Completing the ACCA alongside client work is a test of routine, stamina and judgement under pressure. We spoke with Jack Kirk, Assistant Fund Accountant in our UK team, about the habits that kept his studying consistent, what improved his exam performance and the advice he would give to trainees starting out.

‍

How did you balance full-time work with studying for ACCA and what made it manageable?

‍

Balancing full-time work with ACCA studies required structure. I found that doing most of my studying early in the morning worked best for me. By coming into work earlier and studying before the working day began, I was able to focus while I was still fresh and avoid fatigue after a full day at work. It also meant my study routine was not disrupted by unexpected late finishes.

I also made an effort to keep my expectations realistic. Rather than aiming for long, overly ambitious study sessions, I focused on consistency. This approach helped me maintain progress through each exam cycle and made the overall process far more manageable in the long run.

‍

What helped most while studying?

‍

The most helpful thing was question practice. Working through exam kit questions and reviewing the examiners’ comments gave me a much clearer understanding of what the examiners were looking for and how marks were awarded. This was particularly valuable at the final level, where professional marks play a significant role.

Understanding how to structure answers and communicate points clearly was just as important as technical knowledge and regular question practice helped develop those skills.

‍

One piece of advice for trainees starting ACCA

‍

There is a wide range of study resources available, from Kaplan study sessions to the ACCA study hub and online content such as YouTube. My advice to anyone starting ACCA would be to try as many of these resources as possible early on. Everyone learns differently so testing different approaches can help you find the study method that works best for you.

Once you find a method that works for you it becomes much easier to stay engaged and motivated throughout the qualification.

‍

What do you wish you had known earlier?

‍

I wish I had realised sooner the importance of practising questions under timed conditions. At the later levels, time becomes one of the biggest constraints. Learning how to answer questions efficiently and effectively is crucial, as there is often not enough time to write down everything you know.

Practising under time pressure earlier would have helped me develop this skill sooner.

‍

Supporting trainees at Langham Hall

‍

At Langham Hall, trainees develop technical capability alongside the commercial judgement that comes from client-facing experience. For those studying towards professional qualifications, that means building a routine that is sustainable, knowing when to ask questions and learning from experienced colleagues as work becomes more complex.

Jack’s approach reflects what we encourage across the firm: consistency, strong habits and steady progress, supported by teams that take development seriously.

Why scrutiny is tightening and what fund managers can do in practice

‍

As capital has flowed into energy transition and sustainable infrastructure strategies, scrutiny has tightened just as quickly. LPs are now testing whether “green” claims can be evidenced and governed over time, not simply asserted at launch. In this environment, greenwashing is less a debate about intent and more a practical risk across fundraising, disclosures and ongoing reporting.

Private markets, and infrastructure in particular, have responded through a rapid expansion in sustainable and ESG-focused strategies, alongside increased allocations to cleaner energy generation and more efficient energy use. Over the past decade, the mandate of infrastructure investing has expanded significantly, directing funds towards investment opportunities supporting these goals as a core investment thesis of long-term capital deployment.

Investing in the energy transition and decarbonisation is not a fleeting trend but a strategic shift that aligns long-term sustainability goals with alpha generation. Current estimates highlight that trillions of dollars of global investment is required to decarbonise energy systems and infrastructure by the mid-century, thus highlighting the indispensable nature of infrastructure funds in the short-long term horizon. For investors seeking stable and sustainable growth with significant downside protection risk, alongside measurable climate impact, these funds offer both a compelling investment opportunity and a pathway to supporting a more resilient low-carbon economy.

However, as investment allocations into sustainable infrastructure continue to increase, the scrutiny of funds positioning themselves as “green” has intensified. Whilst many infrastructure funds genuinely support the energy transition, others face the risk of greenwashing: the practice where sustainability related statements, declarations, actions, or communications do not clearly or fairly reflect the underlying sustainability profile of an entity, product, or financial service.

In practice, greenwashing risk often arises when marketing language moves faster than the data, controls and governance needed to substantiate sustainability claims consistently.

‍

Where scrutiny is tightening most (what LPs test for)

‍

• Consistency between marketing language, the strategy’s investment policy and portfolio reality
• Evidence trails for sustainability claims, including data sources, assumptions and governance
• Clarity on definitions: what is included, excluded and how edge cases are handled
• Reporting discipline: consistency across investor reporting, regulatory disclosures and external communications

Why greenwashing is dangerous for investors

‍

Greenwashing exposes investors to multiple risks, including mispriced assets and capital misallocation, reputational damage, regulatory and fiduciary exposure as well as the broader erosion of trust in sustainable finance markets.

