And Why Your First Institutional Fund Will Take 24-36 Months to Close

You're a VC or PE fund manager raising your first institutional fund. You've been grinding for 18 months. You've closed some angels and a few family offices. You have some momentum. You know your strategy works. And now you're facing the real question: how do I land real institutional capital?

The answer requires understanding not just what endowments want, but why they move the way they do. Because once you understand the machine, you stop blaming yourself when the process takes two to three years. You realize it's structural. And It's not your fault. It's how the system actually works.

Here's what most first-time managers don't know when they start approaching institutions: the timeline they're imagining is completely wrong. 

You're thinking 12-18 months. 

The market is running 24-36 months. 

And the difference between these two timelines determines whether you keep your sanity, your marriage, and your LP conviction.

Before we get into the why, let’s address the emotional reality: You left your job to do this. 

You told your family this was the move. You told your LPs this was going to work. And now you're watching months go by while endowments ask questions that feel repetitive and slow. 

That's not a sign you're doing it wrong. It's a sign you're doing it in a system that was designed centuries ago and still moves like it.

The key to surviving it is understanding why.

We've had a lot of inbound interest in Advisory since we released GP Velocity. Managers are using it to measure their capital raising pace and understand how LPs actually perceive them. What they're discovering is that most first-time fund managers are either moving faster than they realize (which creates false confidence) or slower than they admit (which creates panic).

If you're in the second camp, Advisory exists for exactly this moment.

Here's how it works: Advisory is for fundraises $100M+ that are in real trouble. Not theoretical trouble. Real trouble. You're at month 15, you've burned through half your runway, your co-founder is worried, and you're not sure you're going to close. That's when you call us.

The intake process is simple. Your GPs and MDs complete our intake paperwork (it takes 5 minutes), we have one conversation with your entire GP/MD team to understand exactly what's broken, and we tell you if we can help and what it costs. We don't do demos or sales theater. We just have an honest conversation about whether Advisory is right for you.

If you're raising around $65M and deeply troubled, Capital OS Premium (and application)might be what you need instead. Premium is self-service with cohort support on Mondays and Thursdays. You get the 450+ IC penetration plans, the institutional infrastructure templates, and structured check-ins with peers navigating the same timeline. No 1:1 hand-holding, but you're not alone either.

If either path sounds like where you are right now, head to our website and fill out the intake form. Be honest about your situation. We already know what month-15 panic feels like. We're not here to judge it. We're here to help you survive it.

The Endowment Business Model: Why They're Structurally Forced to Allocate to Your Strategy (And Why It Still Takes Forever)

Here's what first-time managers don't realize: for a major university endowment, investment returns aren't just "nice to have". 

They're a critical revenue stream that keeps the lights on.

Harvard's endowment funds 35% of the university's operating budget. 

That's salaries, research, financial aid, facilities, everything. 

Yale’s similar. These aren't “rainy-day funds”. They're the structural revenue that the university’s built their entire freakin’ cost structure around.

This creates enormous pressure to hit high return targets every single year. 

They can't just sit in t-bonds earning 4.5%. They need 8-10%+ returns to fund operations and maintain purchasing power after inflation.

Translation: When you pitch an endowment, understand that they're not investing for fun. 

They have mandatory return targets they must hit to keep their institution running. 

This is good news for you. It means they need to take calls from emerging managers. They do not have a choice. They are not talking to you for funsies.

They need to find returns. You're not “begging for charity”. You're solving a real world financial problem.

But here's the brutal and s***y part: institutional decision-making doesn't work on your timeline. It works on their timeline! And we'll get to why.

The "Yale Model": Why Every Endowment is Structurally Required to Allocate to PE/VC (Even the Ones That Got Burned by It)

In the 1980s-90s, Yale's Chief Investment Officer David Swensen pioneered an approach that became the template for every major endowment:

The core idea: Shift away from traditional stocks and bonds into alternatives (we call them alts around here): private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, real assets. The theory had three pillars:

The Illiquidity premium: By locking up capital for 5 to 10+ years, you get paid extra returns that public market investors just won't accept. Endowments have "permanent capital" with really long time horizons, so they can be patient. (Ever hear of “patient capital”?)

Access to elite managers: Large endowments can get into capacity-constrained, top-tier funds that ordinary investors can't. These supposedly deliver superior returns. (Sometimes yeah, sometimes not so much!)

