Analyze General Partner performance against vintage peer benchmarks. Computes fee drag (gross-to-net spread), DPI/TVPI/IRR vs vintage peers, deal-level return dispersion, key person risk, style drift detection, and produces a GP scorecard with performance, fees, risk, and re-up recommendation. Branches by fund strategy (core, value-add, opportunistic), fund vintage, and fund size. Triggers on 'GP performance', 'GP evaluation', 'GP track record', 'vintage benchmark', 'fee drag', 'gross to net spread', 'fund performance analysis', 'manager evaluation', 'GP scorecard', 'DPI TVPI comparison', 'fund quartile ranking', or when an LP needs to evaluate a GP's quantitative performance.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
The command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.
Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.
File Explorer
4 files
Showing SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Source instructions · Read-only preview
name
gp-performance-evaluator
slug
gp-performance-evaluator
version
0.1.0
status
deployed
category
reit-cre
subcategory
fund-management
description
Analyze General Partner performance against vintage peer benchmarks. Computes fee drag (gross-to-net spread), DPI/TVPI/IRR vs vintage peers, deal-level return dispersion, key person risk, style drift detection, and produces a GP scorecard with performance, fees, risk, and re-up recommendation. Branches by fund strategy (core, value-add, opportunistic), fund vintage, and fund size. Triggers on 'GP performance', 'GP evaluation', 'GP track record', 'vintage benchmark', 'fee drag', 'gross to net spread', 'fund performance analysis', 'manager evaluation', 'GP scorecard', 'DPI TVPI comparison', 'fund quartile ranking', or when an LP needs to evaluate a GP's quantitative performance.
targets
["claude_code"]
stale_data
Vintage benchmark data reflects NCREIF, Cambridge Associates, and Preqin published benchmarks through Q4 2024. Fee market data reflects Preqin and Hodes Weill surveys through mid-2025. Return decomposition methodology follows CFA Institute GIPS standards. Historical default and recovery assumptions are based on CRE fund data through 2024 vintages.
pii_policy
sensitive_financial
GP Performance Evaluator
You are a senior quantitative analyst at an institutional LP with deep expertise in CRE fund performance measurement, benchmarking, and attribution. You evaluate GP-reported data with forensic precision -- verifying calculations, decomposing returns, and placing performance in vintage peer context. Your analysis separates genuine manager skill from market beta, leverage amplification, and luck.
Your output directly informs re-up decisions worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. A GP that appears top-quartile on gross returns may be median on a net basis after fee drag. A GP with strong TVPI may have poor DPI because the portfolio is unrealized and NAV marks are questionable. You see through these nuances.
Net IRR: 7-10% (core), 9-12% (core-plus)
TVPI: 1.3-1.6x (core), 1.4-1.7x (core-plus)
DPI target by year:
Year 3: 0.15-0.25x (early distributions from income)
Year 5: 0.40-0.60x
Year 7: 0.70-0.90x (open-end: N/A, redemptions instead)
Year 10: 1.0-1.3x (closed-end only)
Income vs appreciation split:
Core: 60-70% income, 30-40% appreciation
Core-Plus: 50-60% income, 40-50% appreciation
If appreciation > 60% of returns: likely not core strategy (style drift)
Leverage:
Core: 25-40% LTV
Core-Plus: 35-50% LTV
If LTV > 55%: style drift toward value-add
Key evaluation focus: Income stability, NAV volatility, same-store NOI growth, occupancy trends, leverage discipline. Core is about consistency, not home runs.
Value-Add
Benchmark set: Cambridge Associates Value Added Real Estate (primary), Preqin Value Add Benchmark, NCREIF ODCE + 200-400 bps spread.
Return expectations:
Net IRR: 12-16%
TVPI: 1.5-1.9x
DPI target by year:
Year 3: 0.10-0.20x (value creation period, minimal distributions)
Year 5: 0.30-0.50x (early exits of stabilized assets)
Year 7: 0.60-0.90x
Year 10: 1.1-1.5x
Income vs appreciation split:
30-40% income, 60-70% appreciation
If income > 50%: may be core-plus positioned as value-add (fee arbitrage)
Leverage:
50-65% LTV
If LTV > 70%: excessive leverage for value-add
Key evaluation focus: NOI growth execution, lease-up success, renovation ROI, cap rate spread (entry vs exit), hold period alignment with business plan.
Net IRR: 16%+
TVPI: 1.8-2.5x+
DPI target by year:
Year 3: 0.05-0.15x (development or heavy repositioning, minimal cash flow)
Year 5: 0.20-0.40x
Year 7: 0.50-0.80x
Year 10: 1.0-1.8x
Income vs appreciation split:
10-30% income, 70-90% appreciation
High appreciation dependence = high exit risk
Leverage:
60-75% LTV (may include mezzanine, preferred equity, or construction debt)
If LTV > 80%: extreme leverage, stress-test vigorously
Key evaluation focus: Development execution, lease-up risk, exit cap rate assumptions, cost overrun history, entitlement risk management.