‍

How managers can help prevent greenwashing

‍

For fund managers, the risks include regulatory penalties, increased litigation risk and potential personal liability for senior management and company boards with weak oversight of sustainability claims.

Under the UK’s anti-greenwashing rules, all FCA authorised firms must ensure that any references to the sustainability characteristics of their financial products or services are:

1. Consistent with the actual sustainability characteristics of the product or service; and
2. Fair, clear and not misleading.

Additionally, sustainability references should be:

1. Correct and capable of being substantiated;
2. Clear and presented in a way that can be readily understood;
3. Complete, without omitting or obscuring material information, and reflective of the full life cycle of the product or service; and
4. Fair and meaningful, particularly when making comparisons with other products or services.

For many managers, this becomes most apparent during fundraising and in subsequent reporting. LPs will look for consistency between what is said in decks and DDQs, what is disclosed in formal documentation and what is evidenced through underlying data and governance processes.

Practical considerations for ESG oversight

Below are some practical considerations for overseeing ESG within your business to help mitigate the risk of greenwashing:

Governance

• Senior leadership should set a clear expectation that sustainability claims must be accurate, evidence based and subject to strong oversight.
• Effective management information flows that enable management to receive timely and reliable ESG information to monitor risks, performance and compliance within the context of sustainability objectives.

Frontline

• Targeted training and awareness for all staff with specific training on ESG requirements and greenwashing risks.
• Firms should be able to demonstrate sufficient internal expertise to assess, monitor and substantiate all sustainability claims.

Backend

• All ESG data should come from reliable sources and be supported by systems and controls that ensure accuracy and consistency.
• Well-supported and integrated processes and procedures embedded across the investment lifecycle through clear, documented processes.

Processes and procedures

• Automation, validation and reviews processes should be used to reduce manual errors in ESG data and reporting.
• Defined escalation processes to ensure ESG issues are promptly reviewed and addressed by senior management.

As capital allocations to sustainable infrastructure increase and regulatory scrutiny deepens, credibility becomes a differentiator. Clear definitions, robust governance and substantiated sustainability claims protect investor trust, reduce avoidable delay during diligence and help ensure capital is deployed on the basis of evidence, not aspiration.

The independent sponsor model, often called the deal-by-deal approach, is moving from niche to mainstream in European private markets. Long established in the US, this model is now maturing across Europe and the UK, as investors and managers prioritise greater flexibility and alignment.

Independent sponsors differ from traditional private equity funds by sourcing deals first and raising capital on a case-by-case basis, rather than raising a blind-pool fund. The model allows experienced dealmakers to invest without a formal fund structure whilst giving investors greater control and transparency at the deal level.

At Langham Hall, we work with a growing number of private equity and real estate managers adopting this approach to gain flexibility and streamline execution.

‍

Why independent sponsors are gaining traction across Europe

‍

1. Flexibility and visibility for investors

As investors seek greater oversight and flexibility in capital deployment, limited partners (LPs) increasingly value the ability to assess each investment individually. The independent sponsor model offers transparency and control over commitments, helping LPs manage exposure and maintain discipline in volatile markets. Independent sponsors are also free from the constraints of a traditional fund strategy, having the agility to pursue diverse opportunities and adapt swiftly to changing market conditions.

2. Simpler economics and (often) earlier returns

Independent sponsors typically earn a combination of closing fees, management fees and carried interest, creating a flexible and performance-driven economic model.

• Carried interest remains the primary incentive and is usually realised on a deal-by-deal basis, often allowing sponsors to receive carry earlier than in traditional fund structures with a ‘whole of fund’ waterfall, where carry is often payable towards the end of the J-curve. Terms are often bespoke, with a growing number of managers choosing a tiered approach rather than fixed-percentage or straight-line waterfalls. In a tiered waterfall, managers typically see three to four carry tiers with escalating percentages once returns exceed agreed hurdles.
• Closing fee (also known as arrangement or deal fees) compensates sponsors for the time, effort and risk involved in sourcing and executing transactions.
• Management fee (sometimes described as monitoring, consulting or advisory fees) compensates sponsors for ongoing oversight of the investment vehicle and portfolio company. In most cases, this fee is charged to the target company rather than investors, reflecting the sponsor’s active management role.

