The end of fund administrator lock-in

For two decades, legacy fund administrators got away with poor technology, poor service and poor investor experiences, because the cost of leaving was higher than the cost of staying. A migration meant six months, ten of your own people mapping fields by hand, and a real chance of breaking something investors would notice. So almost nobody left, and lock-in did the work the service should have.

That has changed. AI agents now map the data, read every document and audit the result, with two or three specialists ruling on what the agents flag. A move that took six months now runs in four to eight weeks. Meanwhile, 85% of LPs have rejected an investment over operational concerns alone, and the paper forms and clunky portal carry your name, not your administrator's.

This guide is for managers weighing whether to stay another year.

What's inside

• Why leaving is no longer hard. The three changes in how migrations run: agents map the data, agents read the documents, agents audit the result. Then and now, in numbers.
• The value in moving. One system instead of five, a better investor experience, no black boxes, local specialists, and two kinds of AI agents working on your record from day one.
• The cost of waiting another year. What investors now expect, why the gap with AI-native managers compounds, and why legacy systems cannot close it.
• What happens to your data. All eight steps from extract to cut-over, and what a well-run migration plan looks like, with an owner and a sign-off for every phase.
• Should you leave? The questions to ask of your current administrator. One no is normal. A pattern of nos is a finding.
• Inside a $22 billion manager's migration. How an ASX-listed real estate and private credit manager moved several systems, two countries and two currencies onto one system of record without pausing a single distribution.

Switching costs weeks. Staying costs more every year.

Prefer to talk first? Email [email protected] or book a demo.