Why Feeder Funds Are Expensive: A Cost Analysis

Feeder funds serve as investment vehicles that enable access to larger master fund structures. However, the operational reality of these vehicles comes with significant costs. This analysis examines the specific factors driving these expenses, particularly focusing on the duplication of operational and administrative costs.

High Legal and Regulatory Compliance Costs

Separate Legal Entities for Feeder Funds

Feeder funds must be established as distinct legal entities, each requiring its own documentation, regulatory filings, and compliance procedures. This creates inherent cost duplication as each feeder vehicle must independently satisfy jurisdictional requirements.

Regulatory Compliance Burden 

Each feeder fund must maintain compliance with its jurisdiction’s regulatory framework. This necessitates separate AML/KYC procedures, regulatory filings, and audit requirements, leading to multiplicative costs. Organisations typically need dedicated compliance personnel or external consultants to manage these parallel processes.

Administrative and Reporting Costs for Feeder Funds

Multiple Administrative Processes

Each feeder fund requires its own administrative processes. This includes separate bookkeeping, investor reporting, and record-keeping functions. The inherent redundancy in these operations necessitates additional administrative personnel and resources, contributing significantly to overall expenses.

Independent Financial Reporting

Feeder funds must produce separate financial statements and reports. This creates duplicate workstreams for accounting processes, audit procedures, and investor reporting requirements, each adding to the cost structure.

Tax and Audit Costs for Feeder Funds

Tax Filing Requirements

Each feeder fund must file separate tax returns, often navigating different jurisdictional tax regulations. This complexity requires multiple tax advisors and increased preparation time, resulting in higher costs.

Audit Requirements

Independent audits are required for each feeder fund to verify compliance and financial reporting accuracy. The necessity for separate audit engagements creates an additional layer of fees, materially increasing the overall expense burden.

Operational Expenses in Feeder Funds

Technology and Infrastructure Costs 

Operating multiple feeder funds demands separate technology platforms for fund administration, investor relations, and compliance monitoring. Each feeder typically requires specific customisations or individual licenses, increasing the overall technology expense burden. Additionally, maintaining independent data management systems for each feeder fund’s record-keeping and reporting needs requires significant investment in robust infrastructure.

Investor Relations Costs for Feeder Funds

Enhanced Communication Requirements

Managing multiple feeder funds necessitates individual investor communication streams for each vehicle. This encompasses report distribution, enquiry handling, and investor meeting coordination, all requiring dedicated resources.

Reporting Customisation

Different feeder funds often have varying investor reporting requirements and preferences. Meeting these diverse reporting needs increases both the operational workload and associated costs of maintaining effective investor relations.

Custody and Banking Costs for Feeder Funds

Custodial Requirements 

Each feeder fund typically maintains its own custodian and banking relationships. Managing these multiple custodial arrangements results in additional fees and administrative overhead, creating another layer of operational costs.

Asset Management Segregation 

Assets within separate feeder funds require individual management and oversight. This segregation of asset management responsibilities necessitates duplicate portfolio management efforts, requiring additional personnel and resources that increase overall expenses.

Introducing Bankable Investment Products

Securitisation as a Solution 

A more efficient approach to market access is through securitisation, which transforms investment opportunities into securities. This standardisation makes the product more accessible and appealing to institutional investors.

Enhanced Liquidity 

Securitised products typically offer superior liquidity compared to traditional private investments. Converting investment interests into tradable securities enables investors to more readily buy and sell their positions, increasing the investment’s market appeal.

Making Investment Funds Bankable

ICSD Coordination 

Working with International Central Securities Depositories (ICSDs) enables funds to become bankable. ICSDs provide global distribution and settlement infrastructure, enhancing fund accessibility and appeal to a wider investor base.

Fund Structure Standardisation 

Employing standardised legal and operational documentation across investment products reduces setup complexity and costs. This standardisation streamlines compliance and administrative processes, making funds more attractive to investors while eliminating duplicative efforts.

Strategic Partnerships for Cost Efficiency

Integrated Service Solutions 

FundFront provides consultancy services that coordinate essential service providers for investment product management. This comprehensive approach reduces operational complexity and costs while ensuring product bankability.

Technology Platform Integration 

Using advanced platforms that combine fund administration, compliance, and investor relations can substantially reduce operational costs. These platforms streamline investment product discovery and access, enhancing efficiency and investor appeal.

Conclusion

The significant costs of feeder fund structures are primarily due to the duplication of legal, regulatory, administrative and operational processes. Each feeder requires an independent compliance framework, administrative infrastructure and investor relations programme, all of which generate significant costs.

Understanding these cost drivers is essential for firms evaluating feeder fund structures. Alternative approaches such as bankable products through securitisation, ICSD co-ordination and strategic partnerships can help reduce these costs while increasing the attractiveness of the investment proposition.

While feeder funds offer certain advantages, their inherent cost challenges are considerable. Organisations seeking to manage these costs effectively should consider bankable products and partnerships with experienced providers, such as FundFront, who can provide tailored solutions to streamline processes and enable product bankability.

For more information, email us hello@fundfront.com or complete the contact form on our website here.

 

Articles we think you may like:

• The Operational Demands of Feeder Funds: Why They Require Significant Resources
• How Feeder Funds Work for Wealth Managers
• Securitisation and the Use of Orphan SPVs

 

Disclaimer

FundFront provides operational and technological solutions for fund structuring, securitisation and management. We do not provide legal, tax or financial advice. We recommend that you consult with professional legal or financial advisors to ensure compliance and appropriateness for your specific situation.