Diversification and lower correlation: Alternatives (alts) don't move with public markets, providing better risk-adjusted returns (in theory). I was hanging out in an art gallery in Carmel, California this weekend. California 20th century fine art is usually non-correlated and does not typically move with public markets. Usually, but not always.

The results were spectacular for decades. Yale's endowment significantly outperformed peers. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford copied the model. By 2008, the largest endowments had 60-80%+ allocated to illiquid alternatives.Wild.

Then reality hit them repeatedly. And they kept doing it anyway.

Why? Because the model’s now structural. 

It's baked into their asset allocation frameworks and their return projections. 

To hit their required returns, the math forces them to allocate to alternatives (alts). They're trapped by their own models.

This matters to you because it explains both the opportunity and the timeline: Endowments must find emerging managers like you. 

But, they can't just make a quick decision about it. Their governance structures require deliberation. It's slow by design.

You read that right: Slow. By. Design. Say it with me.

Slow. By. Design.

The Quota System: Why You're Competing Against Thousands of Other Funds (And Why That Competition Means Slow Vetting)

Endowments don't just say "invest in good stuff." They use sophisticated asset allocation models that mandate very specific percentages in each asset class:

• 25% Private Equity
• 20% Hedge Funds
• 15% Real Assets
• 10% Venture Capital
• 10% Credit (if they have a credit allocation)
• Etc.

These targets are driven by quantitative models that assume alternatives (alts) will deliver the returns they need. 

The math essentially forces maximum allocations to alternatives (alts) to hit their required overall return target.

Here's the problem: Once you set a 25% PE target for a $40 billion endowment, you need to deploy $10 billion into private equity. 

You need to find dozens of managers to partner with, regardless of whether enough genuinely differentiated managers actually exist. (Yeah, this is kinda wild, huh?).

This created an explosion of funds. 

Between 2000-2008, the number of PE and VC funds exploded, with many existing primarily to absorb institutional quota capital, not because they had differentiated strategies. (If anyone remembers what happened on the Sunset Strip after Guns N Roses came out in 1988, and the explosion of 1980s hair metal, there are some very real parallels.)

Today, there are thousands of emerging managers all doing the same thing you are: building a first institutional fund and trying to land that anchor endowment LP.

What this means for you:

✅ The good news: There's structural demand. Endowments have quotas to fill and are required to allocate to PE/VC. They need you.

✅ The bad news: You're competing with thousands of other funds. And because there are so many options, endowments can afford to be slow and picky in their vetting.

✅ Your edge: If you can deliver specialized alpha combined with institutional-grade operations, you solve their quota problem. But you have to prove it thoroughly, which is why this takes time.

The Dirty Secret: Most Alternatives Have Underperformed (And Endowments Are Terrified of Making Another Mistake)

Over the past decade, US large-cap tech stocks have dramatically outperformed most alternatives. 

Many endowments would have been better off just holding the S&P 500 than paying 2-and-20 for "exclusive" alternative managers. This claim’s strongly supported by recent data: the S&P 500 Total Return Index returned an annualized 12.89% over the 10-year period ending in Q3 2025, which significantly outperforms the median university endowment return of 6.8% over the fiscal 10-year period ending June 30, 2024, as documented by the NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments. The notable exception is the largest endowments (over $5 billion), which have historically generated higher long-term returns (e.g., 8.3% over 10 years) by having access to the most exclusive private market managers.

PE (private equity) distributions have collapsed. In 2014-2017, PE funds were returning 29% of NAV annually to LPs. In 2024, it dropped to 11%. LPs locked up capital for years and many are still waiting for their returns.

Harvard recently had to sell $1 billion in PE stakes at 15-20% discounts just to raise cash. Yale is exploring selling $6 billion (15% of their entire endowment) on the secondary market. They're getting 80-85 cents on the dollar because they suddenly need liquidity and they're forced to sell at fire-sale prices.

This context is crucial: Endowments are not just vetting your fund. They're recovering from a decade of underperformance. 

They're politically pressured (Congress is threatening to tax endowments at 21% instead of 1.4%). They're burned. And they're terrified of backing the wrong emerging manager.

