What pension funds could learn from Yale? The core argument is structural, and not aspirational.

Pension funds are not built like endowments: they carry liability schedules, coverage ratio obligations, and fiduciary constraints that make a copy-paste of the Yale model unrealistic. The adaptation requires fitting VC into existing architecture, such as aligning capital calls with payout timelines, ring-fencing illiquid sub-portfolios with their own governance logic, and using fixed income as a liquidity buffer rather than dead weight.The mechanics matter as much as the allocation decision itself. Managing illiquidity is less about avoiding it and more about sequencing it. Vintage diversification, funding-ratio-linked pacing, and secondary market access are not exotic tools, they are how pension funds can stay committed through full cycles without being forced to exit at the wrong moment. Deploying during downturns, when valuations reset and competition thins, is historically where the returns are made. The discipline to act counter-cyclically is what separates strategic VC allocators from reactive ones.Governance is where most pension funds will either succeed or stall. Dedicated internal teams, sector alignment with beneficiary demographics, and systematic performance reviews are not overhead, they are what makes a VC program durable across economic and innovation cycles. Without that infrastructure, even well-timed allocations tend to drift or get cut at the first sign of volatility.Read more in one of our last piece for IMD Business School as an academic VC researcher, https://www.imd.org/ibyimd/finance/what-pension-funds-could-learn-from-yale/.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit verticescapital.substack.com