E297: Advisory Boards & LPACs: A Complete Masterclass for GPs

Why do so many advisory boards look impressive on paper but fail to deliver real value when it actually matters? In his second appearance on the podcast, I sit down again with Matt Curtolo, a senior advisor to both GPs and LPs who has worked with more than 600 general partners across venture, growth equity, and private equity. Matt breaks down the biggest misconceptions around advisory boards and LP advisory committees, why “performative” governance quietly destroys trust, and how the best managers design advisory structures with real purpose. We get tactical on compensation, LPAC construction, advisor selection, and how great firms turn advisors into a true strategic weapon—not window dressing.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00David Weisburd?

  So Matt, you've sat on more advisory boards and LPACs than nearly anyone I've ever met. You've also been involved in entities that have invested in over 600 GPs, not even funds, but GPs. So you've seen everything across the gambit. What's the biggest gap between GPs in terms of what they think they want from their advisors and their boards? And what they really need?

• 0:27Speaker 01

  First and foremost, it's this advisor means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So I think it's defining it. So you have your LP advisory committee, that sort of governance for the fund oversight of a particular entity or investment vehicle. Then you have a board of advisors, right? That can be independent folks, that can be industry folks. They're oftentimes more firm level, strategy level, maybe helping out portfolio companies, helping in different areas of firm and fund management. And then you have sort of the general advisor, which may be someone who has functional expertise that gets piloted into different parts of a portfolio, helping out a company.

• 1:12Speaker 01

  Could be doing a lot of different things, but it tends to be a bit more specific on that, on that end. So as you think about advisory boards, we'll kind of cover all of those, but they are what you make of them. So GPs sometimes go in thinking that this is, I have to show credibility by the people that are involved around the table. So I use the word performative a lot of, sometimes these boards end up being, looking and feeling not necessarily that functional, but really are put together with the expectation that people will be impressed by it, to put it blunt. The other piece of that is you have to design it with, I say, purpose and clarity, right? So what do we want to achieve by putting this group of people together? That starts with the GP.

• 1:57Speaker 01

  And I think that's where a good advisor, you know, you ask about the gap, right? What do they actually want versus what do they need? Most of the time, they don't define it. I think that's where you have to start, is the GP defining what they want to get out of this? And then everything sort of follows from that. It can be fiduciary, strategic, could be a sounding board, but. I think you needed to find that upfront and then I think the rest of it will take shape.

• 2:21David Weisburd?

  Like that they're plugging in the gaps. So take it to the extreme. If you have the perfect team or you have something for everyone, you wouldn't have any advisors because you would have reputation, you would have all the functionality, you would have everything that you need internally without needing an advisor.

• 2:36Speaker 01

  I would never say never because I think advisors in my current advisory practice, one of the things that folks really are looking for is just someone to tell them objective truth, right? No one who's independent advisor, I think is a title that really comes in because that's really what you want to try and get from folks. These, even if you're at the top of your game in terms of the team, the reputation, all of the functional areas within your firm, you're still going to want someone to keep you accountable and to look at things outside of the four walls. So I think that's someone maybe without a vested interest from an economic perspective or material economic perspective, but someone who's really there to tell you the objective truth.

• 3:22David Weisburd?

  Somebody that's truly unconflicted, that's not an LP, that's not a board member, that may not even have any power and they're really the best friend of the GP and the best friend of the team that's really giving them the difficult and important feedback in a non-conflicted manner.

• 3:40Speaker 01

  Very much. I think that, that I would say sort of index towards self-awareness and humility. As a GP, you, you can't believe that you know everything and you have the right way to do everything. And I think you do have to be humble. This business can humble you, whether that be from fundraising to managing companies. I think about a lot of the early stage firms that I work with where more than half of the companies go to zero, right? You can't fix that. That's the nature of the business, but you do have to be humble about a lot of this and take in that feedback, the best place to get that feedback. And probably the most willing folks to give that feedback are folks who are just there kind of rowing in the same direction, but not necessarily in the boat with you, to use that analogy.