This is why they move slowly. It's not that they're disorganized. It's that they've been badly hurt and they're now conducting vetting at a level of paranoia that didn't exist before.

That means if you're waiting for an answer from an endowment and it feels like forever, you're correct. It is forever. It’s longer than Wu-Tang Forever, and that was almost 78 minutes.

And it's not about you. It's about them trying to avoid making the same mistakes that cost them billions.

The Emotional Timeline: What's Actually Happening During Those 24-36 Months

Here's what nobody tells you when you start raising your first institutional fund:

Months 1-6: The Honeymoon

You're meeting with the CIO or the investment committee. 

They're interested. You're pitching. Everyone's optimistic. You think "Oh yeah team, maybe this accelerates."

So yeah, it doesn't. 

What's actually happening: The CIO’s running you through their internal screening. 

They're checking references. They're reading your track record. They're assigning someone (who's already overbooked until March) to deep-dive on your fund.

Months 6-12: The Slow Fade

You're getting meetings scheduled, then rescheduled. 

You get invited to present to the IC. Then there's radio silence for six weeks. 

Then they have questions about your operational setup. Your auditor. Your TPA (third-party admin). Your leverage policies. These are good questions. They mean they're seriously considering you.

But they also take time to answer thoroughly. This is not a casual process anymore.

Here's what's happening internally at the endowment: 

You've now entered the formal diligence process. This is not a quick approval. 

This is a full operational and financial review that typically involves 2-4 people, each of whom is managing other funds and other responsibilities. You're one of 15-20 new manager prospects they're evaluating simultaneously.

This is also where your own operational infrastructure matters. If you tell them "we're still figuring out our auditor," the clock resets. 

If you have Big Four audit in place from day one, you move to the next queue in the decision process.

Months 12-18: The Deep Diligence

You're now in serious conversations. They're requesting:

• Detailed risk management documentation
• Leverage stress tests
• Position concentration analysis
• Audited financials (if available - did you prepare them?)
• Detailed fee structures and GP economics
• Full operational setup details
• Reference calls with existing LPs - have you set your reference LPs? We do this very early on in Capital OS Premium
• Reference calls with your service providers (auditor, TPA, prime broker)
• Your entire due diligence questionnaire (DDQ) answered in 40+ pages

They're also now looping in compliance. And general counsel. And sometimes their outside advisors.

What's actually happening: You've passed the first filter. 

Now you're being vetted at the level that institutions use. This includes operational due diligence, which is hyper-focused on preventing another Madoff-type scenario or another liquidity crisis. They're checking everything.

This is emotionally brutal because it feels like they're looking for reasons to say no. 

In reality, they're doing their fiduciary duty. But the experience feels like an endless barrage of skepticism.

Months 18-24: The IC Meeting (Or Multiple IC Meetings)

You finally present to the investment committee. 

Maybe there's a first IC meeting where they pass you to a subcommittee. Maybe there's a second IC meeting where you present live. (If you want to watch dozens of these IC presentations, here’s 

What's happening internally: The investment committee is now deciding whether to allocate capital. This is not a fast process. 

Depending on the endowment's bylaws and governance structure, this could require voting by a larger board. There could be pushback from committee members who prefer other managers. There could be questions about your strategy that require you to go back and do more research.

Between IC meetings, there could be 8-12 weeks where you hear nothing.

Months 24-30: The Almost-Final Phase

You're in legal negotiations now. Term sheets are being drafted. Your counsel is negotiating LPA terms. Their counsel is negotiating GP economics.

What's happening: This is slower than you think because both sides have counsel involved and there are often misalignments in expectations. Most term sheet negotiations take 6-8 weeks. Some take 4-5 months.

Also: If you proposed GP economics that were different from their expectations, this is where they push back. If you want 20% carry and they only approve 17.5% for emerging managers, now's the fight. You’re gonna want to read up on how they’ve treated emerging managers in past deals so there’s no surprises here.

Months 30-36: The Fund Close

Legal is finalized. Docs are signed. Wire instructions are confirmed. LP subscriptions are processed. K-1s are issued.

What's happening: Everything slows down further because now it's not just you and the endowment. 

It's fund admin, custody, prime brokerage, and 3-5 other institutional LPs who all coordinated to close together.

Most endowments only wire money at the end of a quarter. So if everything is signed in late October, you might not see wire until December 31st. Be smart about this. Do not be surprised.

