The narrative that every fund is harder than the last is true. But not for the reasons you think.
The Myth of the Impossible Fund
When Raoul Felix Maier decided to start his emerging manager fund, people told him it was impossible. He did not have the two backgrounds everyone said you needed: a spinout from an established firm or a long track record as an angel. He had neither.
“That was great. That was excellent. They were actually not that far off, because it was a horrible experience. Really, really bad. But eventually we made it.”
He raised a $10 million Fund I. Then a $20 million Fund II. Now he is building toward a $100 million institutional fund. The jump between each stage required something different. The hardest lessons came not from the fundraising itself, but from what happened in between.
Fund I: The Explorer Phase
Raoul spent more than a year preparing before his first close—building deal sourcing networks, investment process, and thesis from scratch. Fund I held around 30 companies. The check sizes were small. The portfolio was broad by design.
“Fund I is more like a learning portfolio. You do more investments at smaller check sizes. It’s a little bit like you’re still figuring out the game.”
The Rocky Middle: When the Portfolio Hit Turbulence
The first investment became a unicorn within two years. Then the COVID bubble burst. Late stage valuations dropped 80%. Deal volume dropped 80%. The IPO window slammed shut for four years. Pre-AI investments in the portfolio suddenly faced disruption from AI competitors.
“It was a great start. Then it was a rough period for the Fund I portfolio.”
Earning Trust When Things Go Wrong
The moment a portfolio hits turbulence is when LP relationships are either cemented or broken. Raoul chose transparency. Quarterly reports came on the same day every quarter, in the same format. Highlights and lowlights, named as they were.
“If things go bad, you could always say, ‘Yeah, this is just a downturn, but still it’s great and everything’s fine.’ But if this is not credible, then you will destroy trust over time.”
When he discussed this approach at Emerging Institute, Adeo Ressi’s response was immediate: “This is the best thing you can do long term.” LP trust, built through transparency during the worst period, became the foundation for Fund II.
Fund II: Raised in One Month
Fund I took 18 months to close. Fund II took one month. The re-up rate from existing LPs was near total. New LPs came from referrals—people that existing LPs personally recommended.
“We did build the trust. But I did not expect this process would run so smoothly. We are very blessed by a great set of people.”
Portfolio Construction Changes: Fund I to Fund II
The portfolio design changed significantly between funds. Each change reflected a specific lesson from Fund I:
Fewer companies, larger checks. Fund I held 30 companies. Fund II targets 25 with larger initial positions. Spreading too thin diluted both signal and support.
Less follow-on reserves. Doubling down on existing investments felt safe but often doubled risk without proportionally increasing returns.
Narrower sector focus. Fund I covered software and software-enabled businesses including e-commerce and marketplaces with physical components. Supply chain issues and capital intensity made those harder. Fund II is digital only, almost exclusively AI.
Broader stage. Fund I targeted post-seed specifically. Fund II targets both seed and Series A. The narrower stage definition unnecessarily limited the deal universe.
Building Toward Fund III and Institutional Capital
Raoul joined Emerging Institute because he knew non-institutional capital has a ceiling. Individual LPs are not as sticky as institutions, and the available capital from non-institutions caps out at a certain point.
“We’re building for the next 100 years. That can’t realistically be done with a non-institutional LP base only.”
Fund III targets $100 million: $50 million US, $50 million euros. A transatlantic emerging manager fund built on a unique edge in European sourcing.
The Real Difference Between Fund I and Fund II
“Fund I felt like there’s just a lot I have to learn every day. Fund II, you feel much more settled. I know the game well enough to feel confident.”
The real difference is not difficulty. It is confidence. Fund I teaches you the game. Fund II is where you start playing it on your own terms.
Emerging Institute helps Fund I and Fund II emerging managers build the foundation for institutional fundraising. Applications for Cohort 4 are now open.