Patrick O'Shaughnessy

It's the same size team.

It can write a tiny seed check or a billion dollar check.

You can cover the universe with a team of 10-ish people and they serve as the signal that other people want to follow.

It's an interesting comparison.

People claiming this same narrative.

It's a very good narrative to say you're using AI to reduce costs and time by 90%.

And therefore you can pay a little bit more and therefore you can have much higher margins and all.

It's a very simple idea.

That's the devil's in the details.

It's a really interesting trend.

I'm curious about the structure, though.

From your perspective, for your clients, two of these examples are permanent capital holding company structures versus drawdown funds.

What are the trade-offs there?

I think the trend has been towards more people trying to raise permanent capital vehicles, which obviously confers certain benefits.

But from the LP's perspective, from your client's perspective, what are the trade-offs that you care most about between a drawdown fund and a holding company?

You might still be holding some of this stuff.

The best version of anything is probably pretty good.

So we've got two really interesting things.

The emergence of independent sponsors, lower market, the evolution of buyout firms to be the buyers, the people that are buying the businesses from you that earn your return, which is really interesting.

This evolution towards holding companies, even from some traditional venture type players or something.