E223: The Art of Capital Allocation at $86 Billion Scale

What are the real playbooks behind managing an $86B alternative asset platform—and where do the next decade’s returns actually come from? In this episode, I sit down with Payton Brooks, Managing Director on Future Standard’s Primary Investments team, to unpack the operating system behind a multi-strategy LP: how a combined platform serves both institutions and the wealth channel, why mid-market private equity still offers the best shot at alpha, and how evergreen structures can reduce cash drag while preserving optionality. We cover sourcing (spinouts, emerging managers), what great GPs do in downturns, the co-invest / secondaries / credit toolkit, and the partnership behaviors that earn re-ups across multiple fund cycles.

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

• 0:00David Weisburd?

  So tell me about Future Standard. What is Future Standard?

• 0:03Speaker 01

  Yes, so Future Standard, we serve institutional and private wealth clients. We invest across private equity, private credit and real estate. We've got over 86 billion of assets under management, 30-plus years of servicing our clients and our investors, 12 offices, 600 professionals. And we rebranded recently in July of this year to Future Standard after a transformational merger of Portfolio Advisors and FS Investments, which occurred in June of 2023. And so Future Standard is the combined name of our two firms and now, you know, bringing value to our investors across the globe as one, under one unified name.

• 0:44David Weisburd?

  Tell me a little bit about your client base. So who are you investing on behalf? And how does that change how you approach your portfolio construction?

• 0:52Speaker 01

  The client base is very mixed and it runs anywhere from, you know, a smaller wealth investor, which is what FS Investments was historically focused on, to large institutional allocator, which is what Portfolio Advisors focused on historically. And so we've got relationships with RIAs, with Merrill Lynch, with Morgan Stanley and their wealth practices, as well as, you know, Los Angeles Fire and Police is one of our largest clients. It's, and we've had them since, you know, for a very long time. We've got other state pension plans. We've got investors and clients in Europe. We've got foundations and endowments, we've universities. And so it really runs the gamut from, you know, small to large.

• 1:34Speaker 01

  And, you know, we feel like we're adept at servicing all different types of clients and investors.

• 1:41David Weisburd?

  One of the biggest trends in alternatives and potentially the biggest trend is this rise of the wealth channel. You've done this merger now, essentially bringing those together. In what ways should high net worth individuals invest differently than your pension funds? And what's the main one or two considerations that a high net worth investor should have versus an institutional investor?

• 2:06Speaker 01

  I feel like, you know, wealth investors should have the same.

• 2:11Speaker 01

  Access the same approach as an institutional investor. That's what our entire business has been built on is bringing those types of quality investments to the wealth channel while not taking away from our institutional investors who have scale and heft. We think we can provide structures and and access to the wealth channel. And so we've done that via innovative solutions with the card to structuring. So evergreen funds and drawdown funds, we've done that by partnering with RAAs and with the wires to, you know, come up with customized solutions that work for their clients. And so the crux is we want institutional and

• 2:56Speaker 01

  wealth investors to have similar experiences investing in private assets.

• 3:02David Weisburd?

  And how practically could a high net worth investor get access to buyout or venture? Let's say their check size is 250,000 or half a million dollars. How do they access those asset classes exactly?

• 3:13Speaker 01

  So we've got multiple partnerships with wires. So with UBS, with Merrill Lynch, with Morgan Stanley, we've got products on their platforms that allow that we'll accept a $50,000 investor, we'll accept a $100,000 investor. And so we've, you know, ever since FS started in 2007, the entire premise of the business was to democratize alternative assets. And so, you know, hundreds of thousands of investors that, you know, do small, small investments into into these funds. And so, so we've got products that, you know, whether they're open ended, whether they're closed ended, whether they're evergreen, whether they're drawdown on these

• 3:54Speaker 01

  platforms that allow even small investors to participate alongside institutions. And we think that's been very beneficial to to these investors.

• 4:05David Weisburd?

  I want to really drill down on large cap buyout. A lot of investors think that it's a very struggling class. There's a lot of dry powder. There's a lot of issues with how those funds are structured. They've gotten too big. What's your view on large cap buyout?

• 4:22Speaker 01

  We're mid-market focused and we think we're mid-market specialists. You know, we've been invested with a lot of large cap managers for a very long time, having started investing in this asset class in the early 90s and many of the mid-market managers back then are now the large cap managers of today. And we'll still invest in large cap when and where it makes sense to do so. And some of our peers have taken a hard line with approach with approach to fund size. Hey, if you're not, if you're above a billion, we're not going to invest. We want to continue to support a manager if we think they can continue to outperform the market, both public and private. So our pitch is more want a partnership. We want to grow with managers as they grow. We can scale our check as you scale your business.

• 5:04Speaker 01

  However, all the data we believe in data that we have proprietarily and all the industry data has shown that the mid-market tends and how you define mid-market, we can maybe get into that, tends to outperform large cap, especially at the upper quartile. You know, somewhere in the range of 350, 400, 450 basis points on average. You know, mid-market outperforms large cap. But I don't think it's dead, right? I mean, I think they're high-quality managers. I mean, Toma Bravo has continued to outperform. GTCR has continued to outperform. And there are groups in the large cap that I think if they've got a differentiated, you know, reason to exist, if they've got, you know, a real go-to-market that's

• 5:49Speaker 01

  different than some of the others and they can add value, they've got relationships clearly with, you know, with banks, with managers, with the people that matter. But at the end of the day, if you want alpha, if you want mid-market, if you want alpha in the private markets, you've got to go down market. And we can get into that, but we really think that's where investors will benefit is being in the mid-market.

• 6:12David Weisburd?

  So you mentioned Toma Bravo. Tell me some of the characteristics on the private equity funds that are able to grow and still maintain that edge and still deliver those returns for investors.

