Skip to content
Uncapped with Jack AltmanUncapped with Jack Altman

Inside the Mind of a University Endowment Manager | Dan Feder, University of Michigan | Ep. 14

(If you enjoyed this, please like and subscribe!) It was a pleasure to sit down with Dan Feder, Senior Managing Director with the University of Michigan Investment Office who leads the endowment’s investments in venture capital and private equity. Prior to joining the University of Michigan, Dan was the Managing Director of Private Markets at the Washington University Investment Management Company. Dan’s career in endowment management began at the Princeton University Investment Company where he led the development of Princeton’s global private equity and venture capital portfolio. Dan has also served as the Managing Director of Private Markets for the Sequoia Capital Heritage Fund (an endowment-style investment fund sponsored by Sequoia Capital) and as a Senior Investment Manager in the endowment services area at TIAA-CREF. We covered: - Endowment portfolio construction - Incentive structures in LP land - Backing conflicting strategies - UMich’s framework to investing - Picking individuals vs firms Timestamps: (0:00) Intro (0:40) Becoming an endowment manager (2:59) Constructing an endowment’s portfolio (9:10) Risk-based investing vs uncertainty (13:07) Incentive structures in LP land (16:28) Team construction (22:26) Backing strategies that are at odds (26:06) Why LPs invest in venture (27:38) UMich framework to investing (32:29) Picking individuals vs firms (36:40) Big vs small funds (40:48) How to pick fund managers (45:41) Herd mentality in LP land Linktree: https://linktr.ee/uncappedpod Twitter: https://x.com/jaltma Email: friends@uncappedpod.com

Dan FederguestJack Altmanhost
Jun 24, 202548mWatch on YouTube ↗

CHAPTERS

  1. From lawyer to endowment investor: accidental entry and “fast processor” hiring philosophy

    Dan Feder recounts how he stumbled into endowment management after starting as a lawyer, landing at Princeton through a chain of introductions (including Dave Swensen and Andy Golden). He explains how being hired without the “perfect spec” shaped his views on talent, learning speed, and long-horizon investing.

  2. What an endowment actually is: an endowment pool serving thousands of sub-endowments

    Feder clarifies that a university endowment is typically a pooled structure—more like a mutual fund—made up of many individual endowments with specific purposes. He outlines the endowment’s core objectives: fund spending, preserve purchasing power, and generate real returns with intergenerational equity.

  3. Zero-based portfolio construction: why equity orientation is the starting point

    Starting from a hypothetical fully liquid portfolio, Dan explains why endowments usually need meaningful equity exposure to target roughly ~8% nominal returns over the long run. He then describes how diversification across asset classes is used to manage volatility while pursuing required returns.

  4. Allocation vs investing: risk-based optimization and behavioral guardrails

    Feder separates asset allocation (risk-based, model-driven) from security/manager selection (active investing). He argues allocation frameworks (e.g., mean-variance optimization) are useful not only mathematically but behaviorally, preventing overconfidence and overcommitment—especially in venture.

  5. Risk vs uncertainty: why venture’s edge lives in the “unknown unknowns”

    Drawing on Frank Knight and the Rumsfeld taxonomy, Dan argues venture capital’s true power is in uncertainty—things not known or not knowable—rather than measurable risk. Durable alpha comes from accessing non-obvious founders and problems before markets can efficiently price them.

  6. Reframing venture: “adventure capital” vs financing mature ventures

    Dan challenges the idea that venture is a coherent “asset class,” suggesting it contains at least two different activities: adventure capital (ambitious, uncertain, frontier work) and capital for ventures (more conventional financing). This framing de-emphasizes stage labels and spotlights where endowments may have the strongest fit.

  7. LP incentives and team design: career paths, short-term metrics, and input vs outcome focus

    Feder explains how endowment management professionalized over 25 years, creating clearer career ladders—but also more short-term performance signaling. He contrasts outcome-driven behavior (marks, visible near-term wins) with input-driven compounding (patient learning, relationship-building, idea incubation).

  8. Backing strategies that disagree: concentrated relationship roster and complementary exposures

    As an LP, Dan describes living with constant cognitive dissonance—funds he backs can have opposing philosophies. He argues you don’t need to be right about everything; instead, a resilient endowment portfolio benefits from a constrained set of relationships chosen for distinct, complementary return drivers.

  9. Why invest in venture at all: social pressure, narrative power, and dispersion of returns

    Dan gives an unusually candid answer: many LPs invest in venture partly because they’re expected to. He emphasizes that venture can be excellent only if you access the handful of companies/managers that drive outcomes—yet overconfidence and compelling GP storytelling can seduce allocators.

  10. Michigan’s endowment framework: five buckets, but a shifting playbook

    Feder outlines Michigan’s conventional top-level structure (cash/fixed income, public equities, absolute return, real assets, venture/PE). He argues “best practices” are changing because alternatives are no longer alternative, LP talent is deeper, and simplistic recipes no longer deliver durable advantage.

  11. Endowment-specific advantages: access, time horizon, and occasional ability to influence outcomes

    Dan explains how Michigan evaluates uncertain/illiquid investing through three institutional advantages: access (information/people/opportunities), long time horizon, and occasional capacity to change outcomes via relationships. He emphasizes each institution must tailor activity level (active vs passive) to its unique positioning.

  12. Individuals vs firms: maximizing exposure to the true sources of productivity

    Feder argues the end goal isn’t to “own” firms but to gain exposure to exceptional underlying companies through exceptional investors. He discusses the difficulty of separating an investor’s individual edge from a firm’s franchise—and how this affects whether to back platforms or specific people.

  13. Big vs small funds: fund size as symptom, not cause—and the importance of being in the conversation

    Dan resists simplistic “big fund bad” takes, noting size can either dilute quality or enable ambitious strategies (including leading rounds and supporting winners). He says the LP’s role is to engage deeply—help pressure-test uncomfortable but correct decisions—rather than dictate one-size-fits-all rules.

  14. How Michigan picks managers: referral-driven sourcing, a five-part manager job, and resisting “taste” shortcuts

    Feder describes a highly filtered sourcing process based on introductions and trusted networks, not broad market coverage. He evaluates managers by whether they can source, transact, own, exit, and run the firm without harming the first four—and cautions against hand-wavy “taste” as a substitute for rigorous slow thinking.

  15. Herd mentality in LP land: wisdom of crowds, perimeter thinkers, and crisis vulnerability

    Dan acknowledges that herds can be right, but warns that relying on the herd leaves weaker allocators exposed when regimes change. He advocates being an independent thinker near the perimeter—capable of acting decisively when the herd structure breaks—illustrated by a safari story about predators and herd dynamics.

Get more out of YouTube videos.

High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.

Add to Chrome