Kasper:
Welcome to Balentic Edge, conversations that matter in private markets. I’m your host Kasper investor, entrepreneur and founder of Balentic. On this show, we explore the people, strategies and ideas shaping private markets today, from GPs building tomorrow’s funds to LPs allocating in a shifting landscape. This episode is brought to you by Orca, an AI-driven compliant platform connecting the right GPs with the right LPs, smarter matches, faster decisions and better outcomes.

Kasper:
Today we’re joined by Amit Zutshi. Amit is a founding partner in Morphosis, a VC firm backing companies that are reshaping the enterprise stack. With a background spanning investing, operating and global leadership at Parthenon, which became part of E&Y, Amit brings deep experience across technology, growth and capital markets. Welcome Amit.

Amit Zutshi:
Thank you, Kasper. Pleasure to be here.

Kasper:
Amit you’ve worn many hats, what’s the common thread in your journey and what pushed you to start something of your own?

Amit Zutshi:
Right, so I spent a good 20 years, maybe a bit more than that, in working alongside private equity and venture firms, in helping them take investment decisions, in rolling up my sleeves, accelerating value creation in their portfolio companies, engineering exits for them, and did that in a bunch of markets across the world. And there was a point at which, somewhere in the middle of that journey, that I started to feel that there is more that could be done with the venture model, the old or conventional power law curve based venture model, while it has been absolutely brilliant for the world because it has funded a lot of really, really interesting companies that have changed the world in many ways, but hasn’t been particularly great for investors. So the thought process has been for some time now. That taking a private equity lens into venture investing could create more repeatable strategies. And there aren’t many venture firms that do that. So instead of joining a venture firm, many of which have been my clients in the past, I thought might as well found one.

Kasper:
I’m going to get back to that, but for listeners who are a little bit less familiar with Morphosis, can you tell us a bit about the firm? What’s your investment thesis? What kind of founders and technologies are you backing? And where, given what you just told us, do you fit in today’s VC landscape?

Amit Zutshi:
Sure. Yeah, we are focused on two markets that we think are among the best markets in the world. The US obviously is one of them. It’s big, it’s competitive. It has mid-sized population or largest population and hyper-capita incomes. But the other market that has some similarities with it, but also many differences, is the Indian market. Which is much larger in population, much lower in per capita income, but growing much more rapidly. And the technology ecosystem has come of age as well. So we focus on startups, B2B startups, particularly tech startups that have legs in both India and the US. And we usually come in at the sort of pre-series, series A sort of time. Think of it as $2 million first checks for about a 10 % stake.

Kasper:
On that, there is no shortage of capital, even though people will say fundraising is hard, but there’s a lot of capital chasing enterprise tech. What you said, which I find really interesting, is you’re focused on reshaping a category and not just incremental innovation. What does that actually mean in practice?

Amit Zutshi:
I guess the best way to describe that is to maybe take an example. See, B2B tech startups, whether it’s enterprise tech or B2B2C or hardware, software combinations, which talks to our deep tech focus. We do deep tech and fintech as the two main verticals for us. These companies don’t become household names like the amazing B2C companies do. So people don’t get to know much about them, but they do change how enterprises work, improving efficiency, increasing competitiveness. So let me take an example of one of our companies. It plays in enterprise technology infrastructure disaster recovery space. 

Now, if there is an event, that gets the technology systems to go down, whether it’s a cyber incident or a natural incident or whatever. It takes a long time for a complicated regional or international global enterprise to sort of get all of its systems back up, which is not great. And therefore a lot of redundancy gets built into the systems, right? And that costs a lot of money. It takes sometimes days to do that. 

There was another company that that HP acquired a few years ago, which quite significantly changed the game in this market. They came in with a product that could bring the systems back up in a matter of hours, maybe a day, not taking multiple days. That was a game changer as far as the industry was concerned. That’s the reason why it did very well. HP acquired it. And that’s because it solved one of the two major problems. And the problem it solved was just the complexity of the technology systems. There’s just too many loose ends. Need to put all of that together to be able to make this work. 