• 6:24Speaker 01

  I think as managers scale, they really, I think specialization is key with scale. I mean, we've seen some generalist firms that have been able to scale, but you've got to have an element of specialization. Obviously, Toma is in technology, right, and software. But as you think about, as we think about portfolio construction internally. We want our large cap managers to have some element of differentiation, right? The general, you know, the, the 1990s private equity of, hey, generalist, generalist PE firm, you know, financial engineering, that doesn't work today. We really, we really don't, it hasn't worked for a long time. And so you have to be able to bring something to the table, specialization, maybe operating partners,

• 7:05Speaker 01

  you know, relationships, track record, team cohesiveness, something that, you know, as you scale and, and, you know, something that we like to tell all of our managers that they may or may not agree with is that size is the enemy of returns. I think we, we push that pretty hard.

• 7:23Speaker 01

  But I think if you can buck that trend with specialization or with some differentiating factors, you're still able to outperform. And we did, we did an analysis, it's probably been two or three years ago, so I should refresh it. But, you know, there, there were no funds at the time over, I think it was $10 billion in size that had, had achieved a 2X net. Now, now, many of those funds had been, you know, recently raised. And so they weren't fully into their value creation phase yet. But in the history of private equity, as of a few years ago, there was, you know, no funds over 2X net. And that were over $10 billion in size. And so, you know, that's changed, that will change. There will be a fund that does that eventually. But we really think alpha is in the middle market.

• 8:07Speaker 01

  But that large cap, large cap has a reason to exist and plays a meaningful role in the ecosystem.

• 8:12David Weisburd?

  Yeah, simple way to look at it is supply and demand. You have the supply of the capital in the fund, you have the demand. If the market for the, for the capital is growing at 20%, the manager could grow at 20%, still maintain their edge. If the market is growing at 40%, the manager is actually only growing at 20%, then actually there, there might be even more alpha, especially as they build up their brand, their reputation and, and other things. People make these general statements like, we don't like billion dollar funds, like you mentioned earlier, or this fund is too big. And the next question should be, too big for what? Too big for what market and for what strategy? And I think the devil is always in the details and some funds should stay the same size, some should get bigger, some should, I would even argue should get smaller depending on the market dynamics.

• 8:57Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think we wholeheartedly agree with that, right? There's so many factors that go into just fund size being your determinant on whether you're going to invest. And obviously, the markets matured, as you mentioned, right? Inflation's happened, right? And so there's a lot of different things that go into that discussion and throwing out, and we believe this, throwing out a good investment opportunity purely based on size is not prudent.

• 9:21David Weisburd?

  So you go after middle market PE, that's where you believe alpha is. How do you go about finding those exact funds to invest in? And what's your top of the funnel criteria? And how does that process kind of evolve as you get to know a manager?

• 9:37Speaker 01

  It's a multi-year process. I mean, I think our best stories in the middle market in adding new managers have been back heat spinouts, you know, partners or GPs that we've known at prior shops who have elected to leave and start their own firm. And if you can build relationships with managers over multi-funds and multi-years before they leave, you're well positioned to be a core LP in their, you know, new firm. And so that's one thing, we're always fishing in those ponds. We're always talking to managers, kind of getting a sense of, you know, maybe who's a little looser in the seat and who may be wanting to start their own firm. We've got some pattern recognition around that as well. You know, and we've also, we have an emerging manager program. So a big

• 10:21Speaker 01

  part of what we do, one of our clients is big into emerging managers and we're very supportive of that. And so first, second, third time funds under 500 million. And so they've set aside a dedicated pool of capital to go after and find these next generation managers. We'll also do that in our fund and with some of our other clients where it makes sense to do so. And so we're, you know, we have a reputation, you know, that the people know will back these funds, you know, in the intermediary community with GPs. And so we've

• 10:54Speaker 01

  We just make sure that we're just abreast of what's going on and talking to other limited partners and our peers, that's a great way for us to find new investments. We think the industry is big enough for all of us. We can all make money together as peers and as partners. And so we're just always out there looking. We have a dedicated team that fully focuses on fund investing. And so we're out trying to find managers, most importantly, that we can grow with and build multi-decade, multi-fund relationships with. We want to be with you from Fund One to Fund Seven and beyond. And we want to scale our check as you scale your firm.

• 11:35Speaker 01

  And that level of partnership, we think resonates and allows us to find and partner with the best up and coming GPs.

• 11:45David Weisburd?

  So maybe you could define, when you say building relationships, you like to build relationships from managers that may want to spin out. What does that mean to build a relationship with somebody in an existing firm?

• 11:57Speaker 01

  I wish it were easily definable, right? I think partnership is messy, just kind of by definition, right? Like, are you there when someone needs you? Like, when they're going through a difficult time, maybe they need to do an amendment for some reason, or they had a partner departure, or maybe a deal went poorly or was written off. How do you react? How do you help them? How do you potentially connect them with someone on the credit side? Our firm has a wide breadth of capabilities, both in credit, equity, and real estate. And so we have a workout group that can kind of help manage through some of these scenarios.

• 12:35Speaker 01

  We've got other GPs that may have information or contact that we can make an introduction and let people kind of work through things. We're supportive on amendments for the most part, right? When things are within reason, we want our GPs to be able to have the flexibility they need to amend and work through challenges. And so it's really that partnership angle. We don't see it as kind of a one-fund relationship. We kind of go into it as a long-term. Long-term thing and whatever a long-term relationship and whatever we can do that,

• 13:18Speaker 01

  you know, keeps our fiduciary duty intact to our clients and make sure that we maximize value for them, but also be a partnership to a G partner to our GPs will do that. I mean, we're we'll give tough feedback, right? We'll, we'll, we'll make intros, well, you know, many, many times we'll get questions about placement agents, like who's the best placement agent? Who should we use, right? We'll, we'll give candid feedback in our views on that. Or, or how would you approach, you know, this amendment if we need to extend, you know, our investment period in this scenario, but we don't want to decrease our fee, right? Like, and how can you manage through that? And so just having a team here, we make 50 fund commitments a year.

• 13:58Speaker 01

  We put out $2 billion a year, you know, $4 billion across equities, meaning co-investment secondaries and primaries, six plus billion, including credit. You know, like there's a lot of capital and relationships here across our firm where we there's someone here that could help a GP kind of get through a challenging time. And, and we think when you support someone when they're down, that's when you kind of gain that respect and they trust you. And that's what we're looking to build.

