Meaning and transaction use
ILPA's due-diligence questionnaire provides a structured framework for LP diligence of managers, including organisation, strategy, team, governance, operations and track record. [S1]
ILPA's emerging-manager toolkit describes documents intended to attract qualified LP capital and support fund formation, diligence, reporting and alignment. [S2]
Proposed control method: record each prospect's source, mandate, geography, ticket, allocation status, decision process, conflicts, contact authority and evidence date; apply privacy, solicitation and distribution controls before contact.
Worked example
Illustrative screening only. Assume 120 unique institutions are screened. Forty meet strategy and geography criteria, 24 also meet ticket and allocation criteria, and 12 have a verified active review window.
Scroll the table horizontally to view all columns.
| Measure | Calculation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy-and-geography fit | 40 / 120 | 33.3% |
| Full mandate fit | 24 / 120 | 20.0% |
| Verified active-window rate | 12 / 120 | 10.0% |
| Active windows among full-fit LPs | 12 / 24 | 50.0% |
| Full-fit prospects without active window | 24 - 12 | 12 |
Twelve prospects have both full profile fit and a verified active review window under the assumptions. This does not represent demand, approval or commitment.
Proposed transaction review process
Define the fund fit
Set strategy, geography, size, structure, liquidity and eligibility criteria.
Define LP capacity
Set ticket, allocation, pacing, currency, governance and diligence requirements.
Verify prospects
Use dated evidence and record source, authority, conflicts and contact status.
Prioritise and monitor
Rank fit and timing, then track diligence, decisions and reasons for rejection.
Evidence checklist
Fund evidence
LPA, PPM, model, track record, DDQ and regulatory perimeter.
LP mandate evidence
Published policy, verified correspondence or authorised database information.
Process evidence
Decision makers, advisers, committee cycle, diligence and legal requirements.
Engagement evidence
Consent, contact history, materials released, questions and outcome.
Decision framework
| Situation | Proposed action |
|---|---|
| Mandate fit is unverified | Keep the prospect unqualified until a dated source is recorded. |
| Ticket size exceeds capacity | Test co-investment, feeder or later-close options only if authorised and supportable. |
| An LP is in a restricted jurisdiction | Obtain legal and distribution clearance before contact. |
| A prospect declines | Record the stated reason and respect future-contact preferences. |
Common errors to check
- Treating database membership as current appetite.
- Confusing profile fit with commitment probability.
- Using unverified ticket or allocation estimates as fact.
- Approaching investors without distribution and privacy controls.
Build the LP qualification matrix
Bring the fund mandate, target economics, regulatory perimeter and prospect evidence to a target-LP review. Separate verified fit and timing from unsupported appetite assumptions.
Discuss the transactionPrimary references and editorial scope
- ILPA Due Diligence Questionnaire
Structured LP diligence topics for private-equity managers. Reference checked 17 September 2026. - ILPA Emerging Manager Toolkit
Qualified LP capital, formation, diligence, reporting and alignment materials. Reference checked 17 September 2026.
General fund-placement education. Counts are hypothetical. Investor eligibility, marketing, privacy, solicitation and distribution requirements depend on the fund, investor and jurisdictions.
General business information. Obtain advice appropriate to the legal, tax, accounting and financing facts. No offer, lender commitment or transaction outcome is represented. All worked examples use expressly assumed figures. Editorial draft date: 17 September 2026.