Together, these features can reduce cost and complexity whilst improving alignment between sponsors and investors, supporting efficient capital deployment and earlier returns.

Partners at Addleshaw Goddard, Jan Gruter and Ben Cocoracchio, note that: “Europe’s independent sponsor community has expanded quickly, with sponsors and investors converging on clearer deal terms.”

3.    Building track record

For managers aiming to establish a track record, starting as an independent sponsor offers a practical route ahead of a blind pool fundraise. Successful transactions can demonstrate capability and create a foundation for a future institutional fundraise.

For example, in 2023 we supported a new independent sponsor who completed five platform investments, and several add-ons, before launching their first blind pool fund in 2025. The fund subsequently held a first close late last year, with capital committed from both new and existing LPs.

Moving from deal-by-deal execution to a first blind pool fund comes with a whole new set of considerations, but it is often the natural progression for sponsors as their track record and LP relationships evolve.

‍

Structural considerations for the deal-by-deal approach

‍

Independent sponsors in Europe are increasingly turning to cost-efficient and lightly regulated structures. Guernsey and Jersey, in the Channel Islands, have become attractive domiciles, offering flexibility via options such as the Guernsey Protected Cell Company (PCC) and the Jersey Private Fund.

In the UK, managers may use the Appointed Representative regime, operating under the regulatory umbrella of an authorised Principal, such as Langham Hall. This can enable faster execution timelines and quicker capital returns whilst maintaining compliance with local requirements. In the case of JVs and SMAs, these will often be classified as a Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) in the UK which will require the appointment of an FCA operator.

These structures support the model’s entrepreneurial nature, allowing sponsors to focus on deal origination, due diligence and value creation rather than fund structuring and regulation.

Irrespective of structure, the sponsors that scale most effectively put standardisation in place early. Consistent economics and expense allocation, clear conflicts governance and a repeatable reporting approach reduce friction and support a clean transition if Fund I becomes the destination.

‍

Langham Hall’s view

‍

The recent downturn in blind-pool fundraising has brought the independent sponsor model into the spotlight, and the rapid growth in this market suggests it is more than just a passing trend. For many managers, it represents a deliberate shift towards a more flexible and efficient way to participate in private markets without the constraints of traditional fund structures.

At Langham Hall, we continue to see rising interest from both sponsors and investors exploring bespoke, transaction-driven models. We support these sponsors right at the start of their journey, as an Appointed Representative, and subsequently with the administration of the respective investment structures. With the right governance and structuring, starting as an independent sponsor can serve as a bridge between entrepreneurial investment and institutional-level execution.

Is resilience becoming the new impact trade and what does it mean for fund operations?

‍

Defence investing has long sat in a complex place in institutional portfolios: strategically important, politically sensitive and often addressed through broad exclusions rather than careful definition. That framing is now shifting. Not because allocators have become indifferent to responsibility, but because geopolitical risk has become more tangible and persistent, and the definition of impact is being tested against the realities of security, resilience and continuity.

In the US and across Europe, policy volatility and national security priorities are no longer background considerations. They are debated daily, often publicly, and frequently with limited predictability. Capital tends to respond quickly in that kind of environment, not because it is chasing headlines, but because it is reassessing long-term risk.

The scale of that reassessment is significant. In the US, defence spending is anchored by a Department of Defense (DoD) budget request of approximately $850 billion for FY2025, with Congress authorising around $901 billion for FY2026 through the National Defense Authorization Act. That level of sustained commitment reflects a structural reprioritisation of security, continuity and resilience as economic fundamentals rather than cyclical policy choices.

The same direction of travel is visible across allied markets. Industry analysis published by McKinsey & Company suggests that European NATO countries could increase defence and security-related investment materially by the end of the decade, with aggregate annual spending potentially approaching €800 billion to €1 trillion by 2030 under accelerated rearmament and resilience scenarios.

The practical implication for fund managers is that long-dated government programmes are reshaping the opportunity set for private capital. Rather than investing directly in procurement, private funds are increasingly positioning around the technology, services and systems that sit adjacent to public spending: software, data, infrastructure, communications and advanced manufacturing. This is where resilience becomes investable and where private capital finds scale. As the opportunity set expands, so does operational complexity, particularly where defence-related exposure drives additional governance, disclosure and investor-specific requirements.

