Limited partners
How can an LP assess exposure overlap when adding a seed venture fund?
a seed venture fund: Assess overlap across company, sector, stage, geography, provider, buyer, and financing dependencies.
Assess overlap across company, sector, stage, geography, provider, buyer, and financing dependencies. Several fund commitments can lead to repeated exposure to the same companies or market conditions. A vehicle count does not establish independent outcomes.
Start with the decision
Build a look-through map using available reports and clearly mark gaps. Compare the proposed fund's exposures with the existing portfolio. Use hypothetical weights for education and seek individualized advice for an actual allocation decision.
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 manager targets companies with an initial customer base and plans to join priced rounds. It uses larger initial checks than the pre-seed example and expects a smaller portfolio. Co-investor access is part of the thesis.
An attractive round does not prove allocation access or consistent decision quality. Verify what the manager could actually invest, the price paid, and the ownership maintained.
Turn the scenario into an evidence decision
Consider a review of a seed venture fund 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 executed investment records where available, a complete portfolio schedule, reserve assumptions, and references about the manager's role. Keep proposed deals separate from completed investments. 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. An exposure map can improve a discussion while remaining incomplete because of reporting delays and uncertain future investments. It does not make illiquid assets easy to rebalance or eliminate the risk of loss. 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 | Which holdings overlap? |
| Case-specific constraint | An attractive round does not prove allocation access or consistent decision quality. Verify what the manager could actually invest, the price paid, and the ownership maintained. |
| Record to inspect | Request executed investment records where available, a complete portfolio schedule, reserve assumptions, and references about the manager's role. Keep proposed deals separate from completed investments. |
| Comparison to preserve | Compare the strategy with actual check sizes and capacity. Identify whether the model relies on ownership or access that has not yet been demonstrated. |
| Unresolved case question | Which allocations were actually obtained? |
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.
- Which holdings overlap?
- What dependencies are shared?
- What data is missing?
- Which adverse event crosses funds?
- How does the proposed commitment change exposure?
Questions specific to this scenario
- Which allocations were actually obtained?
- What changes when round sizes rise?
- How are reserves prioritized?
Request executed investment records where available, a complete portfolio schedule, reserve assumptions, and references about the manager's role. Keep proposed deals separate from completed investments.
A concrete next test
Select one completed investment and one opportunity where the manager could not obtain the desired allocation. Ask how access, price, and ownership affected the decision. Include both examples when evaluating whether the proposed check sizes and company count are executable.
Interpret the result
An exposure map can improve a discussion while remaining incomplete because of reporting delays and uncertain future investments. It does not make illiquid assets easy to rebalance or eliminate the risk of loss.
Compare the strategy with actual check sizes and capacity. Identify whether the model relies on ownership or access that has not yet been demonstrated.
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.