How LPs view GP activity on social media: - 98% say social media profiles of firm personnel are important when deciding to invest. - 85% of LPs want to see personal statements about geopolitical or societal issues. - 85% have decided not to allocate to a GP because of their social media content. These survey responses raise questions about LP competence and fiduciary duty. Allocation decisions should not be influenced by politics. Not just because it's a dumb idea, but also because it's known to be a drag on performance. The case might be made that it's about "values alignment", but that should be understood through the GP's work, where those values are relevant. It's unfortunately common for allocators (on both sides) to resort to comforting personal biases when making low-confidence qualitative judgements. For example, research shows that VCs are also more likely to invest in founders with shared political views, and the result is higher failure rates and fewer exits. It's one thing to use personal social media to DD key facts or check for malpractice, but using that content to guide investments is garbage in, garbage out. tl;dr - The world would be a better place if allocators would just read a bit of Kahneman. (In VCs defence, at least they are smart enough to not broadcast that bias.)