• 14:29David Weisburd?

  Nothing of long-term games or long-term people is how I would define that. Where do you tolerate something from a GP, maybe in a fund one? That would be unacceptable or they should know better and buy a fund three. And where's that leeway where you're they're still learning to build their own firm and they may not know the best practices? And how do you kind of toe that line between expecting greatness from the beginning, while also having a tolerance for making mistakes?

• 14:54Speaker 01

  Yeah. It's a tough question and you're getting into the gray area here, which I appreciate and love. This is what we think we get paid for, right? It is, is making those tough decisions in fund one, fund two and fund three, when things maybe haven't gone to plan, right? And, and I think for us, it's, you know, How do they respond to feedback? How do they respond to, you know, challenges, right? I mean, we've had, you know, we've had key person triggers, right? Some tragically through, you know, passing away, others from partnerships not working out. How do you manage through that? Do you, you know, do you treat your LPs the right way?

• 15:36Speaker 01

  Or we've had clawback situations where some GPs have elected to pay back their clawback early and show partnership and others have, you know, elected, which is well within their right, to hold that clawback out until they need to pay it in, you know, at the very end of the fund. And so, you know, these, each interaction, as we like to say here, every time you commit to a fund, then the diligence on the next fund starts that day, right? And so you're building this kind of four-year, you know, which three to five-year history and, and interaction with a GP and a sponsor in between fundraises that, that really informs the decisions we're going to make on behalf of our clients. But when, when things go poorly, it's the best time.

• 16:18Speaker 01

  I think for me, that's the best time that we can understand how a GP is going to react, both, you know, buyout venture and growth and, and, you know, we want to make sure that we're doing our part within reason to make sure, or to ensure that they're thinking about things from all perspectives and making the right decision.

• 16:40David Weisburd?

  So you have $86 billion behind you, which should give some challenges in terms of scale, but also give some opportunities in terms of multi-aspects of your platform. How do you use secondaries, co-investments and all these tools at your disposal to provide more value to the GPs and get, get larger allocations than your top managers?

• 17:00Speaker 01

  That's a great question and it's the crux of our business, the core of our business. Now, we set up our, our firm with separate teams. So each team is separate. So our fund investing team, fully separate from our co-investment team, fully separate from our secondary team, fully separate from our credit investing team. We think this allows us not to be biased in our investment decisions. There are separate ICs. There is some cross IC sharing, but we think that allows us to be unbiased and allows us to do just what you asked is to provide real value. Like our junior credit team and our global credit team, that's all they do, right? They're fully focused on, all right, what are the best terms in

• 17:41Speaker 01

  the market? You know, what flexibility may you need, might you need in, you know, finish, in completing this buyout? And how can we play a role in your cap structure to allow you to accomplish your goals? And so on our secondary side, you know, we'll provide liquidity to LPs. We're on the buy list of many GPs that only want, you know, only allow five to 10 investors buy their funds because we've been longtime investors with them, or we're, you know, do what we say we do, do with speed and certainty on the, on the both LP secondary side and on the GP led side, where we'll also participate in single asset continuation vehicles. And then in co-investment,

• 18:24Speaker 01

  we're, we're easy to work with alongside our GPs. We'll, you know, we're, we're quick no, or we're, we're, hey, we're in and we'll do our diligence quickly and, and likely get there. And so I think our GPs know that it takes a long time, decades to build those relationships. And I think that's the crux of this, right? Is that you've got separate teams that know these GPs. We've invested with them on the capital fund side for many, many years. They want to partner with us and, you know, each of our, we, we hold ourselves internally to a high standard, both across teams and within teams, that we want to continue to have that reputation with our GPs.

• 19:01David Weisburd?

  There's like two aspects there. There's the aspect of every one of your groups is independent, has its own IC, has its own incentives. So they're never corrupted across platform, but also having that interconnectivity internally allows you to do the handoff so that they can make their own decisions. So it becomes strategic as an LP on the cap table of GP, but also for your, for your investors, you're making sure that you're making the right independent decision on every single fund. In every single vertical. So you've been at Future Standard now for 11 and a half years and you've seen, if you think about PE vintages as every two to four years, three years on average, you've seen essentially four vintages.

• 19:40Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 19:41David Weisburd?

  You've seen people go from Fund One to Fund Two to Fund Three to Fund Four. And every, every vintage that narrows down, it becomes more and more difficult to make to the next vintage. What is the one or two traits that make somebody go from a Fund One to Fund Four or Five, the truly elite superstar GPs? What makes them different?

• 20:00Speaker 01

  Yeah, that's, I mean, that's what we're looking for, right? I mean, I just spent all my time just thinking about that question. Like, how can I find the next GP that will be in our portfolio and make money for our clients and our investors for the next five funds in 15 to 20 years, 30 years? I think it, it, it comes down to, if you distill it down, is these GPs know who they are and they know how they will add value, whether that's in venture, buyout, growth. They know how to add that value at the portfolio company level, whether that's a network, whether that's operating chops and resources, whether

• 20:41Speaker 01

  that's financial engineering and structuring. Like, the theme I have and the common thread in successful GPs for me that go from Fund One to Fund Three and beyond are, are groups and they've, now they've always got to innovate or they've always got to get better and improve and they can't rest on the laurels, but they know at their core how to make money, how to create value and, you know, how their strategy and kind of what they tell LPs mirrors with how they actually execute on creating that value. And so it's, like, it's hard as an LP, I think, sometimes to really get to the crux of that answer.

• 21:23Speaker 01

  And I think you never really know you there's at some point you've got to take a leap, right? You've got to take a leap that we think this manager, based on all the work we've done, all the diligence, all the reference calls, all the, you know, quantitative work, the past track record, the team cohesion, you know, at some point you have to take a leap and give and hope that they will do what you think they're going to do, which is perform. And, you know, historically, we've, I would say we've probably gotten it, I'm gonna say right in quotes, 75 to 80% of the time, right? We think that's, you know, in that we typically

• 22:02Speaker 01

  re-up 80% of the time, and there's 20% for new managers. So by definition, 20% of the investments we made, we don't re-up in, right? So, so I think we feel like that that secret sauce, if you will, that differentiation comes down to knowing who you are and how you create value at the portfolio company level.

