meh

The thing is managing larger amounts of capital makes it more difficult to earn consistently high returns. Only so much capital can be allocated to the best idea, so much to the second best, etc. This also assumes the ideas are sound to begin with.

Smaller funds are more nimble but make it difficult to attract talent. The revenue generated from a 100+ AUM fund are pretty small to attract what managers might consider a quality workforce. Let's assume a 15% return (this is being nice nowadays). A 2/20 structure. Based on my knowledge of how this would generate revenue

2% of 100 MM = 2 mm 20% of 15 mm = 3mm

5MM to cover all the expenses for the firm for the year. Assuming no capital inflows/outflows. Established managers aren't going to set up a small shop to deal with that. With several billion dollars in AUM, the management fee generally generates sufficient revenue for the firm while performance fees (highly volatile and can be rewarding) might generate the same amount if lucky.

As far as pedigree is concerned, most managers are from the olden days where only pedigree alone would get you in. Networking capabilities were minimal & left best to schools & family contacts. Nowadays there are many more ways to enter the industry. Profiles of top level managers might not change drastically in the future but there will be much more international presence at the very least.

Besides, if a sophisticated institutional investor places weight in pedigree over performance (doubt many do), they deserve to be taken.