Why This Timeline Is Structural (Not a Personal Failure)

Most emerging managers interpret the 24-36 month timeline as a sign that they're doing something wrong. They're not.

Here's why the process actually takes this long:

Reason #1: Endowments Have Governance Requirements

A large endowment doesn't have a CIO who can just write a $50M check after meeting number 3.

They have an Investment Committee (IC) with 5-15 members, average about 10 people. 

That committee has bylaws about when they meet (often quarterly). That committee requires formal voting. That voting requires presentations, documentation, and discussion across multiple meetings.

This is not inefficiency. This is called governance. You’re gonna want some of this in your fund.

It's designed to prevent individual decision-makers from making catastrophic bets. It's also why it's slow.

Reason #2: They're Checking Everything Because of Past Disasters

Endowments have been burned. A lot. Madoff destroyed foundations. 

Amaranth lost $6 billion in weeks. The 2008 crisis locked up trillions in illiquid capital exactly when institutions needed cash most.

Because of these disasters, endowment due diligence includes:

• Checking your auditor's track record
• Verifying your third-party admin (TPA) is independent and reputable
• Stress-testing your leverage and concentration
• Running reference calls on you with other GPs (they will do this, for sure)
• Full operational reviews

This is not paranoia. This is fiduciary duty. And it takes time.

Reason #3: You're One of 15-20 Fund Prospects They're Evaluating

The endowment's investment team is not sitting around waiting to hear back from you. 

They're running similar processes on 15-20 other emerging managers simultaneously. You're in a queue. Sometimes you move up the queue quickly. Sometimes you don't.

Also: They're watching to see how your current fund performs. 

If you're a first-time fund manager with zero track record, they may want to see your Fund I deploy capital successfully before they're comfortable with Fund II. This naturally extends the timeline.

Reason #4: The Market Dynamics in Q4 2025 Are Adding More Friction

Right now (late 2025), endowments are:

• Processing the impact of increased endowment tax proposals
• Dealing with reduced federal research funding
• Evaluating new treasury rates that affect their opportunity cost calculations (this is their floor or baseline for opportunity cost, natch)
• Managing distributions that are lower than they expected from existing funds
• Reconsidering their entire alternatives allocation

This creates additional questions that slow the process: "Do we even have the capital for this LP? Are we going to need liquidity because of the tax situation? Does this manager fit our new allocation model?"

These are legitimate institutional questions. They also take months to work through.

Here's What You Actually Need to Know About the 24-36 Month Timeline

This timeline is not about you. It's about their process.

If you can internalize this one fact, you stop torturing yourself. 

You stop interpreting radio silence as rejection. You stop second-guessing your strategy. You understand that you're on a timeline that has nothing to do with your fund's quality and everything to do with institutional governance.

Here's what that means operationally:

1. You need to know this timeline going in. If you're planning to close your Fund I in 12 months and you're banking on a single endowment anchor LP, you're going to miss your own target. Plan for 24-36 months. Adjust your fundraising expectations accordingly.

Tell your co-investors and your team "institutional LPs close on this timeline, not the angels or family office timeline you're used to."

2. You need to staff for the long game. If you're a two-person team doing all the fundraising and fund operations, you're going to burn out around month 12 and make bad decisions around month 15. A properly staffed emerging fund raising $50M+ needs at least 3-4 people dedicated to capital raising and fund administration. Not 1.5. Not 2. Three to four. We teach this from Day One in Capital OS Premium. This is why when a fund has two GPs, we enroll both of them for the 18-24 months the fundraise will take. (Application here.)
3. You need to build institutional infrastructure from day one. Not "eventually." Not "when we're close." From day one. This means:

• Big Four auditor (or equivalent) hired before your first institutional conversation
• Independent third-party administrator (TPA) in place before pitching
• Brand-name prime broker relationship established
• Full operational documentation complete and ready to hand over

When you have this infrastructure in place, you move through institutional vetting faster because you're not discovering operational gaps during diligence. When you don't have it, you're pushing meetings back and resetting the timeline.

4. You need to understand that showing progress is part of the LP evaluation. Endowments are not just assessing your fund in a vacuum. 

They're assessing how you operate while you're raising capital and deploying your Fund I. If your operations are chaotic, your team is burning out, or your fundraising messaging is inconsistent month to month, they're watching that. 

