ESG has fast become one of the better-known acronyms in financial services, continuing to dominate news headlines. As a result of this, buyers of goods and services are now differentiating where they allocate capital and prioritising businesses pushing to make a difference. This has shifted ESG and sustainable finance from just buzzwords to critical components of the financial landscape.

Despite a cooling in ESG fundraising to $91 billion globally in 2023, there has been a notable resurgence in 2024, with $55 billion raised by April alone[1]. This rebound highlights the sustained interest and commitment to ESG principles among investors and fund managers. And, according to PwC, analysts expect ESG AUM to reach c20% of Global AUM or $33.9trn by 2026 ($18.4trn 2021).

Interestingly, while the performance difference between ESG funds (13.5% IRR) and non-ESG funds (15% IRR) is not significant, ESG funds tend to exhibit lower variance. This lower risk profile can be appealing to investors seeking stability. Moreover, six out of ten investors have either rejected an attractive investment opportunity or would do so based on ESG concerns, underscoring the growing importance of these factors in investment decisions[2].

Ross Youngs, Chief Commercial Officer at Belasko, identifies how ESG is shaping the future of investment, the impact on our clients and the business’ proactive approach to lead the way.  

How are our clients impacted? 

Our fund clients experience varying degrees of impact from ESG, largely influenced by their size and marketing strategies. Many clients share our proactive stance and have generally adopted two distinct approaches based on the level of regulation required:

1. The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR): A key regulatory framework in the EU that governs the transparency and reporting of sustainability-related information by financial market participants.
2. The Principles for Responsible Investing (PRI): Where SFDR has not been relevant, our clients have chosen voluntary compliance with the PRI which provides a set of ESG principles designed to foster a positive, sustainable impact within the global financial system.

Unpacking the SFDR 

There are three levels of regulation applicable to funds marketed in Europe under the SFDR:

• Article 9: These funds are dedicated to achieving specific sustainable objectives. They have strict requirements on how they achieve their goals. There has been a great deal of focus on this category of fund with rigorous evidential reporting. Due to these high standards, about 40% of Article 9 funds, representing $175 billion, have reclassified to Article 8.
• Article 8: These funds promote positive environmental, social, and governance characteristics without necessarily having them as their primary objectives.
• Article 6: This category includes funds that do not integrate sustainability considerations into their investment strategies.

These three levels of regulation serve as stepping stones depending on where the business or fund is on its ESG journey.

How has ESG impacted Belasko?  

At Belasko, we recognise the significant benefits of incorporating ESG into our business strategy. Although we’re not legally required to report on sustainability, we’ve taken a proactive approach in doing so by partnering with Terra Instinct to develop a Responsible Business Policy. This initiative includes forming a group-wide committee, defining relevant sustainable metrics relevant to our business, setting targets, and publishing an annual report on our ESG journey for clients and investors.

We anticipate that mandatory ESG reporting will become a reality for businesses like ours in the coming years. To stay ahead, we’re committed to being leaders in this space, continuously taking proactive steps to lead the way.

How can we help you?  

No matter the complexity of compliance with the PRI or SFDR, there are common challenges that we can support you with.

1. Defining a policy of responsible investment: The policy must consider the fund’s impact on ESG factors and establishing data points to measure and track positive impact according to the goals set.
2. Data collection: While it may seem straightforward, data collection is not standardised across markets and countries so the sophistication and resource availability of portfolio companies to stream up the data sets can vary considerably.
3. Regulation and investor demand: With both evolving rapidly, our clients often lack the internal ESG resources to stay compliant therefore relying on Belasko to keep them informed.

We have developed an end-to-end solution in partnership with Terra Instinct to power auditable data collection. Terra Instinct are specialists when it comes to defining policy and collecting and validating data, as well as providing reasonable industry estimates where data is not available. The expertise of advisory specialists is crucial in ensuring data quality, which, in turn, ensures accurate and reliable reporting for investors.

Moving forward

It’s evident that ESG is here to stay, with a growing market expectation for sustainability considerations in both our personal and business lives. Adopting positive-impact principles is essential for future success.

If you’re looking to prepare for the future of ESG, get in touch with Ross Youngs at [email protected].

[1] Preqin, “ESG in Alternatives 2024” [Source: https://www.preqin.com/insights/research/reports/esg-in-alternatives-2024?chapter=sample]

[2] Preqin, “ESG in Alternatives 2024” [Source: https://www.preqin.com/insights/research/reports/esg-in-alternatives-2024?chapter=sample]

Nick McHardy, our Head of Funds, recently shared his insights on enhancing performance by developing and improving operating models in our ‘Outsourced Models are Changing’ series. As a refresh, you can read back over those articles here:

1. A response to marketing conditions
2. Four value drivers that underpin an operating model review
3. Considerations when changing your operating model
4. Same scope of services, different outcome

Across the four articles, we covered the evolving nature of outsourced models in the private capital fund industry, emphasising the current need for fund managers and general partners (GPs) to reassess their outsourcing arrangements due to market conditions, technological advancements, and changing investor expectations.

