Due diligence a family office could act on

The verdict was a conditional proceed: four information gaps named explicitly, each one closing before capital could move. The remaining diligence became a checklist.

The situation

A family office weighing a S$1M commitment to a first-time private equity fund raised by an established operating group in its sector. The profile required structure: a first-time fund, a large blind-pool component, a related-party structure in which the sponsor, the operator, and the deal-sourcer are the same entity, and a well-capitalised competitor already active in the same strategy.

The work

I put the commitment through scored due diligence: nine dimensions across three gates. First, the facts on the ground: early traction of the fund's flagship assets, fundraise momentum, and the sponsor's financial health. Second, the paper: fund terms, governance, and the related-party structure, which was the investment's biggest structural weakness and was scored as such. Third, the thesis: competitive position, team credibility, and whether the exit story survives contact with the market's actual multiples.

Every dimension carried a score and an argument. The output was a verdict the investor could act on, with the remaining work defined rather than implied.

What this shows

Investment discipline is a process. A S$1M cheque deserves the same gated, argued, written-down diligence as a S$100M one.

One of a set of engagement and systems case studies. If a problem like this is on your desk, start with a conversation.