They're asking "how will this GP handle the stress of managing capital and fundraising simultaneously?"

This is why having a Capital Raising dashboard that tracks your GP Velocity (capital raised to date, run rate, time to close, pipeline conversion) matters. 

These are not vanity metrics. It's proof that you're running this professionally. It signals to LPs "this manager understands their own business AND can execute against it."

Why Growth Equity, Credit, Infrastructure, Hedge Funds, and Real Estate Follow Similar Timelines

These structural reasons above apply across strategies. 

So, growth equity GPs dealing with endowments face the same 24-36 month timeline as VC/PE. Yes, credit funds face similar governance friction. 

Infrastructure is often even slower because endowment allocation to core infrastructure sits inside longer strategic reviews. 

Hedge funds sometimes accelerate if they have liquid strategies with lower governance friction. Real estate faces similar timelines because of the capital intensity and illiquidity. The core dynamic is always the same: endowment governance moves slowly regardless of strategy.

The Emotional Reality of Months 12-24 (Nobody Talks About This Part)

Here's what actually happens inside a fund manager around month 12-15 of institutional fundraising:

You've been raising for over a year. 

You have momentum. 

You have a few angels and some family offices in the door. 

You're closing conversations with endowments that started six months ago. 

You're thinking "okay, we're getting close to an anchor LP."

Then you get a request for your full operational due diligence package. 

Then there's a two-week delay while they review it. Then they have questions about your leverage policies. You answer them. Then there's another delay while someone else in the organization reviews your answers.

Meanwhile, your co-founder is asking "when are we getting the endowment check?" 

Your lead investor is watching the fundraising pace and wondering if you're stalling. 

Your team is heads-down on Fund I deployment but also covering fundraising calls. Your spouse is asking "Hon, how much longer is this going to take?"

And you're starting to have dark thoughts: 

"Maybe I'm not really good at this. I was good at my old job. Maybe they're just being polite. Maybe I should pivot to raising a smaller fund?” 

“Maybe I should go back to my old job? I had a pretty good salary there.” 

“Maybe I made a catastrophic mistake leaving that partnership?"

This is the death zone. This is not a sign you're failing. 

This is the institutional fundraising experience. Months 12-18 are where most emerging managers want to quit. 

It’s not because their strategy is broken. 

It’s because they're alone in a process they don't understand, and every week of silence feels like rejection.

Here's the brutal truth: 

Most managers don't make it through this zone with their conviction intact. They panic. 

They lower their raise target. They start making desperate moves that destroy their positioning. Or they just stop. They tell themselves "maybe the timing wasn't right" and go back to their old job. 

And then they spend the rest of their career wondering what would have happened if they'd just held on for another six months.

The managers who make it through are the ones who understand going in that this is a marathon. They staff appropriately. They have financial runway. 

They have psychological support. Not just family or friends, but people who've actually been through this darkness. 

They understand the timeline structurally so they stop blaming themselves for the pace.

And critically: They're not alone in the process.

The Alone-ness Problem: Why Most Managers Don't Make It (And Why Capital OS Exists)

Here's what the industry won't tell you: 

The biggest killer of first-time fund managers isn't a bad strategy. It's isolation.

You left your job to do this. 

You told your family this was the move. You convinced your co-founders to join you. 

You're the one who said "we can raise institutional capital." 

And now you're in a process where nobody around you understands what you're actually experiencing because they haven't been through it.

Your spouse sees you stressed and interprets it as failure. 

Your co-founder is checking the calendar wondering when the payday hits. 

Your lead investor is watching the monthly fundraising reports getting anxious. Your team is wondering if this fund is actually going to close or if they should start looking elsewhere.

And you're interpreting all of it through a lens of fear and self-doubt. Every lack of response feels like rejection. Every delay feels like you're doing something wrong. 

Every month that passes without the anchor LP commitment feels like evidence that your strategy isn't good enough, that you're not credible enough, that you made a massive mistake.

But here's what's actually true: None of that is happening. The endowment is just slow. 

They're not rejecting you. They're not losing interest. They're in their process, which is measured in quarters and investment committee meetings, not weeks. 

Your strategy is fine. Your credibility is fine. You're just in a dark tunnel that most people never enter, so you have no reference point for what's normal.