Historically, significant adjustments to outsourcing models have coincided with market downturns, such as the post-Global Financial Crisis era. Today, challenging fundraising conditions and the emergence of alternative service providers with advanced technology and tailored services are prompting another wave of operating model reviews.

Key value drivers for reviewing and potentially changing operating models include cost reduction, operational effectiveness, risk management, and enhancing the investor experience. Fund managers have two main routes: insourcing activities previously outsourced or increasing their existing level of outsourcing.

Critical considerations in this process include regulatory permissions, expertise and resourcing, opportunity costs, systems and data strategy, risk management, relationship dynamics with service providers, contractual obligations, and the timeframe for onboarding additional services.

As we conclude the series, it’s clear that even without changing the scope of outsourced services, fund managers can achieve improved outcomes through tender processes, feedback mechanisms, and technology solutions. Ultimately, adapting outsourced models can enhance performance, reduce costs, and improve service quality, making it potentially beneficial to switch to a new fund administrator in order to achieve long-term growth.

Belasko offer tailored, full scope fund administration, focused on delivering the highest quality solutions across the entire fund lifecycle and across multiple asset classes. We’ve worked closely with our clients on developing and improving their operating models to enhance their performance. If you’d like to discuss further, get in touch with Nick McHardy, Group Head of Funds at [email protected].

In today’s evolving financial landscape, private capital fund managers and general partners (GPs) face increasing pressures to enhance performance, reduce costs, and manage risks effectively.

Outsourced models have long been a cornerstone of the private capital fund industry, offering solutions to these challenges. However, market dynamics, technological advancements, and changing investor expectations are driving a need to re-evaluate existing outsourcing arrangements.

Download our new whitepaper which addresses the pressing question: Is now the time to upgrade from your existing fund administrator?

Here, we delve into:

• Responding to marketing conditions
• The four value drivers that underpin an operating model review
• Considerations when changing your outsourced model
• Key benefits of changing your fund administrator – it’s easier than you think!

You’ll also discover why clients of ours, including Syntaxis, Riverside Capital, RTP, RCapital and Apera, have all made the seamless transition to Belasko – and why they’ve never looked back…

If you’d like to discuss how we can simplify administration solutions for your business, get in touch.

Belasko’s Chief Commercial Officer, Ross Youngs, recently worked with the British Private Equity and Venture Capital and Association (BVCA) to support their Accelerate conference aimed at providing advice and guidance to the UK’s venture capital community, those raising funds to deploy across Seed and Series A as well as innovative start-up companies seeking funding. Both communities have something in common – they’re searching for the minimum viable product. Ben Cocoracchio, a fund formation partner at Addleshaw Goddard, was also in attendance and we’ve teamed up to share our views on the key considerations for determining the minimum viable product for an emerging venture capital manager.

Introduction

If you’d have asked what MVP was a few years ago, the answer would have been Most Valuable Player with Kobe, MJ and Lebron first springing to mind.  However, having worked with our venture capital client community, it has become clear that finding the ‘minimum viable product’ serves as a critical success factor for first time fund managers and portfolio companies.

But, as an emerging venture capital manager, what key factors should you look out for to determine the minimum viable product (MVP)?

Right-sizing your fund

A very common struggle for first-time venture capital funds (VCs) is deciding on an appropriate fund size. This is a delicate balancing act between choosing a fund size that can be realistically raised while also making sure the size is appropriate for the investment thesis.

“When right-sizing their fund, first-time VCs really need to think through the construction of their target portfolio, i.e., what cheque size they’re aiming for, how many investments will they make and how much capital they want to reserve for follow-ons” says Cocoracchio. “It’s also important to think about fundraising dynamics – can the VC raise a decent portion of the fund size at the first closing (which is crucial to build momentum)? Does the proposed fund size rule out certain investors (e.g., institutional investors find it hard to commit to smaller funds)?”.

When VCs are seeking to raise their first fund, there’s generally considered to be a minimum fund raise to power the investment platform for the duration of the investment or divestment programme.   It’s very challenging to make the economics work below a certain size of fund, particularly when it comes to covering staff overheads and operating costs over the life of the fund. But so-called “micro funds” are successfully being launched, it just takes a degree of nimbleness, creativity, and compromise.

Choosing the right jurisdiction

A reputable well-regulated jurisdiction is essential to provide comfort that an investor’s capital is adequately safeguarded by regulation, but choosing the right fund jurisdiction involves considering a multitude of different factors.

“In the emerging manager space, we typically see clients favouring the simplicity, investor familiarity and speed-to-market of Channel Islands and UK, with European domiciles being reserved for situations where particular investors demand a European structure or, if needed, to market in some of the trickier European jurisdictions”, says Cocoracchio.

At Belasko, we see a similar trend and the factors cited for this leading share are the familiarity for European and US investors, lower cost and being less administratively burdensome than popular European domiciles.

Standardising the term sheet

Raising capital is a time consuming and intensive process, often lasting between 12-24 months (or longer!). For emerging mangers in particular, any deviation from what investors perceive as “market standard terms” runs a very real risk of adding friction to the fundraising process.