The problem that wasn’t solved at that time was how much data are we talking about? So the company we have in our portfolio called Datamotive, that solved the data problem as well, which means you can run concurrent workloads. And essentially, the core of the proposition, or one core of their product, is to guarantee a recovery time of 10 minutes. So they actually get the systems back up within 10 minutes. Now, that’s a game changer for enterprise systems. And that makes a real difference to their lives. It makes an indirect difference to consumers and users of the systems of these large enterprises as well. Something happens at an airport and the system comes back up quickly enough, the data isn’t lost, or at least there is not as much redundancy built into the systems, which affects the lives of airline passengers and all sorts of other people surrounding that ecosystem. So that’s a real game changer in the enterprise world, but most people will never know about it.

Kasper:
No, but I guess this is also something that is very applicable for thousands and thousands of SMEs who face daily hacker threats, these type of things, and when they go down, they’re down for week, 10 days, two weeks, three, four weeks before they’re recovered, and they probably have to pay a ransom to get there.

Amit Zutshi:
Absolutely. It’s an issue. Exactly right. And they don’t often have the budget to build in multiple layers of redundancy to the system.

Kasper:
No, they’re more happy-go-lucky without offending anyone, if we can say that. Excellent example. So jumping into that enterprise software, but not just any kind of enterprise software, what kind of market signals or inefficiencies are you targeting when you look at the companies you want to invest in or the sectors or the industries that you want to invest in?

Amit Zutshi:
So I’d look at that in two ways, at two levels, I guess. One is about where the companies operate and what problems are they trying to solve. The other level to look at it is, what is the problem that we are trying to solve, particularly from the perspective of our investors and sometimes from the perspective of our founders. 

So let me take the first one first. So as I was saying earlier, the verticals for us are DeepTech and FinTech for the majority of it. But we also look at three or four other verticals like health, energy and climate, supply chain, stroke mobility, and education. So we like those verticals, but because we do concentrated portfolios, taking that private equity lens into venture investing, that necessitates us to make to sort increase the conviction in our investment decisions to as great a degree as possible. So we bring, you know, private equity style diligence into the equation assessment of the investment opportunities. 

What these companies are targeting, what are within our investment thesis, is primarily two things, efficiency and growth from the perspective of their enterprise customers. And a big part of that, and I mentioned deep tech, within that there are four main things that we look at, space, the infrastructure layer of AI, same thing for cybersecurity and robotics. So as you can see, know, the questions, a lot of those questions are about driving efficiency and productivity into those enterprises across a wide variety of functions. 

And then of course, growth from the perspective of, you know, take another company in our portfolio, it’s an insure tech infrastructure platform, which is used by brokers and insurers for distribution. Insurance is a highly regulated industry, both in the US and in India. And it’s also highly fragmented. So there is a large number. As long as you keep doing it manually, can’t give as a broker, for example, unless you have the products and have the ability and a pipe to provide those products to the potential policyholder, you’re not giving your best service to the policyholder. You know, help the broker, for example, you know, to the use of this platform, improve distribution, and then take it all the way to claims administration. So, know, putting all of that together is something that this company’s core product does. And that helps on the growth side as well and not just on the efficiency side. So, that’s the core piece. 

As you notice that I’m not talking about changing the world here, that is not the lens that we look at it from. We look at it largely from the perspective of is this investment opportunity highly likely to deliver the kind of returns for us and our LPs. So that’s the core lens that we look at. The lens that we apply further on to that is also a material and measurable environmental and or social impact coming out of that. And that’s important for us. You know, if you leave the goodness of heart aside for a second, the core of that is that, you know, there is real dollar value that you can assign to measurable and meaningful social and or environmental impact. So we work with the companies to help them think through how to expand that impact and measure it. Ported, et cetera, which helps with follow-on rounds, which helps with our exits, et cetera. So those are the kind of questions at the first layer. From our own perspective, I touched upon that earlier.

Kasper:
Yep.

Amit Zutshi:
I think there is a fundamental problem from the perspective of returns to investors with the conventional venture capital model, especially that early stage venture capital model. And it’s basically I’ve got a pot of money I’m going to invest in a bunch of companies, whether it’s 40 or 50, 80, 100, sometimes more than that. And I’ll write. A check every week or every two weeks and I’m essentially driven by the search for that one or two or three outliers in my portfolio which will help to return my fund and add more to it and create the returns and if I get one outlier I return the fund and a bit more if I get two outliers I get you know, you know in the top 50 % if I get maybe three outliers I become a top quartile fund but that’s not a repeatable strategy and there is a huge amount of dispersion in the performance of VC funds as we all know. Private equity is much less dispersed, the returns. It’s a lot lower risk, but interestingly, the median private equity returns are actually higher than median venture capital returns. So whichever market you look at.