• 4:23David Weisburd?

  One of the hardest things of investing is seeing what's shifting. Before everyone else does. For decades, only the largest hedge funds could afford extensive channel research programs to spot inflection points before earnings and to stay ahead of consensus. Meanwhile, smaller funds have been forced to cobble together ad hoc channel intelligence or rely on stale reports from sell-side shops. But channel checks are no longer a luxury. They're becoming table stakes for the industry. The challenge has always been scale, speed, and consistency. That's where AlphaSense comes in. AlphaSense is redefining channel research. Instead of static point in time reports, AlphaSense channel checks delivers a continuously refreshed view of demand, pricing, and competitive dynamics powered by interviews with real operators,

• 5:06David Weisburd?

  suppliers, distributors, and channel partners across the value chain. Thousands of consistent channel conversations every month deliver clean comparable signals, helping investors spot inflection points weeks before they show up in earnings or consensus estimates. The best part, these proprietary channel checks integrate directly into AlphaSense's research platform, trusted by 75% of the world's top hedge funds, with access to over 500 million premium sources. From company filings and brokerage research to news trade journals and more than 240,000 expert call transcripts. That context turns raw signal into conviction. The first to see wins, the rest follow. Check it out for yourself at alphascense.com/HowIInvest.

• 5:48David Weisburd?

  When people think of advisors, they think of advice. It's literally in the name. But when I gave you some examples, you said heads of talent, former CEOs, it could be very functional. So are there any limits to what an advisor could be? In other words, what's the difference between a full-time team member and advisor? What's that distinction? Is it just the amount of time that somebody spends? And how do you go about deciding whether something needs to be an advisor or a team member?

• 6:17Speaker 01

  I think it it sort of comes in three different versions, right? What is the cadence of their engagement and availability, right? Are they, is this someone who's sitting in a full-time seat? In that case, it would look weird if they have two full-time jobs and are a full-time team member. But you can absolutely get a few hours of their time a quarter potentially, or have them on call for specific needs. So I think that availability and cadence of the engagement is one. The expectation set, I think, are the other piece. It's like, what, what are they supposed to deliver, right? If this is someone who you want to be able to be engaged on a weekly basis versus a quarterly basis, and I think going back to cadence, how involved does this person need to be?

• 7:00Speaker 01

  So I think there is a fine line, and I'd say advisors too, from a compensation perspective, are treated differently than full-time employees. That's probably, you know, to turn the dials between cash compensation and non-cash, carry, equity, things like that. Most advisors take their compensation in the non-cash area. Maybe they have a small retainer, but for the most part, the full-time employee is going to have, or the full-time team member is going to have sort of the, the full package of compensation.

• 7:33David Weisburd?

  Let's talk about compensation.

• 7:36David Weisburd?

  I want to talk about the different frameworks available for best practices for compensating advisory board member. Talk to me about how you go about thinking about that. And most specifically, what are some best practices around determining the compensation for advisory board team members?

• 7:54Speaker 01

  So, so for an LPAC, for an LP advisory committee, there's generally no compensation other than the GP kind of, or covering their travel expenses or things that, that they need to incur to attend these, these meetings.

• 8:10Speaker 01

  Independent advisors, I think, you know, a lot of firms don't have a huge paid advisory practice, but I think for the most part, like I said, it's mostly carry, very kind of small amount of cash. Let's say for a classic low-touch advisor, maybe two meetings a year. They're, they get a, they have a brand that the firm can use, then kind of tap them as needed. I think the market for that is 20 to 50 basis points in terms of, of the total carried interest pot. And again, this is very flexible based on firm. Some of that is contractual, some of that is,

• 8:50Speaker 01

  a lot of people will call it jump ball, or you can be merit-based or performance-based type stuff. But the way I try to think about, like for these carry-only and, and carry-heavy advisors, structure it like a, I use the phrase mini-partner, where it may be tied to a specific fund, it may be back-ended in terms of the vesting schedule. You don't get anything upfront, so you're really testing out that advisor. Are they adding a lot of value? Have they been able to support what you're building? Have they delivered on the expectations you set forth? And then, you know, have a kind of a linear, linear vesting schedule beyond that. So, a no, no vesting, a cliff, and then kind of go into linear vesting after that.