• 22:25David Weisburd?

  The value is the alpha. If there's no value over time, or regardless of the narrative you spend, you're not going to get the returns.

• 22:33Speaker 01

  Right. I mean, you mean, you may get lucky, right? I mean, I think, and then, and then, and then is it repeatable, right? I mean, you may get lucky. We've had, we've had managers that, yeah, they, they co-invested, or they were a syndicate partner in a great deal. And, you know, their fund looks great, but the rest of their fund, you know, their loss rate is very high, but the performance is good, right? Like, that doesn't feel repeatable to us. So not only do you have to know who you are, create value, but you've also got to be able to innovate and repeat and change as needed over time. And we found that the groups that don't, right, the ones that are still trying to execute like they did 20 years ago, it's just really hard to outperform when you aren't innovating and becoming, you

• 23:18Speaker 01

  know, approaching the market as the market changes and evolves.

• 23:22David Weisburd?

  I want to take you back. You said you do your diligence, you do the references. I'm sure you do dozens and dozens of references. You do all the phone calls, you spend time in a data room, you go to meet the person, you track them over time. And then at some point, you have to make that leap of faith. You have two managers, you're both on the fence with those two managers. What's going to make you say yes to one manager and no to the other one?

• 23:46Speaker 01

  I mean, I don't like the gut feel. I think there's part of that, right? I mean, I think I think the biggest part, though, is our internal conversation. So we'll have, you know, we'll do a meeting purely just on that very topic. All right, we've got three to four managers for one slot. And here's all of our findings. And let's have a discussion as a group on the pros, the cons, and why we think as a partnership that this is the right one to back. Now, this is, you know, for us, we have enough capital and enough, you know, managers to back that that it doesn't come down to that very often, but sometimes it does. And we want to make sure we're making that decision. So it's it's the collective

• 24:31Speaker 01

  experience. It's the collective perspectives of the group, not only in our funds group, but as we talked about earlier, you know, the secondaries and co-investment teams, who have also probably done deals alongside these groups. And so you get all these perspectives and you make a decision on that leap based on that. But at the end of the day, there's probably not one thing that points to it, but it's a cumulative experience and decision process across multiple people and, you know, time.

• 24:59David Weisburd?

  Imagine venture, you would say that picking the right manager is more important than not picking the wrong manager. In other words, the decisions that you make that turn out really well account for a lot of bad decisions. In private equity, is it more about how do you consistently bat a very high percent, 75, 80% and never lose? Or do you sometimes, would you trade off, would you trade off a 75% kind of follow on rate with with more alpha, more returns? As an LP, what are you rewarded to do?

• 25:28Speaker 01

  Yeah. And our private equity, I would say we want our managers to have some losses. It's probably a little bit, maybe that's, maybe that's, you know, controversial. You know, now, if someone could give me a Forex net fund and no losses, great, like, I would be thrilled. But that doesn't happen very often, right? We've seen a few of those. But but we want our our our managers to, they're not going to be perfect. We know that, right? And and if they're not. You know, if they're not making mistakes, like they will eventually make one. Like it's, it's going to happen and, and we want to see how they react and, and we want them to know that it's okay to make mistakes, but how do you react in those scenarios?

• 26:10Speaker 01

  And we, we learn more, I think, from our managers on the one X deal than we do on the six X deal that goes up into the right from the beginning, right? The, the, the deal that goes up and down that maybe was marked down to point three, but then ends up at a one X or a one, two. We learn a lot from how they react and they, you know, to those scenarios. And so we want them to take enough risk where they are able to generate alpha. You know, we have some managers and we've moved away from some of these who have very, very low loss rates and generate kind of a one, five to one, seven net return, you know, with a mid teens net IRR, like it's, it's a median type return with no losses and, and that may be what, you know, some investors want.

• 26:50Speaker 01

  But we felt, found that our clients and our approach has been more to let's go for the two to two X, two to two and a half X net and buy out with some losses because we think that's what, you know, that's what will not only beat the public markets, but will outperform in the privates as well.

• 27:07David Weisburd?

  Tell me about your portfolio construction within the buyout fund. So how many funds do you have and, and explain the rationale behind your portfolio construction?

• 27:16Speaker 01

  So each client, we take a different, different approach in our fund of funds or our multi-manager fund. We typically have eight to 10 managers in each fund or eight to 10 funds. From, you know, eight to 10 managers. So each of those probably has, you know, 10 to 20 portfolio companies underlying. So you'll have somewhere between a hundred to 200 portfolio companies in a fund vintage over a two-year span, two to three-year span. And so, so we think that portfolio construction is balanced enough to provide enough diversification, but not, you know, over diversified where we're going to water down returns. You know, we like that same kind of approach for our clients. We'll typically, depending on the client, do somewhere between three to seven buyout funds a year.

• 28:01Speaker 01

  We'll do, you know, two to five venture or growth funds a year and, you know, one to three special situations type funds a year. And so as they deploy, you know, depending on bite size, deploy anywhere from kind of 200 to a billion dollars a year. And we just think that's a balanced way to approach it without being over diversified, but still. You know, providing alpha or out outperformance potential, right? Most of our clients, their benchmarks are typically the Russell or the S and P plus two to 300 basis points. And we found that this approach has allowed us to hit or exceed those benchmarks in most cases.

• 28:39David Weisburd?

  You recently had a pension fund that invested $300 million. So pension fund investing $300 million into Evergreen Fund. Why in the world did that pension fund invest $300 million to Evergreen Fund? 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

• 29:24David Weisburd?

  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.