Kasper:
Correct. Yes.

Amit Zutshi:
As far as investors are concerned, you know, our own LPs are concerned. What do they look for? You know, I’ve been an LP. My fellow GPs have been LPs. And so we sort of take that GP LP combined view on it. And our view is that LPs look for three things fundamentally, they look for good returns that are repeatable so that they can continue to support you in future funds. They want to support you in future funds as long as you can deliver a decent performance. They look for decent liquidity. And that’s another problem with venture. And that goes back to the power law curve because if you’ve got those two outliers that will return the fund and more, you want to wait as long as you possibly can to squeeze the last drop of value out of that before you exit, right? Exactly. And then, you know, your 10 plus two year fund life, sometimes as we’ve seen over the last three or four years, they get extended and become 15 years.

Kasper:
It’s the lemons that ripe early.

Amit Zutshi:
I’ve come across funds that are 17, 18 years running now and haven’t managed to get all the exits yet. So because you’re expecting that extra 2x to come out of it in the last two years, so you go back to the LPs, hold a gun to their head and say, listen, well, the proverbial gun in the sense that the LPs don’t have an option to say no, because that exit is not happening now. So they don’t have an option but to wait. And so liquidity becomes a big concern. And that’s one of the reasons why a lot of LPs are turning away from VC, at least for now, until they start to see some liquidity, some DPI coming through. So that’s the second thing that the LPs want. And the third thing they want is, and particularly when it comes to emerging managers, they want transparency. So those are the three specific things that we are targeting. The previous fund that the team ran was, you focused on all these three things. And the second thing, the liquidity thing, it’s sort of six and a half, seven years in. There is not a huge amount of DPI yet, but we’ve got four companies preparing for an IPO over the next couple of years. So hopefully there will be liquidity by the time we get to the ninth year. Hopefully pretty good liquidity. But the returns are tracking well, 11X something like that, just over. But we’ve been super transparent. Got the systems in place to make sure that, and we’re not just transparent in terms of regular reporting, but also with respect to spending a lot of time with our LPs to understand how their needs are changing. Because every three years, we are launching a new fund, we want to have good visibility of that as we go along. And we learn a lot from LPs, and we want them to keep co-investing in the follow on rounds of the companies within our portfolio. So that relationship is long term and we look at it that way. So these are some of the things that, three critical things that we focus on in terms of solving for LPs.

Kasper:
So this is something that is, think, quite different, at least from a lot of VC funds that I’ve seen. What’s also different, and you’ve been touching upon it, is that are applying, more of buy-out lens into the venture world. One thing you get out of that is a more concentrated portfolio. But how do you do that? What’s the practical approach to this? Maybe by way of an example.