• 9:36David Weisburd?

  So similarly, like employees, you would have a cliff with advisors? And what's the trade-off between that and just vesting them on a monthly basis?

• 9:44Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think that the biggest piece would be trying to make sure that you're getting what you hoped you would get before committing to a lot of this, right? That carry is, cash is the finite resource. We can do the math on how that comes in and flows out. Carry is a bit more flexible. It does tie back to alignment, right? I think an advisor who's willing to take carry as a form of compensation.

• 10:09Speaker 01

  All things being equal is more likely to put more effort and energy into fulfilling the role that they've taken on versus someone who's getting paid a retainer to sit on a board and you know, they're getting that either way. So I think that's the you, you, you want to make sure that they're achieving the goal that you've set forth at the beginning of the relationship. When you've kind of signed them up as an advisor, the try before you buy, you can almost put around that. But for the most part, I think that's the difference between what you would want with, with an advisor versus with a cliff with sort of a period of time where you're testing out the relationship versus starting that clock on day one.

• 10:51David Weisburd?

  What's the typical hit rate for a successful advisory relationship that you see in the average venture growth equity PE fund?

• 11:01Speaker 01

  It's tough to say like the, the, the hit rate on achieving the goals that they've been set out to do. There, there's another piece of this where there's kind of a natural shelf life for some folks. So let's say you have an advisor, a board of advisors, or I always say the slide of faces of all the folks that are connected to you. At some point, maybe their natural network is going to age out of the strategy. You're going to have a shift. They're going to be more involved in things. So there's some natural turnover within the advisor pool for funds. But I think for the most part, it's a pretty high success rate for, at least in my conversations with GPs, right? They are getting most of what they need from their advisors. And in the situations where they're not, it's

• 11:46Speaker 01

  less tenuous to kind of turn them over or let them age out of that situation. So it's, I think it's a, it's a relatively high success rate. A lot of these folks are known to the, to the investors and to the GP team. So even if there may be some misalignment, there's an opportunity to have a conversation around resetting expectations and maybe go there.

• 12:07David Weisburd?

  As a manager goes from one fund to the next, there's a natural point where you could decide whether to reengage. So you don't have to quote unquote, fire the advisor. There's just a natural transfer.

• 12:19Speaker 01

  It's a very flexible relationship. I think that's partly to your question before of what's, what's the line between an advisor and a, and a full-time person. Flexibility might be the number one piece of that. And these are folks who. Themselves will likely have, let's take someone who's mid-career, who wants to be active. I see this a lot in venture, somebody who's, you know, chief marketing officer at a large company, at a large hyperscaler perhaps, they really get a lot more than just compensation by being involved with early-stage firms. They get to see and touch and feel some of the things that are out there. They also get the pay it forward aspect of helping earlier-stage companies scale.

• 13:04Speaker 01

  So I think you have some of those folks where they may just get busy, or they may have a great windfall where they're not going to be an advisor anymore. They start their own family office, they go off and do their own thing. So I think you have a lot of just natural things that happen within the ecosystem that cause that turnover.

• 13:22David Weisburd?

  So let's say you have a GP that's starting their franchise and building their fund one. How would you go about advising that GP to build their advisory board from scratch? Tell me the step-by-step.

• 13:35Speaker 01

  Why don't I talk about the LP Advisory Committee? Because in this case, I think that's for first-time funds. By their very nature, there's a first time they're doing it. So I think, what do you want this group to accomplish, right? Back to some of the earlier points, the purpose, the expectations. Is this a group that's going to be approving valuations and governing conflicts? Is it going to help you raise capital? Is it going to help you hire folks? Is it, you know, I think defining that role, whatever it might be, the structure will follow beyond that. I also think keeping it manageable for a first-time fund is important, right? I think there's, I've sat on LPACs with 25 people. There's where it becomes a bit performative, right?

