.jpg)
What LPs Are Really Looking For in an Emerging Manager Pitchbook

Emerging managers don’t fundamentally misunderstand pitchbooks. Most of the people who make it to Fund I are rational, competent, and thoughtful. The problem isn’t intelligence; it’s framing. They’re building decks as if LPs were primarily evaluating the information, when in reality LPs are evaluating the story around the information — and, more specifically, whether that story feels investable for a first- or second-time fund.
From an LP’s perspective, a Fund I or Fund II pitchbook isn’t an encyclopedia. It’s a test. It answers three questions very quickly:
- Is this a real firm or a concept in motion?
- Is there a coherent way to think about this strategy?
- Is there anything here I’ll remember tomorrow?
Most early decks fail one of those tests, and usually for avoidable reasons.
LPs Don’t Want a Miniature Version of a Fund VII Deck
One of the most common mistakes I see is spinouts copying their former employer’s materials. A manager leaves a large platform, takes the Fund VII deck as a mental template, and tries to shrink it into a Fund I format. It doesn’t work.
Fund VII decks are designed to situate a new vehicle inside a 20–30 year arc:
here’s where we’ve been, here’s how we’ve performed, here’s how the strategy has evolved, here’s what’s different this time. LPs reading those decks already know the franchise. They need context.
Fund I decks have the opposite job. There is no arc. There is no franchise history. The LP isn’t asking “how has this strategy evolved?” They’re asking “what exactly is this, and why should I care?”
Those are radically different questions. Using a Fund VII blueprint for a Fund I pitchbook is like using a retirement speech outline as a template for a debut.
The First Five Slides Are the Real Deck
LPs don’t read pitchbooks linearly the way managers imagine. They skim, they flip, they pause, they decide whether to keep going. In that sense, the first five slides are the deck. Everything that comes after is optional.
What LPs need out of those opening slides is simple:
- a clear explanation of the category,
- an understandable angle,
- and a sense that the manager knows exactly what they’re trying to build.
Too many emerging managers use their early slides for a deal funnel graphic, an investment process diagram, or a collage of buzzwords. No one has ever become excited about a new manager because they saw a diagram showing “proprietary deal flow” and an arrow labeled “value creation.”
If a reader doesn’t understand what you are, where you play, and why your angle is interesting within five slides, they usually don’t keep going. It’s like a new TV show: if the first episode doesn’t land, no one is waiting until episode eight for it to “get really good.”
LPs Want Category Education and Ownership of the Angle
For Fund I and II, the pitchbook is not primarily persuasion. It’s category education plus ownership of the angle.
You’re not trying to prove that you’re “better than” the usual suspects. You’re trying to:
- convince the LP that this slice of the world is worth allocating to, and
- convince them that you are the sharpest expression of that slice.
That’s a different mindset than the benchmark-heavy, context-heavy approach in a later-fund deck. LPs reviewing emerging managers are usually asking, “Do I believe this corner of the market deserves attention? And if I do, is this the right team to explore it?”
The deck has to make that pair of arguments cleanly.
Track Record Is Secondary to Strategy — Especially When You Can’t Own It
LPs don’t expect a pristine track record from a first-time fund. They do expect honesty and proportion.
Spinouts from larger firms are usually constrained: they can’t port formal attribution, they can’t present full performance histories as “theirs,” and they can’t pretend the prior platform didn’t matter. LPs know this. They’ve seen it a hundred times.
What LPs want in that scenario is not a tortured attempt to make the past do more work than it can. They want a crisp strategy and a handful of real examples that show how the manager thinks. The past is useful context — but only when it reinforces the forward-looking story.
If you can’t own the track record, you shouldn’t let the pitchbook behave as if you can. Credentialize, yes. Over-credentialize, no. LPs are far more interested in whether your angle is coherent than whether you can stack logos on a page.
LPs Expect the Deck to Make the Blind Pool Less Blind
For managers who have done pre-fund or warehoused deals, the best Fund I decks use those deals to make the fund feel less hypothetical. BKM is a good example: six properties on balance sheet, financed by the founders, used not as “look how great we are” case studies, but as tangible evidence of what the fund will actually own.
LPs appreciate this not because they’re desperate for early marks, but because it gives them texture. It shows how the strategy behaves in the real world. The pitchbook stops being abstract. It becomes a guided tour of what the fund is likely to look like.
The same logic applies whether you’re doing real estate, private equity, credit, or some niche in between. Real deals make everything sharper — if they’re framed properly.
Closing Thought
LPs aren’t asking emerging managers for perfection. They’re asking for a few clear things: an understandable category, a believable angle, and a story that doesn’t sound like everyone else’s. The pitchbook is where those elements first come together — or fail to.
The biggest risk in a Fund I deck isn’t that you’ll use the wrong shade of blue or one too many charts. It’s that you will sound like yet another manager with a process, a funnel, and nothing memorable to say. LPs are not short on decks. They’re short on decks that feel like the first chapter of something they’ll be glad they backed in ten years.