‍

Why this matters now

‍

As aerospace, defence and cybersecurity strategies move further into the institutional mainstream, they attract a different kind of scrutiny. Boards, auditors and LP operational due diligence teams ask tougher questions earlier, not because the strategies are controversial, but because operational errors carry greater consequences when sanctions exposure, restricted investors, sensitive data and end-user risk form part of the investment story. In practice, this translates into deeper diligence on ownership and control, investor eligibility and jurisdiction-specific restrictions, alongside the core fund administration questions.

The implication is familiar from other moments of rising complexity in private markets. Just as continuation vehicles work structurally but can strain operating models designed for simpler ownership structures and reporting cadences, defence-adjacent strategies can be straightforward in principle yet unforgiving in execution if governance, controls and disclosure discipline are not institutional from day one.

‍

What we are seeing in practice

‍

The investable universe is broader than traditional prime contractors. Much of the growth in interest is concentrated in three overlapping areas.

1. Aerospace and space infrastructure

Capabilities that sit upstream of national resilience agendas, including communications, sensing and mission-critical systems.

2. Cybersecurity and data resilience

Often framed less as a defence allocation and more as critical infrastructure protection, particularly where civilian and public-sector dependency is high.

3. Dual-use technology

Platforms with both civilian and defence applications, expanding the opportunity set while increasing diligence and disclosure complexity.

A common feature across these areas is that operating models are tested earlier. A cyber strategy may be data-heavy with demanding reporting expectations. A defence manufacturing exposure may raise different questions around contracts, procurement cycles and revenue recognition. Both can be compelling. Both can also lose momentum in diligence if controls, governance and information flows are not robust. Defence exposure can also drive more complex entity structures, including jurisdictional holding arrangements and additional SPVs, increasing the burden on governance, reporting and oversight.

‍

The operational pressure points that surface first

‍

A common feature across these areas is that operating models are tested earlier. A cyber strategy may be data-heavy with demanding reporting expectations. A defence manufacturing exposure may raise different questions around contracts, procurement cycles and revenue recognition. Both can be compelling. Both can also lose momentum in diligence if controls, governance and information flows are not robust. Defence exposure can also drive more complex entity structures, including jurisdictional holding arrangements and additional SPVs, increasing the burden on governance, reporting and oversight.

In our experience, four areas tend to determine whether these strategies convert market interest into durable institutional capital.

1. Restrictions, screening and compliance architecture

Managers do not need to be defence contractors to face national-security-adjacent requirements. Exposure can arise through customers, suppliers, licences, jurisdictions or end users. LPs increasingly expect clarity on how screening works in practice, how exceptions are handled, and how monitoring is evidenced over time, particularly where different investor groups impose different constraints. This scrutiny is often more granular in defence-adjacent funds, with investor focus on nationality, control, beneficial ownership and information rights. Side letters can become more complex, with tighter drafting around who can receive what information and under what conditions.

Jurisdiction also matters. Funds and structures may be subject to differing restrictions and expectations across the US, the UK and the EU, as well as allied frameworks and policy positions. Managers need a coherent approach that can be evidenced consistently across the fund, its entities and its service provider ecosystem.

2. Valuation traceability and governance

Defence-adjacent assets can involve long-cycle contracts, milestone-based delivery and specialist intellectual property. None of this makes valuation unreliable, but it does raise the importance of a clean audit trail from assumptions through to outputs, supported by contemporaneous documentation so external review becomes confirmation rather than reconstruction. In high-scrutiny strategies, defensibility matters more than elegance.

3. Close discipline and reporting cadence

Timetable drift is remembered. A strategy may be attractive, but a platform that slips quarter-end, rebuilds reporting packs each cycle, or depends on key-person heroics will often face extended diligence. LPs underwrite repeatability as much as track record and they look for evidence that processes survive scale. Where deployment is slower, the operational focus can shift towards disciplined cash forecasting, budgeting and proactive LP communication.

4. Data integrity and controlled disclosure

These strategies frequently demand higher-quality look-through reporting and tighter communications control. Version management, distribution governance and consistent narratives matter, particularly where disclosure sensitivities differ across the investor base. Investor-specific requirements are rarely ‘standard’ in this segment.

