A standardized scorecard can reduce recency bias and improve committee-level decision quality. This guide outlines a practical scoring structure you can adapt. It is a framework, not a downloadable template file.
Build Weighted Categories
Start with five categories and assign weights that match the mandate:
| Category | Typical questions |
|---|---|
| Investment Process | Are construction rules documented and applied consistently? |
| Risk Governance | Are limits, escalation paths, and stress responses enforceable? |
| Team Stability | Who makes decisions, and how concentrated is key-person risk? |
| Operational Resilience | Can the firm execute, reconcile, and report under stress? |
| Reporting Quality | Can a committee evaluate attribution and exposures quickly? |
Weights should reflect what the mandate cannot compromise on. A liquidity-sensitive sleeve may overweight operational resilience; a high-conviction equity sleeve may overweight process integrity.
Use Evidence, Not Narratives
Every score should map to evidence: policy documents, historical attribution, drawdown behavior, and implementation records. If a manager’s story cannot be traced to artifacts, treat that gap as a finding.
Suggested scoring scale:
- Material weakness / unexplained gap
- Partial evidence with open questions
- Adequate and documented
- Strong, tested through stress periods
- Exceptional with independent corroboration
Align Scores to Mandate Fit
A manager with strong returns can still be a poor fit if liquidity terms, risk profile, or governance cadence diverge from client requirements. Keep a separate “mandate fit” score so absolute quality is not confused with suitability.
Keep a Versioned Record
Store dated scorecards so changes in conviction can be traced to specific events or data updates. Version history helps committees distinguish new information from preference drift.
Practical Note
For Bluestone-managed relationships, diligence materials and operating detail are reviewed directly with the client team once scope is clear. Use this framework as a screening and committee-prep aid, not as a substitute for full operational due diligence.