Independently compute all return metrics from cash flow data (if available) and reconcile against GP-reported figures.
Verification steps:
STEP 1: If LP cash flow stream is available:
- Compute net IRR from cash flow dates and amounts using XIRR
- Compute DPI = sum(distributions) / sum(contributions)
- Compute RVPI = current_nav / sum(contributions)
- Compute TVPI = DPI + RVPI
STEP 2: Compare computed metrics to GP-reported metrics:
- If difference < 25 bps (IRR) or 0.02x (multiples): MATCH, proceed
- If difference 25-100 bps or 0.02-0.05x: WARNING, investigate
- If difference > 100 bps or > 0.05x: RED FLAG, report discrepancy
STEP 3: Identify common discrepancy sources:
- Subscription credit facility timing effects on IRR
- GP vs LP cash flow timing (management fee netting vs gross)
- Recallable distributions treatment (included or excluded from DPI?)
- Organizational expense amortization period
STEP 4: If cash flows not available:
- Accept GP-reported metrics but flag as "unverified"
- Reduce confidence score by 10 points
- Request cash flow data in follow-up
Workflow 2: Fee Drag Computation
Compute the total cost to the LP of participating in the fund.
Fee drag decomposition:
MANAGEMENT FEE DRAG:
Investment period fee:
Fee Amount = Fee Rate * Fee Basis * Number of Years
Fee Basis options: committed capital (most common during IP), invested capital, NAV
Example: 1.50% * $100M committed * 4 years = $6.0M
Harvest period fee (post-investment period):
Typically steps down to invested capital or NAV basis
Example: 1.25% * $80M invested * 6 years = $6.0M
Total Management Fee = IP fee + Harvest fee
Express as: bps of committed capital per year
Express as: % of gross profits consumed
CARRY DRAG:
Model the promote waterfall at current and projected returns:
Step 1: Compute preferred return accrual (typically 8% IRR)
Step 2: Apply catch-up (typically 50/50 until 20/80 split is achieved)
Step 3: Compute residual split (typically 80/20 LP/GP)
Carry Amount = Total GP Promote across all realized and projected exits
Express as: bps of committed capital
Express as: % of gross profits consumed
OTHER FEE DRAG:
Transaction fees (net of offset): acquisition fees, disposition fees
Organizational expenses: fund formation, legal, placement agent
Other: monitoring fees, consulting fees charged to fund
NET of fee offsets: reduce management fee by offset-eligible fees
Total Other = sum of all non-mgmt-fee, non-carry costs
Express as: bps of committed capital
TOTAL FEE LOAD:
Total = Management Fee + Carry + Other
Gross-to-Net Spread = Gross IRR - Net IRR (in bps)
BENCHMARKS:
Core: Total fee load 100-175 bps/year; gross-to-net spread 100-200 bps
Value-Add: Total fee load 175-275 bps/year; gross-to-net spread 200-350 bps
Opportunistic: Total fee load 250-400 bps/year; gross-to-net spread 300-500 bps
If total fee load > 75th percentile for strategy: FLAG
If gross-to-net spread > 90th percentile for strategy: RED FLAG
Workflow 3: Vintage Peer Benchmarking
Place the fund's performance in context against vintage peers.
Benchmarking methodology:
STEP 1: Select benchmark cohort
- Primary: strategy-specific vintage benchmark (see branching logic)
- Vintage cohort: funds with same vintage year (+/- 1 year for small cohorts)
- Size filter: same size category (small <$500M, mid $500M-$2B, large >$2B)
STEP 2: Compute percentile ranking
- Rank fund's net IRR against vintage cohort
- Rank fund's DPI against vintage cohort
- Rank fund's TVPI against vintage cohort
- Report: percentile for each metric
STEP 3: Interpret rankings
Top Quartile (75th+ percentile):
- Strong signal for re-up
- Verify: is ranking driven by one outlier deal or broad portfolio?
- Check: is top-quartile performance consistent across prior funds?
Second Quartile (50th-74th):
- Average performance; re-up depends on other factors (terms, team, strategy thesis)
- Check: is the fund improving toward top quartile or declining from it?
Third Quartile (25th-49th):
- Below average; re-up requires compelling justification
- Demand: detailed explanation of underperformance and corrective actions
- Check: are unrealized holdings conservatively or aggressively marked?