• 29:35Speaker 01

  So this is a long-term client of ours, someone who is very innovative, you know, well-funded pension plan. We have a longstanding partnership with them, a relationship of trust. And they're always looking for ways to improve their portfolio, to be innovative and to level up. And so, you know, we engage in conversations with them. It's been almost five years now when we first had the initial conversation. And around four years ago, they agreed to be our anchor partner in our first private equity Evergreen Fund, committing $300 million to that vehicle. Why did they do that? I mean, you know, why, they have great access elsewhere. They have one of the best, in my view, best portfolios. I'm a little biased, but best portfolios, both in buyout, venture and growth.

• 30:20Speaker 01

  And it has been really additive to their overall portfolio. But in their mind, they could fully compound their investment. You know, with drawdown funds, it takes time to kind of fully compound. They could diversify and core up in the middle market, given this evergreen is a middle market focused for a product. And they had a liquidity option that if they ever needed to get out, you know, they could do so at NAV as well as they participate economically in the growth of the fund as an acre partner. So I'm pleased to report today they're up 50% from that 300 million in just four years. So it's been a good decision to this point. Now we have to continue to execute, but it really added, you know, a different element to their portfolio and program.

• 31:05Speaker 01

  I mean, it's a, it's a 40 plus billion dollar plan, so it's, it's a very large plan. So it's not a huge exposure for them, but it allowed them something different that has continued to, you know, pay dividends both figuratively and literally.

• 31:19David Weisburd?

  Just to give the audience a sense, the drawdown structure, you commit money, you get capital called over several years based on the cadence of the GP making the investments. So somebody finds a company they invested, they call for capital. An evergreen fund, you invest in the beginning and basically there, there's no drawdowns. There's no called capital. How do you make that work for private equity without having all that money in cash?

• 31:47Speaker 01

  Yeah, so in this instance, they transferred a portfolio that we had constructed with them into the evergreen fund. So it was, it was kind of like a secondary transaction where they transferred their assets into the vehicle. And as we've invested the proceeds off of that vehicle and raised additional capital, we've put in co-investments and secondaries alongside that capital. And so you've had this constantly. You know, invested portfolio and as it's grown, the, the fund is now up to almost one and a half billion. I think it's 1.4 billion today. We've just invested our co-investment teams, our secondary teams have been able to invest a lot,

• 32:30Speaker 01

  you know, the capital as we've raised the money and the, and the capitals come back from the underlying assets with realizations. And so for, for this, this client, it was a great way for them to stay fully compounded.

• 32:42David Weisburd?

  I think the figure often cited is roughly two thirds of the capital is actually invested across the length of a fund. In other words, a third of the money is essentially sitting in cash. So it's dragging down returns. So if you assume, just pick a number, 18% IRR in private equity. If a third of that is in cash, let's say at 4%, only two thirds of that is getting 18% and one third of that is getting 4%. So it's dragging down the entire portfolio considerably versus when you invest in Evergreen fund, you're actually deployed from day one. So you don't have that like essentially tax or drag on your capital.

• 33:16Speaker 01

  It's a big part of why we like the Evergreens and why, why they've kind of taken off in our view. And, and you know, one point about our Evergreen is we don't charge on cash. Some, some of our peers do charge on cash or the, the cash that we have in our Evergreen that's not being invested or actively invested, we don't charge fee on. We're also fans of drawdowns, right? So, so our whole business historically was on drawdown and, and being able to manage that cash, many of our investors have even put their undrawn capital into our Evergreen fund, right? While, while it's not being deployed on the drawdown side. And then when they need to make that capital call, then they will, you know, redeem from the Evergreen fund and put it into the drawdown. So there, there's a lot of innovative ways you can, you can do this, but we also think

• 34:00Speaker 01

  drawdowns are, you know, there's a lot of pros to drawdowns that Evergreens maybe lack as well. And so to have a balanced portfolio, we've, we've.

• 34:09Speaker 01

  We've encouraged all of our institutional clients to look at evergreens and most of our wealth clients, we've encouraged them to look at drawdowns because we think a balanced portfolio will have a mix of both evergreen and drawdown.

• 34:21David Weisburd?

  I want to double click on what you just said because it's brilliant. So you have your clients, let's say they want to access a top private equity fund. It's not available in evergreen structure, but you really want to be in the fund and you have a relationship and you have access to that. They commit to that and then the money that's not called, they're putting into an evergreen fund because they still want exposure to private equity. So they want essentially, I wouldn't call it beta exposure, but they want directional exposure into private equity. And then when they get a call on the fund, they really are dying to get into and willing to do to drawdown, they call the capital on the evergreen fund and call, make their capital commitment. That's, that's a very smart use.

• 35:00Speaker 01

  And people have done that for a long time with the public markets, right? Where it's very liquid. You know, a lot of these evergreens aren't as liquid as they necessarily seem, right? There, there is a, there's a, there's a time component to it and you know, there's a 5% max and you know, liquidity over, over time. And so, on a quarterly basis. So it doesn't really work like that in real time, but a lot of our investors have expressed that sentiment and ability to, all right, hey, if I do need to make a capital call within the next 12 months, peace of mind to know that there is some liquidity available through the evergreen gives them confidence to be able to make those investments. And, and you know, a lot of them have taken that, you know, especially on the wealth side have taken that, that approach.

• 35:46David Weisburd?

  The evergreen thesis, and you could correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the main thesis is it's really good for the high net worth channel because individuals, including myself, when I make investment into a private credit fund, do I want to spend, you know, 10 hours a quarter figuring out when they're going to call capital and doing all that counting? I'd rather just put in the money and basically worry about that. Now you have...

• 36:09David Weisburd?

  At least the largest kind of asset, asset class pension funds, maybe outside of sovereign wealth funds, going into this asset class as well. So I think we're going to see a lot of evergreen structures. I think it's massively probably underestimated how big evergreen will be in the next five, 10 years.