‍

What good looks like

‍

Managers that build momentum tend to do a small number of things early and keep them consistent. They define the investable boundary with precision, including how dual-use exposure and exclusions are treated. They embed compliance as a workflow rather than a periodic review. They create reporting that can be reproduced without reinvention. They also treat valuation governance as part of the investor trust model, with clear timetables, documented challenge and evidence of input quality.

For Langham Hall, the operational response cannot be limited to NAV processing alone. These strategies increasingly require a more bespoke service approach across entity structures, investor-specific reporting, side letter tracking, controlled disclosure and governance support, with the operational evidence that sophisticated LPs expect to see.

This is not a call for heavy infrastructure. It is a call for fund-grade discipline that removes avoidable friction at the point when LP attention is highest.

‍

The questions LPs are increasingly asking in 2026

‍

For managers launching, scaling or reallocating into aerospace, defence or cybersecurity strategies, these questions now surface early in diligence and board oversight:

• Can you evidence a repeatable screening and monitoring process that stands up under sanctions and export control scrutiny?
• Can you demonstrate control and ownership transparency, and show how nationality and information rights are handled across the fund and its entities?
• Can you trace material valuation assumptions to documented inputs, and show when and how they were challenged?
• Can you close on time, quarter after quarter, without bespoke workarounds?
• Can you produce consistent, controlled reporting that reflects restricted investor requirements and avoids multiple versions of the truth?
• If capital deployment is slower, can you evidence robust cash forecasting, budgeting and proactive LP communication, including around fees, liquidity and waterfall mechanics?
  When those answers are clear, the market opportunity becomes easier to capture. When they are not, the result is predictable: extended diligence, timetable drift and momentum lost despite strong thematic demand.

‍

The outcome

‍

The most constructive way to frame this moment is not that investors have abandoned impact, but that the definition is maturing. In a world where security and continuity underpin economic stability, resilience is increasingly being treated as a legitimate long-term outcome, and capital is aligning accordingly. For managers, the opportunity is real. The differentiator will be operational credibility: governance, control and reporting that stand up under scrutiny.

Jamila is one of our hybrid trainees at Langham Hall in Guernsey. We spoke with Jamila about her experience of starting out, including what helped most in her first few months, the habits that built confidence quickly and what excites her most about the next stage of her career.

What are your tips or recommendations for anyone starting?

My biggest tip for anyone starting out is to always ask questions. It is such an important part of learning because every question gives you the chance to gain new insights from your team. The support at Langham Hall is fantastic, so make the most of it and do not hesitate to reach out when you need help. And remember, it is completely normal to feel nervous at first. You will settle in with time and start to feel more confident as you grow in your role.

What did you find the most challenging in your first few weeks or months, and how did you overcome it?

One of the biggest challenges I faced was the amount of information to absorb at the beginning; it felt overwhelming at times. To manage this, I developed a habit of taking detailed notes and regularly reviewing them. This approach helped me reinforce my learning and build confidence as I progressed.

What excites you most about the next phase of your career here?

What excites me most is the range of opportunities available, especially as a hybrid trainee. I have the flexibility to choose between pursuing ACCA or CGI qualifications, which gives me control over my career path. I am also looking forward to all the new skills and knowledge I will gain as I progress in my career at Langham Hall.

What is one thing you wish you had known when you were applying or interviewing?

I wish I knew not to stress so much beforehand. I was really nervous, but once the interview started, it flowed naturally. As cliché as it sounds, just be yourself - it makes the conversation feel much easier and more genuine.

To mark Mentorship Month, we are recognising colleagues who play an active role in helping others learn, develop and build confidence.

In our Guernsey office, Jack Le Prevost, Fund Administrator, has been named Coach of the Quarter. Jack is a trusted point of contact within the team and is known for the consistent support he gives colleagues, including thorough guidance for new joiners. He is approachable, practical and generous with his time, qualities that make a real difference to day-to-day learning.

We asked Kaylin Le Bideau, a trainee in Guernsey, to share a short reflection on what Jack’s coaching has meant since she joined Langham Hall.

‍

Short Q&A with Kaylin Le Bideau

‍

Tell us about Jack’s coaching and support

Jack is an incredibly supportive colleague, mentor and coach. He has helped me since day one and he is always happy to answer questions.

‍

What makes his approach stand out?

With Jack, no question is a silly question. No matter how busy he is, he always makes time, which really helps when you are still learning.

‍

Why do you think he was recognised as Coach of the Quarter?