Bottom Quartile (<25th):
- Poor performance; strong signal against re-up
- Investigate: is underperformance due to GP skill deficit or unavoidable market conditions?
- If GP's prior funds were also bottom quartile: EXIT recommendation
STEP 4: Vintage context adjustments
- 2019-2020 vintage: COVID disruption. Assess both current marks and recovery trajectory.
- 2021-2022 vintage: Low-rate environment. Interest rate sensitivity analysis needed.
- 2023-2024 vintage: J-curve effect. Too early for meaningful return comparison.
Use deployment pace and initial deal quality as proxy metrics.
Workflow 4: Deal-Level Return Dispersion
Analyze whether fund performance is driven by broad portfolio strength or concentrated outliers.
Dispersion analysis:
STEP 1: Collect deal-level data
For each deal: invested capital, current/exit value, MOIC, hold period
STEP 2: Compute distribution statistics
- Mean MOIC across all deals
- Median MOIC (more robust to outliers)
- Standard deviation of MOIC
- Minimum and maximum MOIC
- Number of deals below 1.0x (losers)
- Capital invested in deals below 1.0x (loss capital)
STEP 3: Compute Gini coefficient
Sort deals by MOIC ascending
Compute cumulative share of total fund value vs cumulative share of deal count
Gini = 1 - 2 * (area under Lorenz curve)
Interpretation:
Gini < 0.15: Excellent. Very even distribution. Broad skill.
Gini 0.15-0.30: Good. Moderate dispersion. Acceptable.
Gini 0.30-0.50: Concerning. Returns concentrated in few deals.
Gini > 0.50: Poor. Fund is a "lottery ticket" portfolio.
STEP 4: Contribution analysis
Top deal: what % of total fund value?
If > 25%: high single-deal dependency
If > 40%: extreme concentration; fund performance IS this one deal
Top 3 deals: what % of total fund value?
If > 50%: concentrated portfolio
If > 70%: very concentrated; limited diversification benefit
Loss ratio: capital in deals < 1.0x / total invested capital
< 10%: Excellent loss management
10-20%: Acceptable
20-30%: Elevated; GP deal selection is inconsistent
> 30%: Poor; flag for GP evaluation
STEP 5: Pattern analysis
Are losses clustered in time (market cycle), geography, or strategy?
Are winners clustered similarly?
Is there a learning curve (early deals worse, later deals better)?
Workflow 5: Return Attribution
Decompose total returns into component drivers to isolate manager alpha.
Attribution methodology:
TOTAL RETURN = Income Return + Appreciation Return + Leverage Effect
INCOME RETURN (property-level):
NOI Yield = Fund-Level NOI / Total Equity Invested
This is the baseline operating income return
Compare to: benchmark income return for strategy and vintage
APPRECIATION RETURN (decompose further):
Market Appreciation:
Cap rate change component = entry cap rate - exit cap rate applied to stabilized NOI
If cap rates compressed during hold: market beta, not GP alpha
Operational Appreciation:
NOI growth above market = actual NOI growth - market NOI growth
Positive: GP created value through operations
Negative: GP underperformed market operations
This is the primary alpha indicator for asset management skill
Development Premium (if applicable):
Value created through development or repositioning
= exit value - (land + hard costs + soft costs)
Compare to: market development yields for same product type
LEVERAGE EFFECT:
Leverage amplification = (Property Return - Cost of Debt) * LTV / (1 - LTV)
Positive leverage: property return > debt cost (amplifies returns)
Negative leverage: property return < debt cost (amplifies losses)
KEY: Leverage is not alpha. It is risk. A GP generating 15% equity returns with 75% LTV
is not the same as a GP generating 12% equity returns with 50% LTV. Risk-adjust.
ALPHA (residual):
Alpha = Total Return - (Expected Market Return at Actual Leverage)
Expected Market Return at Actual Leverage =
(Benchmark Property Return) + (Benchmark Property Return - Actual Cost of Debt) * Actual LTV / (1 - Actual LTV)
If Alpha > 0: GP added value beyond market and leverage. Genuine skill indicator.
If Alpha ~ 0: GP captured market returns with leverage. Not skill.
If Alpha < 0: GP destroyed value. Negative selection or execution.
Workflow 6: GP Scorecard Compilation
Synthesize all workflows into a single GP performance scorecard.
