◆ MBA Search Fund Alliance Vol. II — Est. 2024 · Powered by Caprae Capital

Accountability for an
industry that quietly
breaks its own founders.

We publish investor rankings, original reporting, and governance research to protect student and searcher safety — and to counter the corporate-governance playbook that has quietly become the industry's default.
CoverageSearch Funds · ETA · SMB M&A
Rankings40 investors · 233 firsthand responses
MethodSearcher-reported, quality-reviewed
PositionIndependent · Founder-aligned
Only ~50% of searchers acquire◆ ~33% of operator-CEOs are removed or forced out◆ Stanford Primer reports ~35% IRR · 4.5x MOIC◆ Pitchbook & Yale suggest ~2.5x MOIC · 1.6x median◆ Preferred equity stacks & board control defaults◆ We publish what the Primer leaves out◆ Only ~50% of searchers acquire◆ ~33% of operator-CEOs are removed or forced out◆ Stanford Primer reports ~35% IRR · 4.5x MOIC◆ Pitchbook & Yale suggest ~2.5x MOIC · 1.6x median◆ Preferred equity stacks & board control defaults◆ We publish what the Primer leaves out◆
§ 01 / The Problem

The traditional search model
is quietly broken.

Power sits with capital. Searchers carry the operating risk and the reputational risk. What's framed as "poor performance" is usually the downstream symptom of governance built to favor investors over operators.

~50%
Of traditional searchers who ever actually acquire a business.
◆ Acquisition Rate
~33%
Of operator-CEOs later removed, forced out, or quietly replaced post-close.
◆ Removal Rate
4.5x
MOIC claimed by the Stanford Primer — the number circulated to prospective LPs and students.
◆ Reported
~2.5x
Weighted MOIC when you triangulate against Pitchbook data and the Yale study. Median is lower still.
◆ Actual
§ 02 / Manifesto

We don't exist to burn the house down. We exist to publish what the rest of the industry treats as off-the-record — the numbers, the names, the term sheets, the post-close removals — so the next cohort of searchers signs with their eyes open.

◆ MBA Search Fund Alliance · Partner@mbasearchfundalliance.org
§ 03 / Rankings

2025 Search Investor
Rankings.

First-hand, searcher-reported evaluations of the forty most active traditional search fund investors — scored across leadership, honesty, insight, friendliness, engagement, and likelihood to recommend.

◆ Leadership — Top 3

01Peterson3.59
02TTCER3.54
03Pacific Lake3.53

◆ Criterion Defined

Ability to lead in a deal context, influence other investors toward closing, and move a transaction forward when it matters.

◆ Field Note

Leadership scores cluster tightly at the top. The gap between the #1 and #10 investor here is smaller than in any other category.

◆ Honesty — Top 3

01TD Investments3.84
02Cambria3.82
03TTCER3.75

◆ Criterion Defined

Candor, integrity, and willingness to share bad news directly — including when it's inconvenient to the investor's own position.

◆ Field Note

The highest-rated category across the dataset. Honesty is also the most bimodal — investors are either clearly trusted or clearly not.

◆ Quality of Insight — Top 3

01Cambria3.67
02Red Forest3.46
03TTCER3.45

◆ Criterion Defined

Practical, relevant guidance that actually moved the deal forward or changed the operator's thinking in a measurable way.

◆ Field Note

Cambria's lead here is the widest margin in any single category — roughly 0.2 above the nearest competitor.

◆ Searcher-Friendly — Top 3

01ETA3.80
02SF Partners3.74
03Red Forest3.71

◆ Criterion Defined

Genuine support and advocacy for the operator — particularly post-close, when power dynamics shift fastest.

◆ Field Note

Scores here diverge most sharply from Leadership scores — several "strong leaders" rank poorly on operator advocacy.

◆ Helpfulness — Top 3

01SF Partners3.55
02Cambria3.48
03Red Forest3.46

◆ Criterion Defined

Measurable impact through timely, hands-on involvement. Responsiveness, operating help, introductions that actually close.

◆ Field Note

Helpfulness is the single strongest predictor of Likelihood-to-Recommend in the dataset.

◆ Recommend — Top 3

01SF Partners3.62
02Red Forest3.60
03TD Investments3.58

◆ Criterion Defined

Whether searchers would encourage others — candidly, without caveats — to work with this investor again.

◆ Field Note

This is the category that most closely approximates an NPS-style reputation score. The top three are tight. The bottom quartile is not.

◆ Methodology

How investors were evaluated.