• 36:26Speaker 01

  I think that's true. I mean, I think evergreens have clearly become in the wealth channel, you know, the vehicle of choice. On the institutional side, we'll see, I mean, a lot of investors have made a lot of money doing traditional drawdown approach. You know, I am interested to see how, you know, inevitably, there will be an evergreen fund that stumbles at some point, right? And, you know, how does the market react when that happens and the gates go up, right? We saw what happened with B REIT, right? And you're going to get some negative feedback on that. And is that going to slow down the growth of the evergreen trade in our industry? And I think time will tell. But to your point, I mean, the evergreen

• 37:08Speaker 01

  funds are here to stay. It's, you know, ease of use, perpetual offering, lower minimums, all the things that you like in the wealth channel, you know, 1099 versus K1. But on the drawdown side, and we're balanced here, I think the drawdowns allow managers to make decisions around timing and liquidity as opposed to investors, right? I mean, I think people that do this for a full time living, you know, do this full time, can maybe make a more informed decision about, hey, when's the right time to liquidate, right? And when's the right time to maximize value? You know, some top performing managers won't participate in evergreens, whether it comes to down to complexity or reporting requirements. So by definition, when you're doing an evergreen, you're kind of not being able to invest in

• 37:51Speaker 01

  the full market, because, you know, there's a certain type of investor that will, or manager that will participate in evergreens. And I also think drawdown funds allow A portfolio manager to construct a target, more targeted portfolio, right? I mean, evergreens are by definition diversified. You know, you're, you're going to get a lot of different type of exposure here. And if you're, you know, experienced portfolio manager at one of these plans and you have good access, you can go make your own portfolio construction and targeted decisions that, you know, evergreens don't necessarily allow you to do. And so there's pros and cons to both. And like I said, it's for us, we want to be able to provide the best access we can to private assets,

• 38:34Speaker 01

  regardless of the structure and, you know, have our clients pick and choose what works best for them.

• 38:40David Weisburd?

  There's also a behavioral aspect to it, which is like this person sitting around for the perfect stock to buy, where if they had just put their money into S and P 500 or Russell, the Russell over the last 10 years, they would have all compounded 10 times. So sometimes just, just doing something that works, that directionally works is much more powerful than kind of looking for that perfect structure or this kind of perfect investment. One of the saddest parts of the alternatives universe is that GPs will oftentimes go years, especially emerging managers will go years not raising money and they don't even get feedback. So they don't even know what they're doing wrong. If you put on like your advisor hat, not your investor hat, what would you advise? You know, the emerging managers that maybe are almost to the point where you would make investment?

• 39:24David Weisburd?

  What are the some common mistakes that they're making that you advise them to, to improve upon?

• 39:30Speaker 01

  Yeah, we spend a lot of time here with our emerging managers and it's, it is, you said sad. I think that's probably a fair word. We, you know, it's the, the feedback loop and the, the incentives are not necessarily aligned. All right. And, and, and I, let me double click on that a little bit with, you know, GP and LP, right? For us to give real, candid, transparent feedback, there isn't a lot of incentive for us to do that other than, you know, being a good partner, right? Like, and so, and, you know, our reputation matters to us. And, and so we want to make sure, similar to, hey, how a VC, you know, we think should provide

• 40:10Speaker 01

  reasons to their portfolio companies or, or prospective portfolio companies for why they're not going to invest. We want to do the same with our managers, especially emerging managers. But I think some of the Pitfalls we've seen for emerging managers for why they haven't been successful out of the gates is one, trying to raise too much money. They, a lot of them, or, or thinking that raising institutional capital is going to take six months, right? For most emerging managers, now, there's some exceptions. For most emerging managers, it takes a very long time to get that first fund up and running. And that first turn of the flywheel is very difficult, right?

• 40:52Speaker 01

  And, and a lot of, we found the ones that have stumbled are the ones that were at maybe larger shops, had good track records, but all they did was invest, right? They didn't necessarily have to run a firm. They didn't have to go, you know, raise money from LPs. They didn't have to deal with, you know, auditors. They didn't have to deal with, with, um, you know, uh, disaster recovery or IT, right? And so I think emerging managers forget or don't fully understand sometimes that you're actually running a company. And, and maybe I'm, I'm, I'm going too hard there on the feedback, but it can get,

• 41:32Speaker 01

  I think they sometimes lose what's important, what's most important when you're starting a firm, which in our opinion is building relationships with LPs and being able to invest their capital in good companies. And so it's, it's sometimes easier to, all right, let's deal with the standing up of the, the firm today and we'll, you know, build relationships with LPs later, or, you know, we'll go to that conference later, but let's go finish our pitch book, right? When, when a group is fully engaged on what we think matters most, which is investing in LP relationships, that for us, we've seen is where emerging managers will typically get, um, the most traction.

• 42:15Speaker 01

  And, and the last point on that is, I think some emerging managers go too early, right? They they just they they wanna they're so enthusiastic and excited about raising a fund and having their own firm that they they push the envelope a little too early. And if they would wait, you know, well, maybe one more fun cycle or half a fun cycle at their current firm where they're able to monetize a deal or or cement that track record or build real relationships, not only with LPs. A lot of them don't really, it's awkward, right? It's hard to build a relationship with LPs before you leave,

• 42:57Speaker 01

  but you can do it. It's done. And and those that do it well, do it the right way and and spin out at the right time. And maybe it's probably better to be at half fun too late, in our opinion, to spin out and start your own firm than it is to be a half fun too early. It just it just gives you a much better chance at at making it in the institutional LP world when you have real proof points and relationships.

• 43:21David Weisburd?

  There's two aspects. One is how much of a track record do you have? Are you seasoned enough, have enough of a track record to go? And the second one is you need to align that with market timing. Are LPs risk on or risk off? Have they recently gotten a lot of capital back from their current GPs where they're feeling more bullish on the market? Or are they like today? Or maybe six months ago in venture where venture LPs had not gotten any money for a long time and it was a terrible time to start a GP, start a fund. Although you could also over time it, sometimes you could be a little bit early and the market's really hot and you go out a little bit ahead of your skis, knowing that kind of the market will pull you in that direction, especially if you have a couple of early anchor LPs. So there is an art

• 44:05David Weisburd?

  and not a science. I don't think anyone's perfected it yet.

