I think this cut and paste from a recent email might apply and be helpful to any lurkers. Operators are standing by.

Now that we have had a coffee date, I would say the following:

1. There remains “nothing” wrong with the statement: “less asset flow, less attention, less previous trailing returns…the higher the probability of the exact opposite of this in the future” – small vs large, public vs private, anything tech or private credit or mag 7 vs nearly anything else.

2. You aren’t remotely “late.” I can tell you there are “murmurings” of the idea, but few have implemented. I can tell you things like one of the largest institutional consulting in the world as of 6 weeks ago had “zero” allocation to smallcap – for 5 years running. (A great backward looking call!)

3. Passive is awful in smallcap – there is definitely a “shit remainder bias” – in the indices.

So..why CSC?

1. “I have been doing this a long time in this space.”

2. If you are a big firm doing smallcap, you probably aren’t doing smallcap – 100’s of names, avg mkt cap is probably closer to 10 billion than 1.

3. While mean reversion is not dead, I personally think that “focus” and “active” as far governance and “consulting” is important – it eliminates many of the meta/beta issues in asset allocation to the smallcap space, and I will say being small is not per se a feature/factor of goodness. Many need the outside assistance. And while I am game for ten year lockups and compounding – nearer gratification driven by self-help initiatives can have an appeal from time to time.

We are looking for a few good partners. As noted, I think “in the fund” is the best way to work together. Game for next steps.