Most PE strategy decks could change logos unnoticed.
I have seen the same "differentiated thesis" slide in enough IC presentations to qualify as a recurring medical condition.
Buy-and-build.
Operational improvement.
Digital transformation.
Professionalise management.
Accelerate growth.
Expand margins.
The colours change. The font changes. Occasionally someone adds a diagonal line and calls it a proprietary framework. But the content could be lifted from one GP deck, dropped into another, and nobody in the room would notice unless the footer gave the game away.
That should worry more people.
Most PE firms do not have a differentiated strategy. They have a PowerPoint with better manners.
The test is simple.
Take your investment thesis slide. Remove the logo. Remove the fund name. Remove the partner headshots, which are usually doing more work than anyone admits. Send it to a competitor.
Could they present it without changing a word?
For a depressing number of firms, yes.
The industry has trained itself to confuse ambition with edge. Saying you will improve operations is not a strategy. Saying you will create value is not a strategy. Saying you will build a platform is not a strategy. That is just the starter pack.
Try explaining your edge without using "operational", "value creation", or "platform".
Most GPs start making a noise like a printer jam.
Strategy is defined by choices. What you pursue. What you reject. Where you have earned the right to win. Which sectors you actually understand. Which management teams you can improve. Which levers you can pull faster, cheaper, and better than the next buyer.
Also, what you stop doing.
That bit gets strangely less airtime.
A real strategy creates exclusion. It says no to attractive things because they do not fit the machine. It narrows the field. It shapes resourcing. It changes diligence. It changes talent. It changes the first board meeting.
If your strategy accepts every good asset at the right price, congratulations.
You have discovered auction participation.
