4 ms·
Am an LP in a couple of tiny funds…a lot of the funds have verbiage to the effect that the GP will not reveal any information about LPs except as required by la
by epc 6y ago
Am an LP in a couple of tiny funds…a lot of the funds have verbiage to the effect that the GP will not reveal any information about LPs except as required by law (I'm not saying that's what happened here, and the firms should have just responded that they don't disclose information about their LPs rather than ghosting you). There's also typically verbiage restricting what LPs can reveal about the fund, a recent one requires divesting from the fund if the LP becomes subject to FOIA, for example.
- mrweasel 6y agoIs it also possible that asking about the LPs, and especially saudi influence, could indicate that the founders has morals that could be “annoying” down the road?
- epc 6y agoPossibly. I mean, I'm a stereotypical East Coast liberal "elite SJW" so the founder's question would have been perfectly acceptable to me (if I were the GP of the fund). I would say that the closer a fund is to one of the coastal centers of influence …the more complex and restrictive the partnership documents have been.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dalbasal 6y agoAnything's possible... unreturned phone calls are hard to reach conclusions from. Here's a Douglas Adams quote: "I don’t know if I’m right in thinking this, but I only have silence to go on, which is always a poor source of information."
- vmception 6y agowell the point is that you wouldn’t know its standard verbaige industry wide your LPs can just be two neighbors that dont like each other you can make up whatever helps you sleep at night its just not that complicated