Amit Zutshi:
Right, at a 36,000 foot level, there are four fundamental capabilities that any venture firm should have to be able to solve those three problems that we are trying to solve, you’ve got to have a really, really good differentiated sourcing engine. You have to have an investment process that creates a high degree of conviction in the investment decisions. And because you’re investing in earlier stage companies, the more value that you can bring to the founders, of the portfolio companies, the better. But if you take it seriously, you can actually create some engines through the networks and relationships and focus and time to, and if you invest some money and put some of your own capital into that process, then you can actually move the needle for some of these founders. Because none of these founders know everything about every stage of a company as it grows, as it grows across different markets, so they are going to need help. And they pull together a lot of help themselves. But you can add something and support them along that journey. And then you’ve got to be disciplined about exits. You’ve got to get it right. You have to keep taking money off the table and keep an eye out on the ones that are not going to succeed and try and salvage whatever you can out of it and get out early as opposed to just hoping. So within that sort of larger envelope, if you like, if I just go back to the investment process part in terms of creating conviction, our leadership team is a combination of experiences that are more than 90 years of private equity and venture experience, in different parts of the world, the US, Europe, India, Middle East, particularly. We have two founders who founded and scaled companies that are valued at well over a billion dollars and scaled these companies internationally. Also the kind of companies that haven’t had to fire a single person in the last three years that say something about the quality of the companies they built. And I’ve talked about my experience already in terms of building out Parthenon along with one of our directors here who was actually my boss back in Parthenon, Bill, who founded Parthenon as he came out of Bain. So that’s the founding team of Morphosis. And when you have these people come together, they bring perspectives there is some amount of commonality, but the majority of it is, quite different and complementary between them. And we believe that every one of these is equally important with respect to taking an investment decision. So once again, compared to the conventional model, one big difference for us is that everybody has to say yes to an investment decision. It’s not as black and white as that may sound. Essentially, people ask questions. The partner that’s leading a particular deal goes back, answers those questions, comes back, finds the answers to those questions, comes back. And then we take a decision on whether those answers satisfy us or not. It’s a very private equity style process. But the diligence itself, we take a good five to six months from start of the formal conversation to money in the bank. More than 50 % of our investments are in founders that we’ve known for at least a couple of years, if not longer, because we keep a very keen eye on everything within our investment thesis. There’s rarely something that we miss. So if we haven’t spoken to a company with an investment thesis, then that is because we chose not to for one reason or another. And we get in with them as soon as we find out about them very, very early on in their lives. But they’re not ready for investment, at least from our perspective. And we keep if we like the founders, if we like what they’re trying to solve, we like the problem statement, if we like the approach that they’re taking to solve it and the early version of their product, et cetera, et cetera, then we keep in touch with them, keep helping them in the way that may make some sort of a difference. Not a huge amount, but a little bit nudge here or there. Get them connected into our network to the extent that they can get advantage from that. And that relationship builds over a period of time. And then a point comes where we feel like it’s good to start a formal conversation. So we already know a fair bit about them. We’ve been spending some time with them over this time. And the formal process, and then another five or six months down is when the money goes in, assuming we make the investment. And that takes into account a pretty extensive investment framework. It’s a proprietary investment framework that we look at. I’m not going to go into how many line items it has, et cetera, but it is pretty extensive. We take it quite seriously and there’s a lot of modeling that happens in great amount of detail. And all of that is available to the people who sort of come around the investment committee to take the decision. So that’s a very, very important thing for us. And I guess part of that is, given that we are targeting top-design returns, which is what we’re doing with the previous fund there are two things that we particularly look at outside of the regular parameters that you would look at for an investment decision. One of them is, the inflection point in the growth curve of this company, growth trajectory of this company, the first big revenue inflection point, is that imminent? And we define that as three to nine months from making the investment. The more times you get that right the better it is. But the other thing which is equally important is

Kasper:
Okay.

Amit Zutshi:
We like to invest in solid businesses with solid unit economics fundamentals. So these companies were at a $20 million pre-money valuation. They’re not profitable when we are looking at them. But do they have a clear path to profitability within two to three years of us making the investment is a critical part for our assessment. And the two together. Allows us to sort of get comfort along with all the other things that we look at around team and product and you know product market fit of course is phenomenally important in this and the market opportunity problem statement blah blah blah right and then of course there is the environmental and or social impact ESG angle to it as well I don’t know if that answers the question

Kasper:
No, it does, but it also leads me to another one. This is a very labor intensive type of thing. And so again, very different from your traditional venture firm set up, although they’re all different, each and every one, and much closer, as you say, to buyout. How do you manage for that internally in Morphosis?

Amit Zutshi:
Yes indeed so the only way to manage for that is to not have to spend a lot of time on many companies. Because we also spend a fair bit of our time with our portfolio founders as part of our value creation frameworks. And that needs a lot of bandwidth. And the partners, the GPs themselves, spend a fair bit of time on that, a good 20%, 30 % of the time which is caused with the portfolio. Give you some statistics, I guess we look at say about 250 companies a month and we invest, first check into five or six companies a year. Now, we can’t be looking at, you know, going into a lot of detail and taking a hundred companies to the investment committee on an annual basis, that’s just too inefficient. So we’ve over time become good at getting companies out of our funnel very, very quickly. Just looking at the pitch deck itself allows us to get to well over 80 % elimination. First call gets us into good somewhere between 90 and 95 % elimination, if not more. And that’s how we sort of try and make the process more efficient. Now, bear in mind. We are not investing out of the fear of missing out. We don’t care if he said no to a potential unicorn. Because we won’t invest in a company until it checks all the key boxes that we have. And so if a company becomes a unicorn, company that we said no to, becomes super successful and makes a lot of money for investors and the founders, good for them, brilliant.

Kasper:
As to fit your thesis.

Amit Zutshi:
But we don’t lose sleep on that. And that helps us to be more efficient in our funnel.

Kasper:
For all the founders out there, if you’re turning down 80 % of the companies you look at, already based on the deck, what are the sort of three things that cause you to say no right away?

