Fund managers
How can a venture fund of funds organize answers to LP diligence questions?
a venture fund of funds: Organize diligence responses around a clear answer, supporting evidence, date, owner, and open item.
Organize diligence responses around a clear answer, supporting evidence, date, owner, and open item. Industry questionnaires can reduce repetition, but a response should still reflect the actual fund. A template is not proof that a policy or process exists.
Start with the decision
Maintain a controlled response record and link approved documents. Mark not applicable and not yet established items with an explanation. Use qualified reviewers for legal, accounting, performance, and compliance statements before sending them to prospective LPs.
The illustrative scenario
This is an educational workbook. The company or fund and all numerical inputs below are fictional. They are not ADIN results, customer claims, market benchmarks, or a forecast.
The fictional vehicle commits capital to several underlying venture funds. Its LP receives exposure through another layer of manager selection, reporting, fees, and cash flows. Several underlying funds may invest in the same companies.
A count of fund commitments is not a count of independent company exposures. Separate the vehicle's economics from the economics, liquidity, and concentration of underlying holdings.
Turn the scenario into an evidence decision
Consider a review of a venture fund of funds in which a confident explanation arrives before the supporting records. Start with the first question in the table. Write down what an answer would change: the next interview, the experiment's scope, a request for specialist review, or a decision to wait. A question without a consequence can produce a longer document while adding little understanding.
Next, inspect the record named in the table and record its date, owner, permission boundary, and limitations. Request a look-through portfolio summary, fee-layer explanation, underlying cash-flow schedule, and the method used to reconcile reports. Identify missing or delayed underlying information. If the record contradicts the explanation, preserve both accounts and ask which definition, period, or workflow differs. Do not silently select the version that makes the opportunity look strongest.
Finish with a conditional statement: if the specified evidence supports the claim under these conditions, take the named next step; otherwise investigate the unresolved question. Consistency across a questionnaire, deck, reports, and governing materials is more useful than filling every field with confident language. Resolve contradictions before reusing a response in another fundraising conversation. This worked exercise is about the decision process. It does not assert that a fictional company has met a real diligence standard or that a template can authorize an investment.
| Item | Illustration |
|---|---|
| Decision question | What is the direct answer? |
| Case-specific constraint | A count of fund commitments is not a count of independent company exposures. Separate the vehicle's economics from the economics, liquidity, and concentration of underlying holdings. |
| Record to inspect | Request a look-through portfolio summary, fee-layer explanation, underlying cash-flow schedule, and the method used to reconcile reports. Identify missing or delayed underlying information. |
| Comparison to preserve | Compare total exposure and costs across both layers. Keep the vehicle's distributions distinct from paper values reported by underlying managers. |
| Unresolved case question | Where do fees arise at each layer? |
Use this worksheet
Answer the questions with a source, date, owner, and next action. Mark an unknown as unknown. Use public or permissioned information and involve a qualified specialist when a question requires expertise beyond the team’s competence.
- What is the direct answer?
- What supports it?
- Who owns accuracy?
- When was it checked?
- What remains open?
Questions specific to this scenario
- Where do fees arise at each layer?
- Which companies overlap?
- How are underlying reporting delays handled?
Request a look-through portfolio summary, fee-layer explanation, underlying cash-flow schedule, and the method used to reconcile reports. Identify missing or delayed underlying information.
A concrete next test
Trace one hypothetical company exposure through two underlying funds and the investing vehicle. Ask where fees, valuation dates, cash flows, and information delays enter each layer. Count the shared exposure once for analysis instead of treating two fund names as independent company diversification.
Interpret the result
Consistency across a questionnaire, deck, reports, and governing materials is more useful than filling every field with confident language. Resolve contradictions before reusing a response in another fundraising conversation.
Compare total exposure and costs across both layers. Keep the vehicle's distributions distinct from paper values reported by underlying managers.
Sources and method
These primary resources provide background for the concepts. The fictional scenario, calculations, and worksheet are ADIN educational examples; the sources do not report or validate those invented results. Reviewed October 11, 2026.