• 14:19Speaker 01

  For the GP, you have to manage all of these relationships. Folks who have that seat want to have maybe some extra attention. That's a lot, but inevitably, there's a core few folks who really matter. That might be two, three, five. So the tighter, the better, I think, on the advisory committees. And then I think finally, you want to align the expertise to the strategy. I'd say like, if you're an earlier-stage Operator-led fund, you might only need one advisor here. And this is kind of pivoting into the broader advisor rules. You might have a former CEO who's run a bunch of companies, who can be a coach, who can do intros,

• 15:04Speaker 01

  who is more that Swiss Army knife type advisor. But maybe just to switch back to the LPAC, pick folks who are going to be genuinely helpful as you build out your firm, right? It's not to say you even need a formal LP advisory committee. I'm involved with a few managers where it's informal, but we have regular conversations around, hey, I'm running into this problem with my administrator. Hey, I'm doing my first annual meeting. What should I do in my own advisory practice? Now that is a big piece of just helping folks get that that bandwidth and leverage and and wherewithal of people who've been there and done that. So I think that's the way a first time fund should think about their LP advisory committee.

• 15:48Speaker 01

  Get me sounding boards, folks who've been there, folks who can kind of serve as a river guide and help me navigate. And then with advisors, really align that strategy, align the expertise that you're targeting with the strategy that you're running.

• 16:01David Weisburd?

  One thing that I've learned from talking to hundreds of investors, founders and business leaders is that planning for the future isn't just about growing assets. It's also about protecting the people who matter most. Life comes with a lot of important milestones. Maybe you're buying a home, starting a family, planning for college, or simply thinking more intentionally about your financial future. As those responsibilities grow, it's worth making sure you protect those you love. Not sure what kind of life insurance you may need? Concerned about how much it may cost? Think life insurance is too complicated? Your local State Farm agent can help answer those questions. They can help you explore your options for life insurance and choose coverage that you can adjust as your family's needs change over time. Financial protection for your loved ones when it matters most. Learn more about life insurance at statefarm.com. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.

• 16:47David Weisburd?

  So it seems like the way to go about building your advisory board starts, nothing to do with advisory board, it starts to do with the team. What are the strengths, what are the weaknesses, what are you trying to achieve? And then you do a first principles analysis on whether that gap could be achieved through a full-time hire, a part-time hire, or an advisor. And obviously, the advisor could be some, some form of the, the part-time hire. So it actually has nothing to do with advisory board, has to do with the fund itself, figuring out what is needed internally, and then figuring out whether advisor is the right tool to solve that need.

• 17:25Speaker 01

  I think that's well said, David. I think that the reality is, it can take so many different shapes. I've seen good ones, I've seen bad ones. In, I've seen a lot that are, that are there for fiduciary reasons, right? These LP advisory committees, generally in the, in the LPAs, GPs say, we are going to have an LP advisory committee made up of X, Y, and Z, that's going to meet once a year and do these, these things, right? So back to the idea of being performative. I wouldn't say it's performative in the sense that it's a big song and dance.

• 17:58David Weisburd?

  You've mentioned the word performative, and I, I get what you're saying, which is essentially window dressing. But isn't that really important for a fund one or fund two, somebody that's an emerging manager, to have the right optics around a fund? I know no one's supposed to talk about that, but the reputation, the optics, and, and really, I think it's true skin in the game. If you have the former CEO of Pepsi, who obviously made a lot of money and has a lot of reputation on the line, if he's on your advisory board, it is a strong signal, even if it's, even if he takes two phone calls a year. So, so shouldn't, shouldn't advisory boards have that performative aspect as well?