I think it is very well deserved. He consistently supports the people around him and you can see the difference that makes.

‍

How mentoring works at Langham Hall

‍

At Langham Hall, we invest significant time in training and development. We use the word apprenticeship to describe how people learn, combining structured training with hands-on experience and feedback from managers and colleagues.

Alongside line management, employees also have access to a pastoral mentor, someone outside direct operational management who supports personal development and wellbeing.

If you would like to learn more about how we mentor, support and develop our people, visit Approach to work.

Langham Hall announces it has supported Northtree Investment Management Ltd on the launch of its second fund, Northtree Real Estate Partners II.

The fund will focus on UK commercial real estate assets.

Langham Hall is providing fund accounting and administration services from its London and Jersey offices, ensuring seamless structuring and operational support throughout the launch.

"Langham Hall provided clear guidance throughout the launch of our second fund. Their expertise and partner-led, hands-on support kept the process smooth from start to finish." Sandy Wilson, Director at Northtree Investment Management

‍

"Congratulations to the Northtree team on the launch of its second fund. This is an important milestone and we are delighted to have been selected to support this next phase of growth." Richard James, Head of Europe at Langham Hall

‍

"Well done to the Northtree team.  With Jersey expertise alongside London support, we aligned fund administration and reporting to ensure day one operations were smooth.  Northtree is a first-class team with a clear strategy." Chris Marshall, Head of Jersey at Langham Hall

‍

Northtree was also advised by CMS, Carey Olsen and John Forbes Consulting.

Why outsourcing fund administration strengthens governance and LP trust

‍

Many first-time managers ask a version of the same question: “Can we outsource the GP controller? It is not full-time work, is it?”

It is an understandable instinct. When you are building a portfolio, fundraising, hiring and managing deals, it can feel as if everything else should simply “run”. But in practice, fund operations do not sit in the background. They sit underneath every investment decision, every closing, every investor conversation and every audit trail.

If you treat the GP controller role as a part-time, intermittent function, you create a structural risk that will surface at exactly the wrong moments, including at a closing, in an investor reporting cycle or when you are raising for Fund II.

‍

This piece explains three things:

• why the GP controller should be a dedicated role, even in a small team
• how the controller role differs from the fund administrator
• why outsourcing fund administration is not a cost saving trick, it is a governance choice that supports LP confidence

‍
Why the controller becomes the bottleneck

‍

Imagine a three-person GP team. No controller. No operational lead. Just investors and deal professionals.

Now walk through what happens the moment you try to execute an investment.

You sign transaction documents, manage conditions and coordinate lawyers. You also have to prove that your fund is legitimate: AML, KYC, beneficial ownership, corporate documents, identification, registers, bank processes. None of this is “optional admin”. It is the cost of being allowed to transact.

Then comes the part that most teams underestimate: cash.

Capital calls are not only about paying the purchase price. They include legal bills, diligence costs, advisory fees, bank charges and often ongoing fund expenses. They also run on deadlines that cannot slip. Most managers aim for a standard notice period; the practical reality is that you need to work backwards from settlement, because timing is not perfectly predictable, particularly across borders.

If you mis-time one drawdown, you do not just create inconvenience. You create a breach of contract risk and an investor confidence problem that can last longer than the investment itself.

And it does not stop after closing. You still have post-closing steps, register updates, shareholder processes, reporting and ongoing oversight. If you use subscription finance, cash forecasting becomes even more critical because the mechanics multiply.

This is why the controller role is not “a few days a month”. It is continuous operational leadership.

‍

The real job of a GP controller

‍

At its core, a controller is the person responsible for turning a fund into a functioning business.

That includes:

• cash and liquidity management, including capital calls and distributions
• budgets and forecasting, including the management fee cycle and operating expenses
• investor reporting coordination, including the information needed for LP trust, not just compliance
• oversight of operational processes, controls, documentation and timelines

Some organisations try to define controller work as portfolio monitoring. I do not agree. Monitoring is a portfolio management function and should be managed with conflicts in mind. The controller’s job is to ensure the vehicle operates correctly; the investment team’s job is to manage risk and value creation inside the portfolio.

Keeping those roles distinct is not bureaucracy. It is governance.

‍

What does a fund administrator do?

‍

A fund administrator supports the controller by executing the operational processes the controller designs and oversees. In simple terms:

the controller owns the decisions, the timelines and the accountability
the administrator provides the specialist operating engine, process discipline and repeatable delivery

When administration is done well, it creates something most first time managers underestimate: standardisation.