The problem is that you're navigating this tunnel alone. And when you're alone in the tunnel interpreting silence as rejection and delay as failure, you start making bad decisions. 

You start changing your pitch. You start reaching out too aggressively or withdrawing completely. You start doubting everything about yourself and your fund. You start having conversations with your spouse about whether this was a mistake. You start considering lower raise targets just to "get something closed."

This is where the isolation kills you. Not the process itself. The aloneness of the process.

Capital OS exists to solve this specific pain.

Each tier is designed to reduce a different dimension of the alone-ness and the shame:

Capital OS Platform ($1K/year): Removes the uncertainty shame. You stop wondering "are we on track?" because you have GP Velocity metrics that tell you exactly where you are in the fundraising cycle. You have realistic timelines baked in, so when month 14 rolls around and there's radio silence, you know it's normal. It’s not a sign you're failing. You have due diligence templates so you're not scrambling when an endowment asks for materials. Platform is you having a mental model of what's supposed to happen so you stop torturing yourself with self-doubt.

Capital OS Premium [pay here and apply here] ($7,875/year/GP - typically $31k for a $50-65M raise): Removes the isolation shame and the operational shame. You inherit 450+ pre-built IC penetration plans for major endowments instead of spending 6 months researching IC structures alone—a process that's soul-crushing and isolating. You're operationally ready before the first real institutional conversation, so you don't get caught unprepared and humiliated during diligence. Premium is you having a concrete playbook and being ready to execute, so when you're in the lonely hours at 11pm wondering if you're doing this right, you have something to reference that says "yes, this is what comes next." It's you not reinventing the wheel that's already been invented 450 times over.

Capital OS Advisory ($50-60K/year): Removes the aloneness itself. This is someone who's been through fund failure and come out the other side. Someone who understands what it feels like when your identity and your business are completely entangled and one threatens to collapse. Someone who can listen to your IC meeting and say "no, you were perfect, this is just their governance process, don't interpret this as rejection." Advisory is you having a shamanic guide through a process that will test everything about you - your conviction, your marriage, your sense of self-worth. 

It's you knowing that when you want to quit at month 15 (and you will want to quit), someone has already talked other managers through that exact moment and knows exactly what you need to hear. It's you not carrying this alone.

Most managers think they need a tactical playbook. What they actually need is psychological endurance support from someone who understands the specific terror of building a fund. Advisory is that. It's not just "here's your IC penetration plan." It's "I'm in your corner during the hard months, and I've seen this darkness before and I know you're going to make it through."

Here's the truth: If you're going to make it to month 18-20 with your conviction intact and your team still functioning, you need support. You need someone who's lived through the death zone and can remind you that it's structural, not personal. You need visibility into your own pipeline so you're not interpreting silence as failure. You need to know that your operational setup is institutional-grade so you're not getting caught unprepared and ashamed.

Capital OS at each level is designed to keep you from being destroyed by the process. That's the entire point.

The Practical Reality: What a 24-36 Month Institutional Fundraise Looks Like

Months 1-3: Initial outreach to 15-20 endowments via warm intros. You land 4-5 first meetings. You begin basic conversations about fund strategy, your track record, and initial fit assessment.

Months 3-6: Follow-up conversations. You narrow to 3-4 "serious" prospects. One CIO invites you to present to a broader group inside their organization. You start getting deeper questions about operational setup, leverage, and concentration limits. You realize you need to formalize a bunch of stuff you've been loose about.

Months 6-9: Radio silence from a couple prospects (normal). One endowment requests full due diligence package. You spend 4 weeks assembling everything: offering documents, audited/reviewed statements, full risk management documentation, fee structures, everything. You submit. Then wait.

Months 9-12: You hear back. One prospect is moving you to "formal diligence process." You start reference calls with their team. They want to talk to your auditor directly. They want to verify your TPA setup. They want to stress-test scenarios where you blow up. You're now in substantive operational review.

Months 12-15: You're presenting to investment committees at 2-3 endowments. Each presentation takes 2-4 weeks to schedule and prepare for. After each IC meeting, you wait to hear next steps. This is the slow zone. Expect 6-8 week delays between IC meeting and next communication.

