bread so as not to let shortsighted cosmetic enhancements detract from the actual value that they bring to the table. Rather than letting minor details or inconsequential misrepresentations distract from the bigger picture, it’s essential for GPs to stay focused on the substantive qualities and genuine potential. When GPs concentrate on what truly matters, such as proven capabilities gained from experience, lessons learned, and strategic vision, LPs have no choice but to do the work of really getting to know the manager.
- Hampers true growth:The most successful managers who also happen to be the most cherished by LPs go out of their way to divulge past naïve or even foolish actions as well as historical self-inflicted damage. It is almost a cathartic ritual that allows them to be both transparent and accountable. This goes a long way toward generating LP confidence because there is explicit and implicit assurance that the manager will continue to be self-reflective, act with the goal of not repeating mistakes, and strive to improve incrementally. The worst thing one or an institution can do is to start believing their own manufactured history – this might get you to a certain point, but it will not get you to the point of true growth, which, in addition to hitting potentially hitting economic goals, includes the satisfaction of moral cleanliness and overarching respect.
A clear and accurate backstory from a GP is essential because it fosters trust and transparency, enabling LPs to make informed decisions about long-term commitments. When managers are forthright about their history—including both achievements and missteps—they build credibility and strengthen relationships, reducing the risk of reputational damage from later discoveries. This honesty also encourages genuine self-reflection and continuous improvement, which ultimately benefits both the GP and their investors. For all parties involved, prioritizing authenticity over embellishment sets the stage for sustainable growth and mutual respect.
Anthony Kwesi Hagan
Founder and Head of Research, FreedomizationTM
January 11th, 2026