Amit Zutshi:
So this is assuming that it is within our investment thesis. And our investment thesis is specifically B2B. So within that.

Kasper:
Yes.

Amit Zutshi:
The profile of the team, the experience of the team in the problem that they’re trying to solve, the quality of that problem. We understand the verticals that we invest in reasonably well. So the quality of the problem that they’re solving and the link between that problem and the approach with the product that they’re taking these are the obvious things that will immediately, even one of them is a bit off and not connected. The three things need to be super connected with each other. If they’re not connected, if they’re a bit off, then that’s an obvious no for us. Another one is traction, but we won’t reject, an opportunity if these three things are there and there isn’t any traction. This may not be the right time to invest, but we’d love to have a conversation with you. And then maybe develop that relationship over a long

Kasper:
I think there was something for the founders out there to be aware of I want to look a little bit at the market trends what you hear what do you think? We’re starting to see AI native companies come out, but we’re also starting to see what I think we can say sort of go to market fatigue. And on top of it, enterprise investing, I think is shifting faster than it ever has. How are you seeing this? And how are LP expectations evolving at the same time? Do they understand the shift that’s actually going on within the enterprise business, AI, software as a service, etc.?

Amit Zutshi:
Software as services has been around for some time, right? So the LPs know about it. Know, many of them are comfortable about it. And when I say LPs, I don’t mean just our LPs, its LPs in general. And of course, there’s a fraction of LPs in the world who actually invest either directly or indirectly in the private markets, particularly technology led private markets, there’s an interest, the longer term trend has been that, you know, they’re getting more and more comfortable with the private markets. But now in the last few months, and couple of years, there is that element of nervousness. So you’d see that their allocation to VC has gone down, but not the ones who are super experienced and have access and have relationships with good managers. You know, AI from an LP perspective, I see a wide variety. There are people, many, who just don’t understand AI much and don’t know where it is going to land. Well, that is not to say that anybody in the world really understands where AI is going to land. Even the best minds in AI, and we have one of those in our team. So they stay away from it. And then you have on the other side, they love the idea of what AI is doing and they’re going out trying to get access to some of the best deals directly and also looking at indirect investments, know, so into funds that invest in AI, AI-related businesses. So there’s a huge spectrum there as you would expect. Some would say, you know, even if we get access to some of the best deals, who is to say it’s not super overvalued? And what might happen with it five years down the line. So there are all kinds of questions. Some have the courage to go ahead and do that. Others don’t. We count ourselves as people who don’t have the courage to get into those deals, which we believe are overvalued. And that’s why we focus a lot more on AI infrastructure as opposed to applications.

Kasper:
I guess it goes back to as well, you’re not afraid of missing out. If you miss out, that’s fine. You’ll have invested in something else. I have to ask you at this point, Amit because it is something we hear quite a lot. Will AI kill SaaS

Amit Zutshi:
Exactly. No, I don’t think so. I mean, not as a sort of overarching proposition. Do the SaaS companies need to build some AI capability into it? It depends on the use cases, right? There are some use cases where AI will have a greater challenge to sort of cut into in a meaningful way. It’s a matter of time. It could be three years. It could be even 10 years. I’m not so concerned that the world is about to change completely and because enterprises take time to transform and I’ve spent enough time doing that in my previous life. It takes years if not sometimes decades for enterprises to transform. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Is often my message. Having said that, of course, it’ll take less and less time for enterprises to transform. And there’s lots of piecemeal

Kasper:
Me too.

Amit Zutshi:
Solutions that are going in, a lot to do with AI. You’ve got AI services. One of the portfolio companies in our previous portfolio, actually one of the top performing companies, is an AI services company, which has done phenomenally well for us. That’s a contrarian bet that we made in the sense that why would services is not considered to be scalable? And this one has been phenomenal for variety of reasons that we got comfort around back in the day. AI services is very interesting because most AI companies, most AI applications are focused on a couple of use cases and then they expand from that, et cetera. But coming back to SaaS, SaaS and enterprise technology companies, they have to be able to build AI into the equation. Sometimes their business model might be threatened. Other times, AI just allows them to improve the efficacy of their product and create efficiencies in their own operations. So we encourage, and we don’t need to encourage actually our portfolio founders, they’ve been spending a lot of time bringing a lot of AI into their business. People who did not have any AI in it a year ago have our sort of very AI capable now. So it’s possible to retrofit a lot of that, particularly when it is about internal operations and improving the efficacy of the product, it is possible to do that. But I mean, is, it is going to take, there is a lot, there’s a bloodbath waiting to happen, because every use case that you can think of in any industry has dozens, if not hundreds of, you know, AI propositions hunting it, and how many of them are going to succeed? How many of them will actually be alive in a couple of years time, a tiny fraction. So which approaches are going to work? Because it’s not just the tech and the approach that you take. It’s also about your ability to build a business around it and a commercial model around it and et cetera. It’s not as easy as some would have you believe.

