Ultimus Fund Solutions' Gary Tenkman - building the core fund administration infrastructure to make private markets go mainstream

What It Covers

Gary Tenkman, CEO of Ultimus Fund Solutions, explains how his firm built infrastructure serving 450 clients, 2,300 funds, and $725 billion in assets under administration. He covers the evolution from traditional mutual funds to evergreen structures, data standardization challenges, and why private markets fund administration requires different capabilities than public markets servicing.

Key Questions Answered

• •Data Standardization Progress: Sixty percent of intermediaries now deliver subscription data through APIs or standardized files, up from twenty percent three years ago. The remaining forty percent still require manual normalization. Industry-wide standardization similar to NSCC for mutual funds could reduce processing time by enabling faster liquidity management decisions for fund managers dealing with subscriptions and redemptions in evergreen structures.
• •Fund Viability Assessment: Administrators must evaluate whether new retail alternative funds have realistic plans to reach $100 million in assets under management quickly. Firms need distribution strategies addressing wealth management channels, RIA networks, and intermediaries. Without adequate capital to sustain operations for two to three years and proper distribution infrastructure, one-third of prospective funds get declined because they lack the resources to succeed.
• •Operational Cost Requirements: Launching retail alternative funds requires understanding four critical areas: daily versus monthly valuation capabilities under Rule 2a-5, liquidity management strategies varying by structure, compliance with 40 Act regulations unfamiliar to private market managers, and board governance through shared trustee models that provide economies of scale across multiple fund trusts rather than individual structures.
• •Product Structure Selection: Tender offer funds dominate private equity retail products because boards control liquidity terms, while interval funds face regulatory restrictions. Opcos provide leverage flexibility and broader investment options but limit distribution to accredited investors. Interval funds accept more investment restrictions but enable retail investor access. The wrapper choice depends on target investor base and desired asset flexibility, not universal superiority.
• •Technology Investment Impact: Automated waterfall calculations, workflow systems, and custom applications built on core processing platforms now handle sixty to seventy percent of private markets transactions straight-through, compared to 99.9 percent for mutual funds. The gap exists because offering documents remain customized rather than standardized. Firms investing in API integrations and file automation reduce manual intervention, enabling faster NAV calculations and investor reporting.