• 18:37Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's, it's worth digging into what that actually means, because I think from an LP's perspective, when I see a page of all the faces of all the people that are well-known, have had great careers, a bunch of logos of the companies they've worked at, my immediate next question is, what do they do? How are they compensated? How much time are you getting there? So, on the surface, yes, I think it's important. If it is only there as window dressing, to use your words, then I'm going to sniff it out and that's going to have a black mark on the record. Whereas I'll give you an example. There's a great manager that I've invested with in the past in Seattle called Fuse. They're

• 19:16Speaker 01

  an early-stage venture firm. They have all the logos of all the big firms in the Pacific Northwest. And these folks are tactically and strategically used. They're LPs, but they're also advisors. And it is doing the diligence when an LP kind of goes through that process. Hey, Founder X, why did you choose this firm? Well, we talked to the former CEO of Starbucks, or Costco, or whatever it might be, and they were able to make an introduction. So I think it goes a layer deeper, right? It's the slide on the page, but is there substance behind it? That's where I think an advisor group becomes a weapon for the firm, right?

• 19:56Speaker 01

  And really becomes a selling factor versus here are a bunch of really famous people that I know.

• 20:03David Weisburd?

  I know in terms of recruiting talent, the talent wars are conducted pretty much on email and LinkedIn. So I've heard a lot of times advisors that put their affiliation on their LinkedIn is a very strong signal. How realistic of that is an ask for GPs to ask their advisors to do that? Talk to me about that.

• 20:23Speaker 01

  Yeah, I actually think it's low hanging fruit in my mind. I think like that's something that a GP, or I'm sorry, GP can ask, right? If someone's willing to be an advisor and not put it on something like their LinkedIn, that's a red flag for me. You know, and that's not necessarily like I'm going to take that as a negative and not dig into it. But there may be reasons behind it. But I do think that is a signal of this advisor is sort of putting it out there in the public sphere that they are connected to this company or firm. So I think that is, it is positive from, I wouldn't say it's like table stakes, because there are a lot of people that just don't do it. So there's probably a big neutral category here. But if

• 21:06Speaker 01

  it's on there, it's positive. It does send a positive signal. If it's in the deck and not in those public spheres, it may have, you know, a less positive or potentially negative signal.

• 21:18David Weisburd?

  And as I mentioned, you've been investor through different organizations that you've been in, over 600 GPs, which is a crazy amount.

• 21:29David Weisburd?

  What is the most strategic way and the smartest way that you've seen GPs use advisors? Give me some case studies.

• 21:37Speaker 01

  Let's take the LP Advisory Committee. That's the one where I've probably served in the most capacities. The best way a GP can use an LP Advisory Committee is first through its construction and its diversity. Get representation from different parts of the globe, get from different entity types, right? And maybe just to take a step back, an LP Advisory Committee is set up by the GP at their discretion. They meet at their discretion and in some cases, they do pass on some fiduciary responsibility of oversight of governance conflicts. They may have a voting power outside of what the broader LP base is. So it's, it can be a very important body.

• 22:19Speaker 01

  So I think as the GP, you want to put something together that has diversity, is not expansive. So you can really get positive impact and influence from these folks. You can have conversations, honestly, before things go sideways. I think that's the other piece of it is you, what you really don't want is an LP committee where they're just kind of going through the motions. You want the best functioning committees that I've been on have been GPs who bring the quote unquote dirty laundry into that room and talk to their LPs about it. Seek counsel, seek advice on what should we do? You are experienced folks. We have you in this room for a reason.

• 23:04Speaker 01

  Help us. I mean, so I think it comes from a genuine relationship and that's, I think, an LP Advisory Committee. It's the number one goal is to make sure that you have an open line of communication, real transparency. And, you know, I think what you actually get is a room full of advocates. They see how the sausage is made. They really get close to that GP. So it can, again, back to the idea of it being a weapon for the GP. That's, those are the best committees I've been on.

• 23:37David Weisburd?

  What's a tactful way for GPs to leverage their advisory board in order to fundraise and some key LP introductions, or to have their advisors help them get LPs over the line?

