White Paper II · forthcoming
A closer look at emerging managers’ returns and risk.
Our first paper found higher average returns among emerging venture funds. That left a question worth asking: how do those returns compare when risk enters the picture? The Architecture of Returns examines 2,142 U.S. venture funds from 2000–2024 using two constructed measures of risk efficiency.
colibri.institute/architecture-of-returns
Colibrí Institute · Open access
Colibrí Institute, 2026 • Moncada, 2026
2,142 U.S.-based venture capital funds, 2000–2024.
The finding
Emerging funds scored higher on two risk-efficiency measures.
A high return does not tell the whole story. This paper looks at annualized return relative to how widely returns varied among funds raised in the same year. It also compares a fund’s total value with the median, or middle fund, in that year. Emerging funds had higher average scores on both measures.
These measures answer different questions. The first puts return in the context of a vintage’s spread of outcomes; the second shows performance relative to that vintage’s typical fund. Neither directly measures a particular fund’s probability of loss.
The finding gives allocators and managers a reason to look beyond a single headline return. It does not establish that emerging funds are safer, or that any one fund will outperform.
Group averages in White Paper II: two constructed efficiency measures and four conventional performance metrics.
Emerging funds had higher averages on both efficiency measures, IRR, TVPI and DPI. The RVPI difference was not statistically reliable. These are historical group comparisons; they do not predict a particular fund’s outcome.
Colibrí Institute, 2026 • Moncada, 2026
2,142 U.S.-based venture capital funds, 2000–2024.
Research updates
Be first to hear when the research is ready.
The Architecture of Returns and both editions of the Configuration Coherence Diagnostic will be free to access. Join the research list and we will let you know when they are available.
What arrives
The paper, twelve exhibits at print resolution, the method appendix, and both editions of the diagnostic.
Advance copies
Press and analysts can request an advance copy under embargo at hello@colibri.institute.
Preview · six findings
What the paper reports.
| No. | Finding | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Emerging funds had higher average scores on both constructed efficiency measures. | Higher historical group means |
| 2 | The emerging-fund differences persisted after the study’s measured portfolio and resource controls. | Persists with measured controls |
| 3 | The adjusted composite-score difference was larger near the upper end of the distribution. | About 3x: 75th vs. 25th percentile |
| 4 | Portfolio breadth and stage focus showed associations with efficiency in the study’s models. | Patterns depend on the model |
| 5 | Check size and sector focus added limited independent signal in the specified models. | Not a finding of irrelevance |
| 6 | Funds with women general partners were also examined, with results varying by measure and model. | Read each comparison in context |
Founding-team composition is included because access to institutional capital is part of the research question. These comparisons describe observed relationships; they do not isolate the effect of identity on performance.
Published with the paper
Two diagnostics, free, no account.
Two forthcoming self-assessments will help allocators and managers examine whether a fund’s portfolio plan fits its resources. They use information available from a data room or an early conversation and explain the reasoning behind the result. They can be used before a track record exists and do not predict performance.
The LP Diagnostic and GP Diagnostic published with White Paper I are live now.
An illustration applying the observed 0.21x difference in average TVPI to three amounts of paid-in capital.
$100 million$21 million$500 million$105 million$1 billion$210 millionThe arithmetic holds paid-in capital constant. It is not a forecast, a ten-year return estimate or a measured cost of a screening decision. TVPI includes both cash returned and remaining reported value.
Colibrí Institute, 2026 • Moncada, 2026
2,142 U.S.-based venture capital funds, 2000–2024.
Before you cite it
What we claim, and what we do not.
The study compares funds at a point in time, so the results show association rather than cause. Commercial database coverage and missing data limit how far the findings travel; we cannot establish the direction of that bias. Results also vary by stage. The later-stage sample is small, so a result there should not be treated as a firm conclusion about all later-stage funds.
Open access
Free to read, quote, cite, and redistribute with attribution.
Suggested citation
Moncada, I., & Salas, M. (2026). The Architecture of Returns: Why emerging venture capital managers are more risk-efficient. Colibrí Institute.
The first paper
Why Emerging Venture Capital Managers Matter is published and free to download.
Read White Paper IHow we measure risk shapes what we see. These findings invite a closer look at emerging managers, using measures that make the comparison and its limits clear.
Colibrí Institute · Research summary