A Letter to Emerging Managers

By Eric Schultz, Founder & Managing Member, Reliant Fund Services

Over the past decade, fund administration has evolved drastically. New platforms, automation, and global delivery models have made it easier than ever for emerging managers to launch a fund.

Yet despite all this progress, I keep hearing the same frustration from Emerging Managers, and it has nothing to do with technology.

Most managers don’t realize that when they choose a fund administrator, they are not just selecting a service provider.

They are choosing an operating model.

At Reliant Fund Services, this distinction sits at the center of nearly every conversation we have with first-time and emerging managers. Too often, managers believe they are comparing administrators based on service quality or responsiveness. In reality, they are deciding between two fundamentally different approaches to how work is delivered, reviewed, and owned.

One approach is Platform-led fund administration. This model emphasizes standardized workflows, automation, and scale. Technology drives execution, review is largely system-based, and globally distributed delivery teams are common. This structure allows administrators to offer lower pricing and consistent outputs, and it can work well for managers who are comfortable retaining internal responsibility for coordination and decision-making.

The other approach is Partner-led fund administration. In this model, technology still plays a critical role, but it supports rather than replaces professional judgment. Senior professionals are involved from start to finish, work is reviewed before outputs are finalized, and responsibility for outcomes is shared. The cost is typically higher because senior professionals are involved in review, decision support, and accountability. 

This is where many Emerging Managers run into trouble.

One of the most common mistakes managers make early on is assuming they can materially reduce fund administration costs simply by choosing a platform-led administrator.

On paper, it looks cheaper. 

What many managers learn quickly is that under a platform model, no one on the administration side owns the entire process end-to-end. Accounting, financial statements, and bill payment are often handled by separate teams that rarely communicate with one another. Coordination across these silos is left to the manager.

What’s often misunderstood is that lower cost does not mean less work. It means different coverage.

When there’s no single point of accountability on the admin side, someone still has to:
• Coordinate accounting
• Oversee financial statements
• Manage bill payment workflows
• Keep teams aligned and working from the same information

In many cases, that “someone” becomes an internal hire, often at the manager or controller level, just to manage the platform and keep siloed teams aligned.

At that point, the savings didn’t disappear. They shifted.

A common example: saving ~$100k in fund-level admin fees often results in a $200k–$300k fully loaded internal hire. And instead of sitting at the fund, that cost moves to the management company, where ownership bears 100% of it.

Early on, both models can feel similar. The difference usually shows up later, during audits, as structures evolve, or when decisions fall outside predefined rules.

Fund administration isn’t just about getting work done.

It’s about who owns decisions when things aren’t clean.

Switching administrators is always an option. Many Emerging Managers delay making a change because they assume the transition will be painful or disruptive. With modern tools and AI-enabled processes, transitions can often be completed within weeks. Still, perceived friction keeps many managers in operating models that no longer fit.

Reliant Fund Services was built intentionally as a partner-led administrator. Our philosophy is straightforward: fund administration isn’t just about processing transactions; it’s about taking responsibility for decisions. We believe Emerging Managers deserve clarity around what they are paying for and where accountability truly sits as their firms grow.