Standardisation matters because investors compare. They compare across funds, across jurisdictions and across managers. They want familiar reporting, clear capital account statements and processes that feel robust. They also want confidence that the mechanics are fair across investors, especially when it comes to equalisation, catch up calculations and distribution waterfalls.

A small GP cannot easily build that operating muscle alone. Even if you manage it once, you still have to maintain it through regulatory change, investor expectations and new best practice.

‍

Why outsourcing administration is a governance decision

‍

There is also a deeper point that is particularly relevant in Japan.

Some argue that because the GP is responsible for reporting and notices, the GP should pay for the administrator directly. It sounds efficient. It can also create a perception problem.

Fund reporting, capital accounts and distribution calculations must be fair across LPs. That is not only a technical requirement, it is part of the fund’s fiduciary duty. If the GP both controls the outputs and funds the function as a direct supplier, the structure can feel too close for comfort. The market generally values separation where it reduces conflicts and improves trust, as it does with valuation challenge.

That is why many global models treat administration as a fund expense. Not because the GP is avoiding responsibility, but because the work supports the fund and its investors.

The outcome is better for everyone:

• the GP reduces operational load and avoids forcing investment professionals to run the machine
• LPs receive more standardised reporting and processes that feel consistent and fair
• best practice improves because specialists see patterns across managers and can refine delivery
• talent pathways strengthen as administration becomes a recognised discipline, not a low status back-office label

The risk of “we will build it ourselves”

‍

Japan has a strong instinct to internalise. In many industries this creates resilience. In fund operations it often creates reinvention.

Teams rebuild processes in spreadsheets, interpret rules differently, and struggle to keep up with evolving investor expectations. Over time that leads to:

• inconsistency and key person risk
• operational fatigue inside a small team
• increased data and confidentiality risk
• reduced scalability when Fund II arrives

Lean start-up thinking is not the same as patchwork operations. Building for growth means choosing where you need control and where you need an operating partner.

‍

What this means for first-time managers

‍

A strong fund business is not only an investment thesis; it is an operating model.

Treat the controller as a core leadership role. Treat the administrator as the specialist engine that professionalises delivery. Do that early and you build credibility that compounds, with investors, with auditors and with future hires.

The market rewards managers who can execute reliably, report clearly and operate fairly. That is not a distraction from investing; it is part of what makes investing scalable.

Alan O’Neill named Global Chief of Staff as firm confirm 143 promotions globally

‍

Langham Hall is pleased to announce that Richard James will take on the role of Head of Europe in 2026, alongside continuing as Head of UK. The appointment provides additional leadership depth across Langham Hall’s European platform and further support to jurisdictional teams as the business continues to grow across regions and service lines.

Richard joined Langham Hall in April 2024 and brings significant investment management client-side experience, most recently as Global CFO at Savills Investment Management. In his expanded remit, he will work closely with jurisdictional leaders across Europe to support consistent delivery and a joined-up client experience across the region.

The firm further announces the appointment of Alan O’Neill as Global Chief of Staff. In this newly created role, Alan will work across the business to build on and scale Langham Hall’s approach to developing and progressing people, including its apprenticeship model, alongside the operational systems and technology that support high-quality client service as the firm continues to grow. Alan brings deep institutional knowledge built over 15 years at Langham Hall and moves into the role from the Office of the Managing Partner, where he led initiatives across systems, efficiency and talent development.

Langham Hall is pleased to announce 143 promotions globally in 2026, reflecting continued investment in expertise and the development of teams across Europe, the US and Asia. The promotions underline the strength of our apprenticeship model and our focus on building capability organically, combining structured training, mentorship and early responsibility to support consistent, high-quality client delivery.

‍

“I am looking forward to working even closer with colleagues across Europe to support clients with consistent delivery and hands-on senior leadership, particularly as expectations around governance, reporting and data continue to rise.” - Richard James, Head of Europe and UK

‍

“Richard’s expanded remit strengthens leadership across Europe and reinforces the partner-led service model our clients value. Alan’s appointment as Chief of Staff adds further capacity to support our people and operational priorities as we grow. Alongside this year’s promotions, these updates reflect our long-term investment in capability and in the foundations that support consistent, high-quality delivery.” - Rob Short, Managing Partner

‍