• 44:08Speaker 01

  It's definitely no. I mean, the macro matters. To have an anchor is invaluable, right? If you can secure that anchor and start investing or go deal by deal, right? And really show that on your own, like that matters a lot.

• 44:20David Weisburd?

  Let's say it's a $300 million fund. What's a legitimate anchor size or maybe a couple of anchors? And tell me about this this anchoring strategy. What's a good signal to the market?

• 44:29Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think, I mean, if you're trying to raise 300, our rule of thumb is is like a third of your capital. If you can raise a third of your capital from an anchor, it's not too big, it's not too small, but it's meaningful, then that, okay, wow, that's a real anchor. That person should probably get economics, right? They of some kind and and and we don't need to get into that, but that that's true. So so that gives you, you know, we don't necessarily want to be in a fund where an anchor is bigger than that, because then we feel like they have undue influence. And so if you want to go to kind of the institutional LP masses, having an anchor of of the right size, somewhere between, you know, 15, you know, a sixth

• 45:10Speaker 01

  or 16% of six to a third of your fund, we think is is an appropriate number. You know, I think having, obviously, having two is better than one, not only from a dollar standpoint, but from a, you know, validation standpoint, you know, the more people you can have buy in early, the better. And and when we have real conviction, we like to do that because we want to be, you know, a reference, we want to be an early people remember who back them when they needed it most.

• 45:38David Weisburd?

  There's a joke also between startups and VCs, like, everybody wants to invest once there's a Sequoia or a lead and they're not real investors, etc., etc. But there's a huge rationality behind that in that as an LP, you're investing dollars, but you're also investing your time. You have a finite amount of hours every week. So you want to pick the opportunities, all things being equal, that have been vetted by other people. And if you could at least know that there's a higher likelihood that you're going to invest or that's an interesting opportunity, you want to invest there. It's not because you're not independent, you're not doing your 24 references, you're not calling everybody, you're not meeting with a manager for six months. It's not because of that. It's because beyond up one level or upstream of the funds that you are investing in, you're investing

• 46:22David Weisburd?

  in where to invest your time, which someone would argue, especially when you have $86 million, you might argue that's actually more valuable than the incremental, you know, dollar. But but that's really what I think a lot of GPs get hung up on is like, that LP signal isn't is a sign of efficiency for other LPs.

• 46:40Speaker 01

  We do 50 funds a year. And and, you know, we always do our independent, our own work, as you mentioned, but, you know, being able to Do LP reference calls with colleagues at other firms that I I know, trust and appreciate. And being able to see things from a different perspective and really get that holistic view of a GP matters. Right. And and I think the the LP community can be guilty at times of herd behavior. In a negative way where, hey, if you know, so and so's in the fund, I'm coming in. And I don't think, and then I think GPs can get frustrated frustrated with that. I think rightfully so, right? I mean, each LP should should make their own decisions independently.

• 47:23Speaker 01

  But to your point, there is only so much time. We, you know, we see every, we see pretty much every fund in our view that comes through. You know, hundreds of funds a year, we do 50, even pushing 1,000 in some instances of investable opportunities. And we can't, we, you know, with our team, even of, you know, full time 10 doing this, we can't spend. You know, real time on each group. And so you have to make those decisions and and that efficiency factor is real.

• 47:48David Weisburd?

  Let's say I'm thinking long term as a GP, I want future standard to invest into my fund two, fund three. And I pitch you on fund one. What can I do as a GP in order to ensure that I get the second and third meeting with you? Or said another way, as an as the investor. What makes you say, okay, this GP, they're not yet ready for us to invest, but we want to build a relationship and we want to see how they perform?

• 48:14Speaker 01

  It it comes down to kind of what we talked about earlier, that clarity, knowing why you exist and how you create value. If I if I believe, if our firm here and team believes that you know how to do that. And you're starting to show proof points of that. You're in the middle market, I'll say for us, then we'll want to track you, you know, we'll we'll get.

• 48:36Speaker 01

  Probably 10 to 20 a year that we'll say, hey, we're going to monitor you, we'll track you for the next fund. And that's not just on them, right? That's on us like in and we we want to, as I mentioned earlier. The diligence for the next fund starts the day that the prior fund closes, you know, we that that also. Is true when it comes to managers we don't invest in, right? And we'll go to AGMs for groups that we're not invested in, for groups that are on our target list. And so for us, it comes down to that clarity, staying in front of us, you know, showing us some deal flow, right? Or finding ways to partner with us beyond just capital, right? If you're just coming out with your tin cup every three or four years and we haven't had any interaction in

• 49:20Speaker 01

  between, it's going to be really hard for us to say, hey, what's changed? We should really, you know, invest in fund two, even though we don't, the relationship is about the same as it was in fund one. And so, you know, that's, yeah, go ahead.

• 49:34David Weisburd?

  Double click on that. So again, let's say I'm thinking long term. I'm not going around with my tin cup. I want to build a relationship. I've identified Future Standard as one of a handful of institutional LPs. I want fund two, fund three. How could I, as the GP, provide the value for you to want to take the next meeting? What are some best practices?

• 49:55Speaker 01

  We want to be on your distribution list. We want, you know, every six months to a year, we want real interaction. We want to know, we want to see how you think. Like, show us a deal or show us a co-investment or give us a anecdote for, for why you made a decision the way that you did. I don't need an hour. Give me, give me like 10 minutes on why you did a deal or, or show us a co-investment, right? Show us, or a credit deal or somehow peel back who you really are. And, you know, or, you know, maybe have another LP or peer that, that it's in your fund, you know, reach out to us, right? Or mention it to us. And

• 50:38Speaker 01

  so like, there, there are a lot of creative ways that I think managers can do this in a balanced way without looking like they're, you know, overbearing or desperate and look in positioning for the next fund. But I think it's just, it's also patience, right? So you've got to marry kind of what you do with just patience. I mean, LPs move slowly. For the most part, and that's by design. And I think for us, right, time, the time optionality that we have to make decisions is very valuable, right? If something, you know, we've had instances where we've been in a first close or we've made a decision and then a team change happens, right? That's, hey, well, if that, we knew that was going to happen, maybe we wouldn't have made that decision, right?