• 23:52Speaker 01

  Hmm. They are, it goes back to when I'm, when I'm doing the diligence on a fund and I see these names in there, they're going to be on my list of people I want to talk to. So have them, I think the, for the GP, they have to think about advisors as extensions of the partnership, right? They have to be able to tell that story. You know, it's not about just name dropping and, you know, kind of putting that, this, putting that out into the ether. It's like, I know this person, can you make some introductions? I think that's, maybe that's something that they can do. And you do, as the GP, want to leverage the networks that your advisors have. But I think,

• 24:32Speaker 01

  give the GP, or give the advisor enough transparency and access so that they can reinforce your message for you. You want to amplify this as many ways as you can in a fundraising market that's incredibly challenging. I don't know if an advisor is going to, you know, really activate capital all the way from beginning to end, but they can very much be a driver as an LP moves through their diligence process. And then the GP can arm them with specific case studies. And you want it to be honest about what are they, what are they doing? Where have they come from? How does it align with the fund

• 25:11Speaker 01

  strategy? I always probe less about their prior experiences, but what are they doing now in relation to the firm? How have they been involved? Do they attend the weekly meetings? Do they talk about pipeline and deal flow? Or they just attend once a month and talk about the things that they're working on? So it can take a variety of ranges, but I think the, the idea of they're an extension of the partnership, they can reinforce your message. They can really drive home some points when LPs are in mid funnel. And of course, they can always open up their network at the top of the funnel.

• 25:46David Weisburd?

  Let's talk about LPAC constructions. What are the most common mistakes GPs make when it comes to constructing their LPACs?

• 25:54Speaker 01

  Too many is certainly the first piece of it. Too many LPs on the board, back to the purpose. So I think the place where folks can go wrong too is we have too many folks on there, but there is a sort of a suitability test for who should be on that, that LPAC. Right. It's not just LPs that write the biggest check. In a lot of cases, that is something that when you are a large investor, you ask for in every fund and GPs feel like that's kind of a carrot. Right. You write a big check, you can be on the LPAC. I would just say decouple size and suitability. So not every large LP is suited to be on the LPAC and kind of serve in that function.

• 26:38Speaker 01

  So that's one place where I would say, make sure that you don't let it get too big just by people who write big checks. It can lose effectiveness. The, I would say, once you get over into double digits, I see you really start to erode some of that ability to have one-to-one conversations. I mentioned it before, but I would say, don't over-index on one LP type. So diversity of LP types.

• 27:03David Weisburd?

  Why is that? What's the risk?

• 27:05Speaker 01

  Yeah, absolutely. So like the, a pension fund, for example, is going to look at the world differently than an insurance company, than an OCIO. And these are all capacities that I've sat on LPACs on versus, you know, a small fund versus a big fund. What is the time commitment that you expect from people? They're all, I always said that the LP on the advisory committee is certainly looking out for their own institution's best interest, but they should also have a lens into the way that other folks operate. So if you can put folks that represent each of those different areas, taxable investors, non-taxable, as private wealth becomes bigger, you have all sorts of different perspectives that as a GP,

• 27:45Speaker 01

  I should want those diverse viewpoints to come through in the conversations I'm having around the portfolio, or maybe even some of the stickier situations. So don't over-index on one or the other. You want to hear from all the different constituencies that make up your portfolio. And I'll come back to it too, David. I think the, the, what is the goal of the group? What guidance do you want to get from them? Without that, you can't pick the right LPs or have the right cadence. So I think that's, if you don't start there, all the rest of this becomes a little bit noisy and hard to assess.

• 28:24David Weisburd?

  What's the optimal size of the LPAC? You mentioned double digits is too much. What's the optimal size?

• 28:29Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm a big, I think five or six is probably a good number. But probably more of a range. You could absolutely get by with three. Could you have nine or 10? Sure. I think the devil's in the details there. I will certainly say, once you get to 15 or 20, it becomes really hard to manage. From materials, meetings, you know, you want to be able to use this. Inevitably, that ends up shrinking down to a core group. You're going to call five of these folks when you have something. And I always say, like, I ask a GP, which LPAC member do you call first when something happens? Not that they're stack ranking their favorite children in this situation,

• 29:13Speaker 01

  but there is a core group that you lean on for more advice than others.

