What should LP reference calls cover when reviewing a cross-border venture fund?

LP references should address specific behavior relevant to the proposed fund. Founders, co-investors, prior colleagues, and prior LPs observe different things. A generally positive reputation does not answer questions about judgment, attribution, reliability, or conflicts.

Start with the decision

Prepare role-specific questions and ask for concrete episodes. Record the reference's relationship, timing, and direct observations. Seek permission before sharing private statements and corroborate important claims where appropriate.

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 fund invests in companies operating across two markets. Its strategy relies on local sourcing and expansion support. The LP needs to understand geography, currency, service-provider, and execution dependencies in concrete terms.

Cross-border access introduces questions that a sector label cannot resolve. Do not assume any tax treatment, regulatory permission, currency protection, or enforceability without qualified review.

Turn the scenario into an evidence decision

Consider a review of a cross-border 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 a geographic exposure map, operating roles, relevant local references, currency conventions, and specialist explanations of applicable arrangements. Keep the investment entity distinct from the company's customer locations. 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. A reference process adds context rather than a simple popularity score. Preserve mixed evidence and distinguish a person's helpfulness from their investment decision quality and operating capability. 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.

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.

1. What did the reference observe?
2. How did the manager handle a difficult situation?
3. What role was actually owned?
4. What limitation exists in the reference?
5. Which account conflicts with another?

Questions specific to this scenario

• Who verifies local assumptions?
• Which currency is used for reporting?
• What specialist advice is documented?

Request a geographic exposure map, operating roles, relevant local references, currency conventions, and specialist explanations of applicable arrangements. Keep the investment entity distinct from the company's customer locations.

A concrete next test

Choose one proposed investment and map operating locations, investment entities, reporting currency, and local responsibilities. Ask qualified specialists which assumptions need review. Keep sourced evidence of local access separate from unsupported assurances about legal treatment, enforcement, or currency outcomes.

Interpret the result

A reference process adds context rather than a simple popularity score. Preserve mixed evidence and distinguish a person's helpfulness from their investment decision quality and operating capability.

Compare the claimed market access with actual examples and responsibilities. Separate a local introduction from demonstrated ability to assess, execute, and support an investment.

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.

• ILPA: Due Diligence Questionnaire user guide
• Investor.gov: Private Equity Funds