Kasper:
Execution. Looking ahead, what’s one theme or subsector within enterprise that you think is perhaps not yet discovered or flying under the radar, and why do you think that’s an exciting subsector?

Amit Zutshi:
So one thing and it. I wouldn’t put a finger on one specific thing that would be the next big thing because I don’t think I know enough to be able to say that. Maybe that thing doesn’t exist. But there are many gaps in a large number of verticals and business models. Take for example, for us, the B2B2C business models across a variety of verticals. That’s a big thing. And you find a lot of VC firms, for example, focused on SaaS enterprise tech, which is a straight B2B tech proposition. It’s not B2B2C, usually. Often it is, but sometimes it’s not. And the consumer opportunity is immense. Per capita incomes are growing, they will continue to grow. Populations are growing, they will continue to grow. So the consumer opportunity is immense. The problem with attacking the consumer opportunity with tech products is that it comes at high customer acquisition costs. So unit economics don’t make sense. The path to profitability isn’t very clear and often non-existent. So you can’t drive high growth and a clear path to profitability concurrently. It’s rare to find a company like that. What a B2B2C model, not always, but in certain specific situations. Allows you to do is go for both. If you’ve got the right approach and the right business model around the IP driven product that you have. That allows you to do that. And I think we see firms could focus a bit more on that than they do at the moment. And founders could look at more ways to solve problems where it’s not about more HR tech and

Kasper:
Interesting.

Amit Zutshi:
And more accounting related or internal operations related. It’s about helping their customers serve their consumers better in a variety of ways. And there are enough opportunities, there are enough products that do that across industries. But particularly look at those models where you’ve had a huge amount of success. So the disruption opportunity here is not the way enterprises have done business over the last 10, 20, 30 years. Those businesses that have already been disrupted by the B2C players disrupting the B2C tech players and their models. By adopting B2B2C approaches. That’s where I think a lot more can be done, both from funders as well as investors.

Kasper:
No. It’ll be an interesting space to watch and I guess also if you can actually do that as a startup or as a company, you become much more essential to your B2B customer because you’re helping them increase the stickiness to their consumer customers.

Amit Zutshi:
Exactly. Exactly that.

Kasper:
Amit we’re coming up to the end of it, but I’d to do a quick fire round. Are you game for that? What’s one startup trend that you think is overrated right now?

Amit Zutshi:
Go for it. AI applications.

Kasper:
Not much of a surprise there. Think most of us are looking at that. When you look at early stage venture capital, is it more capital, more time, or more conviction? What’s most important to you?

Amit Zutshi:
Conviction.

Kasper:
Conviction. Would have thought so. Fantastic. Amit this was a great conversation. Very insightful. I think we could’ve gone for a while. We’ve gone over how Morphosis is applying a buyout lens into VC, how they think about investing, how they’re helping their portfolio companies. Thank you very much for being on Balentic Edge, Amit

Amit Zutshi:
Thanks, Kasper. Thanks for having me. Great conversation and look forward to seeing you again sometime soon.

Kasper:
Thank you also to our listeners for tuning in to Balentic Edge. I hope you enjoyed the conversation. If you did, please hit follow on Spotify or Apple, or subscribe on YouTube. And consider sharing this episode with a friend or a colleague. Do you have feedback or questions? I’d love to hear from you. Connect with me on LinkedIn. This episode was brought to you by Orca, helping GPs reach the right LPs and LPs discover the right funds. Learn more at balentic.com/orca. Thanks again for listening, and until next time, stay illiquid.

Kasper:
Finally, a small disclaimer. The views expressed in this podcast are solely those of the host and guests and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not represent the views of any affiliated organizations, employers or entities. Nothing discussed should be construed as investment, legal, tax or business advice. Any reference to specific funds, companies or investment strategies are purely illustrative and do not constitute an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. Listeners should consult their own professional advisors before making any investment or financial decisions.