• 29:16David Weisburd?

  What's your sense for the venture market today? Coming into 2026, tell me about the venture market today.

• 29:24Speaker 01

  I have said innovation has no clock, right? It doesn't really matter what's happening in the broader market. We are seeing step functions in terms of new and interesting technologies that are coming to bear. So I'm long-term bullish on the innovation economy. I would say the market, let's take it in two steps. Fundraising has been very challenging. It's getting more and more concentrated. The big firms are getting bigger. So you're seeing some round size inflation at the smaller end, where bigger firms are coming down market. And this is not a new phenomenon, but it's a continuation. And that's really where folks are kind of pulling that, that up.

• 30:07Speaker 01

  So, so round sizes are getting bigger. So larger GPs can write, let's call them option checks to put more dollars in the future. Emerging managers are getting crowded out, so you have maybe less sources for a founder to get capital. And LPs are also increasingly, based on that dynamic, are increasingly putting more dollars with the larger firms. The health of the companies, I think we've seen pretty much a reset in terms of where things were held relative to the peak three, four, five years ago. So I think you have companies still that are on the books, whether they survive or not, I think the reality has set in with a lot of these companies that were

• 30:47Speaker 01

  once valued in the billion plus range. Unicorns No More, I think, was the headline I was reading the other day. And that's just, I think we're getting to a normalization in the market. AI is the is the pocket of this that really defies all, all history and all logic. When you look at any of these large companies, how quickly they're growing, and you try to apply financial metrics to it, it's very hard to do. So I think you have that AI pocket and a lot of folks trying to rebrand and get lumped into that world. And then I think the other piece of it is, everything else is becoming AI enabled. So

• 31:31Speaker 01

  you have a consumer platform, you have all the things going on in aerospace and defense and hard tech. You have a lot of different pockets within the venture space that are becoming supercharged with AI, but not necessarily viewed from a valuation perspective as the pure AI hardware software layer.

• 31:51David Weisburd?

  At this been absolute masterclass on advisory boards. What would you like our audience to know about you and everything that you're working on?

• 31:58Speaker 01

  Absolutely. Well, having been, you mentioned 600 LP or 600 GPs that I've worked with over the years. My background has really covered the gamut. And what I've been doing for the last 18 months is, is working both with GPs and LPs in a advisory capacity. And that's something that I have a deep passion for recognizing and understanding of how LPs view GPs and how GPs should effectively talk to LPs and be that translation in between. So I get a lot of energy from doing that work now, especially working with emerging fund managers globally and LPs that are just getting into the asset class. It's not easy for everybody to navigate.

• 32:42Speaker 01

  There's not a lot of, I guess there's a lot more textbooks now than there used to be, but even just understanding the language, it operates like a different asset class. So love being able to educate folks, being able to help them get up the curve on both sides of the table.

• 32:54David Weisburd?

  It's one of those assets that you have to be on the ground because it's evolving every day.

• 33:00Speaker 01

  Totally. It's so rapid and I think that's the, both the exciting and the challenging part of it.

• 33:06David Weisburd?

  How should people follow you or get in contact with you?

• 33:10Speaker 01

  Yeah. LinkedIn is the place where I have centered most of my content and you know, I'm very active on there. So that's the best port of call and would love to hear from folks.

• 33:20David Weisburd?

  Awesome. Well, thanks so much, Matt. Appreciate you taking the time.

• 33:23Speaker 01

  Thanks, Dave.

• 33:24David Weisburd?

  That's it for today's episode of How I Invest. If this conversation gave you new insights or ideas, do me a quick favor. Share with one person in your network who'd find it valuable or leave a short review wherever you listen. This helps more investors discover the show and keeps us bringing you these conversations week after week. Thank you for your continued support.