Fund managers face what feels like an impossible choice: hire an underpowered administrator that collapses under complexity, or overpay a giant who treats you like ticket #147 in their queue.

Either way, LPs don’t care about your excuses. They expect flawless reporting — accurate, transparent, and on time, every time

The truth? Most managers optimize for the wrong variables. After decades of watching administrator relationships succeed and fail, one lesson stands out: size matters far less than fit. You don’t have to choose between “too small” and “too big.” But you do need to understand what you’re really buying.

---

Too Small: The Seductive Undercutters

Like Goldilocks’ smallest chair, low-cost administrators look attractive at first — nimble, affordable, accessible.

But peel back the curtain, and the cracks show quickly:

Spreadsheets doing the heavy lifting. When complex calculations live in Excel instead of purpose-built systems, one fat-finger error can derail an entire reporting cycle. We’ve seen managers spend weeks reconstructing data after “simple” mistakes.

Junior teams learning on your dime. That contact you liked during the sales process? They just got promoted — now you’re training their replacement on your fund’s nuances.

Brittle processes that break under pressure. Multi-currency investments, complex waterfalls, or regulatory changes expose the limits of manual workarounds.

What starts as “cost-effective” often ends up expensive in ways that don’t show up on invoices: extended audits, delayed closings, and the slow erosion of LP confidence.

---

Too Big: The Credible Neglecters

Big-brand administrators sell institutional credibility. They look safe — like Goldilocks’ oversized bed.

But unless you’re writing very large checks, that safety comes with tradeoffs:

Queries disappearing into black holes. Your “urgent” question gets lost in a ticketing system designed for billion-dollar funds, not your reality.

Template rigidity masquerading as best practice. Every customization request becomes a change order. Their “standard” reporting works perfectly — for funds that aren’t yours.

Premium pricing for commodity treatment. You pay institutional rates while being treated like a rounding error.

The logo on your administrator agreement may impress LPs at first. It won’t save you when reporting deadlines slip.

---

The Goldilocks Insight: Technology + Fit

Here’s the industry’s uncomfortable truth: the best administrator relationships aren’t about firm size. They’re about the intersection of technology and fit.

Most administrators, large or small, are running on legacy systems built decades ago. They bolt on new features to old architecture, creating complexity without capability. The result: manual workarounds, integration headaches, and service models that constrain rather than enable.

LPs don’t care how big your administrator is. They care about outcomes:

• Is capital tracked accurately across complex structures?
• Do I get real-time visibility, not month-old snapshots?
• Can I reach knowledgeable people with immediate access to my data?
• Are there proper controls and independence?
• Is the platform built for today’s regulatory environment — and tomorrow’s?
• Can it handle geographic and structural complexity as the fund evolves?
• Are financial statements automated, accurate, and delivered on time?

Accuracy. Speed. Transparency. Expertise. Scalability. Innovation. That’s what matters.

---

The Real Decision Framework

Instead of shopping by firm size, evaluate administrators on two critical dimensions:

Technology architecture. Are they running on modern, purpose-built systems, or legacy platforms stitched together with manual processes?

Service philosophy. Do they treat technology as a cost center to minimize, or as the foundation that enables responsiveness and superior service?

This matrix produces four profiles:

• Legacy Systems + Cost-Center Mentality: The worst of both worlds. Manual processes, slow responses, and technology that creates more problems than it solves
• Modern Systems + Cost-Center Mentality: Better operations, but you’re still treated like a ticket number. Efficiency accrues to shareholders, not clients.
• Legacy Systems + Service-First Philosophy: Well-intentioned and responsive, but limited by technology constraints. Good people can’t overcome bad architecture.
• Modern Systems + Service-First Philosophy: The Goldilocks solution — institutional-grade capabilities powered by modern tech, combined with boutique-level attention.