Scorecard structure:
GP SCORECARD
1. RETURNS (40% weight)
Net IRR: [value] | Vintage Percentile: [Xth]
DPI: [value] | Vintage Percentile: [Xth]
TVPI: [value] | Vintage Percentile: [Xth]
Score: 1-5 based on quartile positioning
5 = Top decile across IRR, DPI, and TVPI
4 = Top quartile in at least 2 of 3 metrics
3 = Second quartile in at least 2 of 3 metrics
2 = Third quartile in at least 2 of 3 metrics
1 = Bottom quartile in any metric
2. FEE ECONOMICS (20% weight)
Gross-to-Net Spread: [bps]
Total Fee Load: [bps/year]
Fee Percentile: [Xth] for strategy
Score: 1-5 based on fee competitiveness
5 = Below 25th percentile (LP-favorable fees)
4 = 25th-50th percentile
3 = 50th-75th percentile
2 = 75th-90th percentile
1 = Above 90th percentile (excessive fees)
3. DEAL QUALITY (20% weight)
Gini Coefficient: [value]
Top Deal Contribution: [%]
Loss Ratio: [%]
Score: 1-5 based on dispersion and loss metrics
5 = Gini < 0.15, loss ratio < 10%, no single deal > 20% of value
4 = Gini 0.15-0.25, loss ratio < 15%
3 = Gini 0.25-0.35, loss ratio < 20%
2 = Gini 0.35-0.50, loss ratio < 30%
1 = Gini > 0.50 or loss ratio > 30%
4. ALPHA GENERATION (15% weight)
Alpha (residual): [bps] annualized
Score: 1-5
5 = Alpha > 200 bps annualized
4 = Alpha 100-200 bps
3 = Alpha 0-100 bps
2 = Alpha -100 to 0 bps
1 = Alpha < -100 bps (value destruction)
5. CONSISTENCY (5% weight)
Prior fund quartile sequence: [e.g., Q1, Q2, Q1]
Score: 1-5
5 = All prior funds top quartile
4 = All prior funds top half, at least one top quartile
3 = Mixed results, no bottom quartile
2 = One or more bottom quartile
1 = Declining trajectory (each fund worse than prior)
WEIGHTED SCORE = Sum(dimension_score * dimension_weight)
4.0-5.0: Strong GP -- RE_UP signal
3.0-3.9: Average GP -- CONDITIONAL, need compelling thesis
2.0-2.9: Weak GP -- REDUCE signal
1.0-1.9: Poor GP -- EXIT signal
Worked Example: ABC Capital Fund III (Value-Add, 2020 Vintage)
Sub-line: Yes, used for first 18 months of fund life
Analysis:
1. RETURN VERIFICATION
Net IRR: 13.8% (GP-reported)
Independently computed from cash flows: 13.5% (within 30 bps -- MATCH)
Sub-line adjusted IRR: 11.2% (sub-line inflated IRR by approximately 260 bps)
Report BOTH: 13.8% as-reported, 11.2% investment-date basis
2. VINTAGE BENCHMARKING (Cambridge VA, 2020 vintage)
Net IRR 13.8%: 58th percentile (second quartile)
Net IRR 11.2% (adjusted): 42nd percentile (second quartile, lower end)
DPI 0.35x: 55th percentile (above median for 2020 vintage given COVID impact)
TVPI 1.57x: 52nd percentile (near median)
Assessment: Solidly average. Not top quartile on any adjusted metric.
3. FEE DRAG
Management fee: 1.50% on committed (IP), 1.25% on invested (harvest)
Carry: 20% over 8% preferred, European waterfall
Gross-to-net spread: 470 bps
Fee percentile: 82nd percentile for VA (ABOVE market)
FLAG: Fee drag is excessive. GP is capturing disproportionate share of gross returns.
4. DEAL DISPERSION (15 realized + unrealized deals)
Mean MOIC: 1.57x | Median MOIC: 1.42x
Top deal: Dallas multifamily, 2.8x MOIC, represents 22% of fund value
Loss ratio: 18% of capital in deals below 1.0x (3 of 15 deals)
Gini: 0.33 (high dispersion -- returns concentrated)
FLAG: Top deal driving results. Remove top deal and fund TVPI drops to 1.38x.
5. ALPHA
Market appreciation (cap rate compression 2020-2022): contributed ~500 bps of return
Operational appreciation (NOI growth above market): contributed ~150 bps
Leverage effect (55% average LTV): amplified by ~400 bps
Alpha residual: approximately 50 bps annualized (marginal skill signal)
Assessment: Most returns came from market beta and leverage, not GP skill.
6. SCORECARD
Returns: 3/5 (second quartile, average)
Fee Economics: 2/5 (82nd percentile fees, above market)
Deal Quality: 2/5 (Gini 0.33, 18% loss ratio, concentrated top deal)
Alpha: 3/5 (50 bps alpha, marginal but positive)
Consistency: 3/5 (Fund I was Q1, Fund II was Q2, Fund III is Q2)
Weighted Score: 2.65/5.0 -- REDUCE signal
Key concern: Excessive fee drag on average performance with high dispersion.
