Are Fund Platforms Truly a Turnkey Solution? Pros and Cons of Using the Structure to Market to E.U. Investors (Part Two of Three)

At first glance, creating a sub-fund on an umbrella fund platform (Fund Platform) operated by a third-party management company (ManCo) seems like an ideal way for a U.S. fund manager to access E.U. investors. In addition to the risk-management and regulatory expertise conferred by the ManCo as the Fund Platform’s alternative investment fund manager, the economies of scale of this approach can reduce costs and rapidly accelerate the manager’s time to market. It is essential, however, for fund managers to balance these benefits against some of the potential disadvantages of this approach, including a lack of control, various conflicts with the ManCo and negative investor perceptions. To aid U.S. fund managers in determining whether Fund Platforms provide the optimal method for marketing to E.U. investors, this three-part series critically considers the structure from an array of vantage points. This second article in the series provides contrasting advantages and disadvantages for fund managers to weigh when deciding whether to use a Fund Platform. The first article offered an overview of the mechanics of Fund Platforms and explored how to mitigate obstacles caused by Brexit while using the structure. The third article will detail various factors for fund managers to consider when selecting platform providers and negotiating onboarding agreements. See also “Strategies for U.S. Hedge Fund Managers Looking to Outsource the Risk and Reporting Requirements of the AIFMD While Focusing on Capital Raising in Europe” (Aug. 1, 2014); and “Risks Faced by Hedge Fund Managers That Access the Alternative Mutual Fund Market Via Turnkey Platforms” (Mar. 13, 2014).

To read the full article

Continue reading your article with a HFLR subscription.