.jpg)
How Emerging Managers Build a Narrative LPs Can Remember Three Years Later

The hardest part of emerging manager fundraising is not the pitch meeting itself. It’s what happens after the meeting — when an LP walks out, stacks your story next to a dozen others, and has to remember two or three things about you well enough to repeat them internally. This is where narratives either survive or collapse. And most emerging manager narratives collapse because they were never designed to withstand that moment.
A Fund I or Fund II story has to do more than describe a strategy. It has to organize the LP’s memory. It has to make the GP’s worldview accessible, repeatable, and distinct enough that someone who wasn’t in the room can still understand why the idea might be worth a second look in the next cycle.
The reason so many emerging managers struggle here is structural: they think about narrative as explanation, when LPs experience it as architecture. A clear story is not a chronological recounting of your experience or a list of your differentiators. It is an organized system of ideas — origin, category, thesis, edge, proof — that stack in a way LPs intuitively understand. And when that system is well built, the downstream conversations become dramatically easier because the LP already knows how to think about you.
1. Narrative Begins With Category, Not Strategy
Emerging managers often begin their pitch with the specifics of what they do: their sourcing channels, their underwriting criteria, their sector knowledge, their deal lens. But LPs are not ready for that level of detail until they have a mental model of the category you operate in.
Narrative starts one layer up: What market are you playing in, and why does it make sense?
Most EMs underestimate how little LPs know about the nuances of sub-strategies, niche asset classes, or operational dynamics. If you don’t define the category clearly, the LP will place you into whatever adjacent bucket feels most familiar. And once the LP categorizes you incorrectly, it is extraordinarily difficult to pull the narrative back.
A good emerging manager narrative establishes the category in one or two sentences — simple enough that a non-expert could repeat it, specific enough that it doesn’t collapse into something generic. Only then does strategy begin to make sense.
2. The Strategy Must Emerge Naturally From the Category
Once the category is clear, the strategy has to feel like the obvious response to the underlying market structure. Emerging managers often give LPs a strategy that feels theoretically interesting but disconnected from the opportunity they just described. The jump is too big. The linkage is missing.
LPs respond most strongly to strategies that feel structurally inevitable — where the GP’s approach reads as the logical answer to the problem the category presents. When the strategy grows naturally out of the category, the LP not only understands what you do; they understand why you do it.
Narrative is persuasion through architecture. When the staircase is built correctly, the LP moves up it without noticing.
3. The Edge Must Be Singular, Not a Catalog
Most emerging managers have an instinct to list every possible advantage: sourcing network, operating experience, market insight, proprietary pipeline, a differentiated take on value creation. But lists do not create memory. They create blur. LPs retain one thing. Maybe two. Never five.
A strong narrative surfaces one primary edge — the thing that truly makes the manager distinct — and supports it with secondary ideas that reinforce the same conclusion. When the edge is singular and well chosen, everything else becomes supporting architecture instead of narrative clutter.
The strongest emerging manager edges are usually:
- behavioral (how they think or operate),
- structural (where they sit in the market), or
- experiential (what they understand more deeply than peers).
The edge is not a feature; it is a worldview. If it cannot be expressed cleanly, it will not survive LP translation.
4. Proof Must Be Narrative, Not Decoration
Emerging managers often misunderstand what “proof” means in early fundraising. Without formal attribution, many EMs treat their past deals as cosmetic reinforcement — color, context, background. But LPs don’t experience proof as biography; they experience it as evidence that the GP thinks clearly and acts consistently.
The past matters when it supports the narrative spine. A deal example is not meant to show that you were involved in something impressive. It is meant to demonstrate that the edge you’ve claimed actually manifested in the real world. The deal should feel inevitable in retrospect, as if the GP could not have acted differently.
When proof is narrative, not decoration, LPs internalize it as part of the story rather than trivia.
5. The Test of a Good Narrative Is Portability, Not Eloquence
Managers often assume that if they explain their strategy elegantly, they’ve succeeded. But most LPs do not make decisions in isolation. Their colleagues, committees, and consultants become part of the narrative chain. If the story dies in translation, the strategy dies with it.
The real test of narrative is whether someone who has only heard it once can still explain:
- the category
- the approach
- and the edge
without losing the thread.
In practice, this means emerging manager narratives must sacrifice eloquence in service of durability. A narrative that sounds refined in the room but collapses later is less effective than one that feels simple in the moment but survives for months.
Narrative durability is a design choice.
Closing Thought
Emerging managers often think their challenge is storytelling. In reality, it is structure. LPs remember what the narrative architecture makes memorable. A coherent category, an inevitable strategy, a singular edge, and proof that reinforces the thesis — those are the bones of a story that lasts.
You cannot control when an LP moves. But you can control whether your story is still intact when they think about you again in three years. That, more than anything, is the difference between a Fund I narrative that dissipates and one that compounds.