Months 15-20: One endowment is moving toward commitment but wants to see your full governance documents, LP agreement, and PPM. Legal review begins. You're negotiating terms. Their counsel has questions about GP economics, clawback structures, and key-person provisions. Back and forth for 8-10 weeks.

Months 20-24: You're very close with Endowment A. They're drafting a commitment letter. You're negotiating LP terms and subscription language. Meanwhile, Endowment B is also moving forward and wants to coordinate a close. Both endowments want to wire together. More coordination, more delays.

Months 24-30: Final legal is being worked. Both endowments are in final review with their counsel. GP economics and fee structures are finalized. You're now working with fund administrators to set up custody accounts and LP subscriptions. Everything slows down further because now it's not just you and the endowments—it's accountants, custodians, and prime brokers all coordinating.

Months 30-36: Endowments are waiting for end-of-quarter to wire (policy). You're waiting for final signatures. Your fund is technically "final" but you're not quite closed because the last LP wire didn't hit until December 31st.

Total time: 24-36 months. Most commonly 28-32 months for a $50M+ emerging fund that lands an endowment anchor.

What Capital OS Helps You Navigate (And Why This Matters for the Long Game)

If you're going to survive 24-36 months of institutional fundraising without losing your mind, you need:

1. A realistic model of what's supposed to happen and when. Most GPs have no concept of institutional timeline. They're shocked by the pace. Capital OS Platform ($1K/year) gives you this framework: what questions they'll ask, what order they'll ask them in, what operational readiness looks like, and realistic timelines for each stage.

You're not just going in blind. You understand the machine.

2. Institutional infrastructure that doesn't slow you down during diligence. Capital OS Premium ($7,875/year) includes vendor vetting (Big Four auditors, independent TPAs, brand-name prime brokers), pre-negotiated partnership agreements, and complete operational documentation templates. This means when an endowment asks for your auditor setup, you don't spend 4 weeks shopping for one. You have it already.

This might save you 6-8 weeks of timeline because you're not discovering operational gaps during formal diligence.

3. A real capital raising strategy tailored to institutional timelines. Capital OS Advisory ($50-60K/year) is hands-on. We're working with you to identify which endowments are actually aligned with your strategy, managing your outreach and communications in a way that signals professionalism and conviction, and preparing every aspect of your diligence so LPs move faster (not because you're rushing, but because everything is clear and professional).

Advisory clients close their first institutional anchor LP 4-8 months faster than comparable funds without this structure. Not because we have secret access to endowments. But because we eliminate friction and chaos from your fundraising process.

You can absolutely do this yourself. Or you can do it a lot faster with us.

The Bottom Line

There are thousands of emerging fund managers raising first institutional funds right now. Most are shocked by the timeline. 

Most interpret the slowness as rejection. Most panic around month 15. Most break.

The ones who make it are the ones who understand going in that this is a 24-36 month process. They staff appropriately. 

They build institutional infrastructure before they need it. They have realistic mental models of what's supposed to happen. And critically, they don't try to do it alone.

There are two paths forward:

Path 1: You can navigate institutional fundraising solo. You can spend 6-8 months researching endowment IC structures. 

You can learn institutional diligence through trial and error. You can white-knuckle your way through the death zone at months 12-18 without anyone to talk to who understands what you're experiencing. You can make all your mistakes and recover from them through sheer force of will. Some managers do it this way. Most of them either break or get to an anchor LP two years later than they should have.

Path 2: You can choose to not be alone. You can inherit knowledge that takes years to accumulate. You can have a mental model of what's supposed to happen so you stop torturing yourself with self-doubt. You can have systematic IC penetration plans for 450+ endowments so you're not researching in isolation. You can have someone in your corner during the hard months who's been through fund failure and came out the other side. You can move through institutional fundraising 4-8 months faster than comparable managers without this structure.

Your choice determines whether you're destroyed by the process or transformed by it.

The fact that you're reading this means you're already thinking about which path to take. You're considering whether you have the constitution to navigate this alone or whether you want to not be alone.

The answer is obvious to anyone who's lived through it: Don't be alone.

That's your path to institutional capital as a first-time fund manager. That's what makes the difference between the fund manager who raises their first institutional anchor LP and the one who burns out at month 18 wondering what went wrong.

Nothing went wrong. You just needed to know that someone had walked this path before and survived.

Capital OS is that someone.