In developing their MVP, emerging managers would do well not to stray too far off-piste with the terms of their fund and to really focus on what’s important to executing their fund strategy. For example, some fund terms are still fairly standard (e.g., most venture funds in the market have a life span of 10 years, an investment period of around five years and for the fundraising to be concluded within 12 months of first close).

Interestingly, new themes noted in Addleshaw Goddard’s Spotlight on Venture Capital Report highlight a range of approaches being taken by VCs when it comes to calculating management fees and carried interest. “These “premium fund terms” can have a material economic impact – but they’re of no use if they deter investors and prevent the fund from being launched”, says Cocoracchio.

Fund administration: finding the right fit

There are lot of options available to new managers to raise a fund such as:

• Full tech automated solutions: Low-cost base but rigid self-service solution.
• Boutique customisable administration: Experienced staff supported by technology.
• Global administration brands: Multi country standardised service models often with centralised resources that use industry standard technology.

As a first-time fund manager, working with an experienced fund administrator can add real value to fundraising and day to day running. They can ensure the investor experience is seamless, provide guidance and support on the expected reporting and can provide the flexibility and agility to accommodate the ad-hoc nature and complexity of venture capital along with shorter deal cycles. By applying a goldilocks approach in the detailed due diligence performed when selecting your administrator will ensure you find just the right blend of cost and quality.

Building a strong team

Every fund launch requires a strong team. The venture capital market is a tight nit community and selecting an experienced team of service providers will add value the credibility to the fund offering and ensure that terms and structures are not over-complicated, and costs are carefully managed.

“When it comes to working with first-time managers, the key for us is to use our collective experience to provide the simplest solutions with the greatest impact – no over-engineering and no unnecessary (expensive) bells and whistles”, says Cocoracchio.

MVP: the foundation of venture success

The concept of seeking an MVP transcends beyond the start-up realm and becomes a vital baseline for emerging venture capital fund managers. It serves as a tangible checkpoint, ensuring that resources are effectively utilised, risks are mitigated, and paves the way for sustainable growth and for leveraging innovation from the venture capital ecosystem.

Belasko works with first time and experienced venture capital fund managers across the Channel Islands and Luxembourg. We provide tailored, full scope administration services, underpinned by expertise and technology solutions to provide the perfect MVP in venture capital. Get in touch with Ross Youngs ([email protected]) to learn more.

Addleshaw Goddard is an international law firm, whose private funds team advises a broad range of managers (from first time managers to established global institutions) on both onshore and offshore fund mandates, across all sectors including venture capital and private equity. Addleshaw Goddard’s Spotlight on Venture Capital Report and Funds Trends Report are available here.

Ross Youngs, Chief Commerical Officer, Belasko
Ben Coccorracchio, Partner, Addleshaw Goddard

In this final article of our series, we turn our attention to the possibility of achieving your objectives from an operating model review and in doing so a different outcome to the current setup whilst maintaining the same scope of services for your outsourcing arrangements.

Throughout this series, we have covered how managers are responding to market conditions through reviewing their operating models and outsourcing arrangements, the four value drivers that underpin an operating model review, and the key considerations when changing the scope of services outsourced.

Now, we explore whether meaningful improvements can be realised without altering the outsourced scope of services.

Running a tender process

Running a tender process to validate pricing levels or empirically support a reduction. Apply caution to significantly lower pricing because new providers won’t understand the requirements in the same way as your existing service provider(s).

Following a robust process and having a consistent methodology is key to reducing the time on your team to run a process, for example the BVCA[1] provides a template for running a Request for Proposal (RfP) for fund administration services that could be requested from a tendering party.

Feedback and service improvement monitoring

Any material outsourced provider, particularly your fund administrator should have a mechanism in place for feedback to be provided. If there isn’t one, request one is setup and identify areas of improvement well ahead of time to ensure the best possible outcome.

Once the meeting is held, there should be a reporting mechanism agreed whereby the service provider can demonstrate whether they’ve met the agreed service improvements requested and/or explain the action they’re taking.

The stronger the relationship, the more this type of meeting will be encouraged particularly if there’s an opportunity to champion examples of outperformance.

Technology

Are there technology solutions that can be deployed to achieve your objective(s) whether cost reduction, operational efficacy, risk reduction or an improved investor experience?

These solutions may be available under your current service provider(s) or may some direct require investment.

Recap

In this ‘Outsourced Models are Changing’ series, we hope we’ve emphasised how adapting and evolving your outsourced models can enhance performance, ensuring that your business remains responsive to changing market conditions and are partnered with the best outsourced providers to meet operational demands. Maintaining a balance between cost, quality, and strategic alignment is key to deriving maximum value from your outsourcing arrangements.

Belasko offer tailored, full scope fund administration, focused on delivering the highest quality solutions across the entire fund lifecycle and across multiple asset classes. We’ve worked closely with our clients on developing and improving their operating models to enhance their performance. If you’d like to discuss further, get in touch with Nick McHardy, Group Head of Funds at [email protected].

[1] bvca.co.uk/policy/Industry-Guidance-Standardised-Documents/RFP-for-Fund-Administration-Services