• 51:20Speaker 01

  And so time optionality is very valuable for us and we want, we want GPs, especially ones we're not invested with. If you tell me you're going to do something, you better do it. Like, I need you to say, if you're going to do something, you're going to do these deals. I need you to be able to back up and execute on, on kind of what you told me you would do. I think that's probably the biggest disqualifier, which you didn't ask. You tell me you're going to do something and then you don't do it. Uh, that's going to give me some questions about how we should engage on the next fundraiser.

• 51:52David Weisburd?

  Time optionality. So all things being equal, you want to invest later on in the fund cycle. You get, especially with new funds, you get to see how the teams together, you get to see how their early investments are performing. And maybe the answer is just minimizing fees or special terms. Is that really the way to kind of get an institutional investor to come in early, just making sure that they get anchor-like economics?

• 52:16Speaker 01

  It's definitely a big factor, right? I mean, if we know we're going to do a fund and there's first close discount, we'll, we'll be in the first close, right? Now that's if we know we're going to do the fund. So we're not going to sacrifice doing the fund just because of a first close discount. But if we know we're going to do it, we're going to come in. So, you know, we've spent a lot of time even in raising our own funds on this very topic. All right, how do you engage with LPs appropriately with regard to discounts, with regards to economics, with, and those types of things? I think. We also want to be supportive of GPs when it comes to supporting their fundraise.

• 52:57Speaker 01

  So, you know, especially in our emerging manager program, we typically like to move a little bit earlier, first or second close if we can, so then we can be a reference. And we, like I said earlier, we can, we can, you know, people remember when you support them, when you supported them when they needed you. And so we try to do that, but it's a balance. It's, you know, sometimes it's factors beyond our control. Hey, we have a really busy deal pipeline right now, like we just can't get to it. And so, so like I wouldn't as a GP necessarily take it personally, or not that saying that they would on when we engage. But I would say all things being equal, we like the time optionality, but we also want to be good partners and max, you know, do our fiduciary duty for our clients.

• 53:41Speaker 01

  I mean, if we come in the last close, we know we're probably going to have, you know, little to no, you know, negotiating power on the legal documents, right? If we come in earlier, we'll probably have some. And so, you know, or at least more influence. And so it really, it's really balancing all those factors and clients calendars and all these things together to come up with, with when's the right time for us to formally engage on a fundraiser.

• 54:04David Weisburd?

  If you could go back when you started as an LP, you're obviously very smart, went to Yale and did all these things, but you still were fresh. What is one piece of advice you would give younger Peyton today? Knowing what you know today, when you first started, timeless piece of advice that would either help you accelerate your career or help you avoid mistakes?

• 54:25Speaker 01

  I've thought about this a lot. I think it's, it's just to be patient with yourself. It's a long career. I'm 11 years into this. I've learned a lot, but I've got a lot to learn. And, you know, I think I went through this kind of personal, you know, kind of.

• 54:43Speaker 01

  View or personal kind of come to grips moment with that where, hey, you don't need to know everything, right? This is probably four or five. You don't need to know everything. You have a team, rely on your team, like be patient, like reps matter, like go ask people, be a partner. And I think for me, coming out, I wanted to kind of prove myself, right? I wanted to show occasionally other people how smart I was, or that I am, but you know, I think, and so I think from a pay, like be patient with yourself, rely on your partners, you're gonna make mistakes, but just show your clients and your colleagues that you care about what you do and that you're earnest. And I think that goes a long way in, in building real relationships and partnerships,

• 55:28Speaker 01

  not only with our clients and my colleagues, but with our GPs.

• 55:32David Weisburd?

  Sometimes hindsight is 2020, but also we also sometimes assume the same outcome and how we would have acted differently. And the truth is that if you go around and ask 100 questions when you first get started, most people will say today, I should have done that. But at the time, it may have signaled the wrong information to senior, senior leadership. So I would argue the only, one of the ways to hack that is to listen to podcasts, of course. But outside, outside of how I invest podcast, what other things would you add to your information diet in terms of how to be a better investor? What do you, what do you read today? What do you listen to? Who do you talk to?

• 56:09Speaker 01

  Definitely this podcast for sure. I think my, my colleagues, I mean, I think having, having, you know, my family and kind of outside, you know, outside reasons to exist and, and things that I spend time on to away from work, you know, children and, and, and religious affiliation and, and commitments have been very helpful for me. You know, I do, I do read a lot, a lot frequently and I'm staying abreast of the news. I think for me, it's typically within private equity. I will spend a lot of time there, you know, just with daily, daily missos and, and the rags. But I, for me, the most valuable

• 56:54Speaker 01

  Part of this has just been talking to my colleagues and trusted partners and friends about the industry and the market, right? If I can get real feedback from people that I trust and know, whether that's our clients, our investors, you know, colleagues on our credit, co-invest secondaries team, that's how I really, from my perspective, become more well-rounded and I'm able to deliver for our investors and our clients.

• 57:22David Weisburd?

  I got to meet David Sondra from Founder's Podcast and he referenced, he has his founder LLM. He's talked to hundreds and hundreds of founders and he's researched them and he's like this finely tuned large language model on founders. I try to do the same thing around LPs through the podcast, through in real life meetings. And I'm constantly trying to test my assumption. I throw something out there and I want the other person to correct me and better finely tune my LLM so I can be a better investor.

• 57:50Speaker 01

  I'm sure you are, based on the podcast and everything that you've done in the last year.

• 57:57David Weisburd?

  Peyton, it's been absolutely masterclass and a joy to chat and look forward to sitting down soon in real life and looking forward to continuing conversation.

• 58:07Speaker 01

  Yeah. Thanks for having me, David. It was a great conversation. Really appreciate it.

• 58:10David Weisburd?

  Thanks for listening to my conversation. If you enjoyed this episode, please share with a friend. This helps us grow. Also provides the very best feedback when we review the episode's analytics. Thank you for your support.