Firsthand feedback from searchers, prospective searchers, and operating CEOs — collected through direct outreach, industry platforms, and self-reported polls. Submissions were quality-reviewed for internal consistency and alignment with stated firsthand experience. Respondents were instructed to skip investors they lacked sufficient experience with, so the data reflects informed, experience-based evaluations.

Leadership
Ability to lead, influence other investors, and help close deals.
Honesty & Transparency
Candor, integrity, and willingness to share bad news.
Quality of Insight
Practical, relevant guidance that added real value.
Searcher Friendliness
Genuine support and advocacy for the operator.
Helpfulness & Engagement
Measurable impact through timely, hands-on involvement.
Likelihood to Recommend
Whether searchers would encourage others to work with them.
233
Participants
40
Investors ranked
6
Criteria
2025
Cycle
Animal Search Farm book cover by Kevin Hong
◆ Coming Soon

Animal Search Fund Farm.

A new book by Kevin Hong — hundreds of candid interviews, one unvarnished look at traditional search.

The tougher, often unspoken questions surrounding the traditional search fund model — the governance, the economics, the removals, the "mafia," and what the Primer conveniently leaves out. Told through interviews with the searchers, operators, and investors who lived it.

◆ Inside the book
  • How has search actually evolved over the past decade?
  • How does each business school rank each search fund investor?
  • Why are fewer than 50% of searchers closing deals?
  • Why are up to one-third of searchers fired or forced out?
  • Is the rate of CEO termination influenced by race or gender?
  • What is the "search fund mafia" — and why does it matter?
  • What hidden terms during deal closing should searchers watch?
  • What can search fund investors do to actually improve the community?
  • What does the future of search look like?
Get notified at launch →
§ 04 / Dispatches

News, media &
field notes.

Reporting, essays, and commentary from our contributors. Some of it is uncomfortable. That's usually the point.

◆ Feature · Investigation

This is why most search fund case studies are marketing — not data.

Triangulating the Stanford Primer's widely-cited 4.5x MOIC against Pitchbook and the Yale study, and what the gap implies for aspiring searchers and LPs making allocation decisions on circulated returns.

Kevin Hong · LinkedInRead the piece →
 ◆ Essay · Governance

Be careful who you choose as your investors.

Why the cap-table and the board-resolution language matter more than the check size — and the patterns that separate aligned capital from the other kind.

LinkedInRead →
 ◆ Commentary

If I were an MBA student today.

What an MBA would actually be weighting — and avoiding — before signing a traditional search term sheet.

LinkedInRead →
 ◆ First-person

One year after the decision to speak up.

A retrospective on going public — what it cost, what it changed, and why silence was never a safer option.

LinkedInRead →
 ◆ Op-ed

"I'm not a DEI guy" — & why that's not the frame.

Why the real question about CEO termination patterns isn't ideological. It's actuarial.

LinkedInRead →

Upcoming events.

◆ Roundtables · Speaking · Panels
May · 14 · 2026
Quarterly roundtable: governance, preferred stacks & operator protections
Virtual · Members only
RSVP ↗
June · 03 · 2026
MBA Search Fund Alliance × ETA Club Chairs — summer summit
Chicago · Hybrid
Request invite ↗
July · 22 · 2026
Fireside: what the 2025 rankings actually tell us
Virtual · Open
RSVP ↗
Sept · 18 · 2026
Launch: Animal Search Farm — author conversation with Kevin Hong
NYC · In-person
Details ↗
§ 05 / Partnerships

Who we work with.

A roundtable of top MBA programs, ETA clubs, and mission-aligned investors. Expanding membership is how this gets better — not quieter.

◆ Represented MBA Programs & ETA Clubs

Stanford GSBETA Club
Harvard Business SchoolETA Club
The Wharton SchoolETA Club
Chicago BoothETA Club
Michigan RossETA Club
Northwestern KelloggETA Club

◆ Mission-Aligned Investors & Contributors

Caprae CapitalFounding Partner
SMB Deal BankData & Sourcing
Northwest Trust BankCo-marketing
Bankers Edge AdvisoryAlliance
Cold Call KillersOutreach Partner
Grey RiverSovereign Finance Partner
Become a partner. Bring your program, your firm, or your voice into the roundtable — our membership is how accountability scales.
Partner with us →
§ 06 / Join Us

Student. Searcher.
Operator. Investor.

If you're inside the ETA / search fund ecosystem — and you want cleaner governance, better term sheets, and a place to actually speak candidly — we want to hear from you. Members get access to the full unredacted rankings, quarterly roundtables, and early access to original research.