It’s Time Private Equity Held Its Fiduciary Partners to a Higher Standard
Austerus Consultancy | Private Equity | Fiduciary Partners | May 2026
The service model underpinning fund administration and fiduciary provision has not kept pace with the sophistication of today's private equity structures. Austerus believes the industry can — and must — do better.
Private equity has never been more structurally complex, more globally distributed, or more scrutinised by regulators and investors alike. And yet the fiduciary and fund administration services that underpin GP operations continue to be delivered through frameworks that, in many respects, have not materially evolved in a decade. Inconsistent fee structures, reflexive onboarding charges, and service models that treat shared and direct vehicle structures as afterthoughts are now a meaningful drag on operational efficiency — and, frankly, a source of avoidable friction with LPs.
At Austerus, we work with GPs across the full lifecycle of fund formation, administration, and investor relations. What we observe repeatedly is not incompetence on the part of fiduciary providers — it is misalignment. The standard service model was built for a more homogeneous fund landscape. It has been stretched, patched, and re-priced without being fundamentally rethought. The result is a set of arrangements that serve neither the GP nor its investors as well as they should.
This is not a minor operational concern. For funds with complex multi-jurisdictional structures, these frictions compound. They affect deal timelines, LP reporting cycles, and ultimately the credibility of the GP's operational platform in the eyes of sophisticated investors conducting operational due diligence.
"The sophistication of the capital you manage deserves a fiduciary framework built for the structures you actually run — not the structures that were common fifteen years ago."
01 — Broaden the Scope: Shared and Direct Structures Deserve First-Class Treatment
A persistent blind spot in many fiduciary service agreements is the treatment of co-investment and direct deal vehicles — particularly those formed in the Cayman Islands and Dublin, the two dominant jurisdictions for PE fund formation and parallel structures. While flagship closed-end funds typically receive comprehensive service coverage, the Cayman exempted limited partnerships, Dublin-domiciled ICAVs, and SPVs established for specific transactions are too often treated as secondary engagements, with curtailed service levels and inconsistent governance support.
This matters enormously in practice. Cayman structures, whether serving as blocker entities, co-investment vehicles, or feeder funds for US tax-exempt and non-US investors, require the same rigour in director services, regulatory filings, substance maintenance, and annual compliance as the main fund. Dublin-domiciled vehicles — increasingly the jurisdiction of choice for European distribution and AIFMD-compliant structures — carry their own demanding regulatory obligations under the Central Bank of Ireland's framework.
Fiduciary providers must extend genuinely integrated, consistent service coverage to these vehicles. GPs should no longer accept arrangements in which ancillary structures are treated as bolt-on engagements with sub-standard governance support. The vehicle type should not determine the quality of service. The obligation — to the fund, to investors, to regulators — is the same.
02 — Standardise the Fee Model: Consistency Is Not a Luxury
Fee architecture across fiduciary and fund administration providers is, to put it diplomatically, inconsistent. Hourly rates, fixed annual retainers, asset-based schedules, hybrid models, and bespoke arrangements proliferate across even single-provider relationships. When a GP manages a flagship fund alongside three co-investment vehicles and a GP entity, it is not uncommon to find four different pricing methodologies operating simultaneously — each with its own invoice cycle, scope carve-outs, and escalation clauses.
This is untenable. It creates administrative overhead, makes cost allocation across vehicles unnecessarily complex, and introduces the kind of opacity that LP finance teams and fund auditors are increasingly unwilling to accept. More fundamentally, it signals that the provider has not taken the time to understand the GP's structure holistically and price it accordingly.
The standard should be a unified, transparent fee schedule applied consistently across all vehicles under administration, with clearly defined scope and clear mechanisms for agreed variation where genuine complexity warrants it. Providers who cannot offer this level of structural coherence in their own commercial arrangements are unlikely to deliver it in their governance and reporting services either.
03 — Eliminate Onboarding Fees for New Engagements Within Existing Relationships
Perhaps no practice in the current fiduciary service model is more difficult to justify than the imposition of onboarding fees each time a new vehicle is established under an existing relationship. A GP that forms a new co-investment SPV — a routine occurrence in an active PE programme — should not face a fresh onboarding charge simply because the vehicle has a new legal name and a new GIIN.
The rationale typically offered — that each new entity requires a fresh KYC, AML, and onboarding process — has merit in the context of entirely new client relationships. It does not hold when the underlying beneficial ownership, governance structure, investment team, and compliance profile are materially identical to those of existing vehicles already on the provider's books. The incremental cost of bringing a new parallel vehicle into administration within an established relationship is a fraction of the fee charged.
This practice should end. Fiduciary providers who wish to build long-term, partnership-oriented relationships with GPs — and who benefit from the revenue stability those relationships provide — should price for the relationship, not the entity count. New vehicle fees should reflect genuine incremental cost, not a recurring extraction on normal fund operations.
04 — Rationalise Promoter Obligation Fees: Core Duties Are Not Optional Add-Ons
A related concern is the treatment of promoter and obligor fees — the charges levied for services that are, in substance, basic regulatory and governance obligations. In Irish-domiciled structures in particular, the duties associated with the promoter role are substantive and clearly defined under CBI authorisation conditions. They are not optional. They are not discretionary. They are foundational to the fund's legal and regulatory standing.
And yet these obligations are frequently itemised and priced as if they were premium services — add-ons for which the GP should be grateful, rather than baseline duties that the provider is contracted to fulfil. The fee structures attached to these roles have, in a number of cases, been allowed to drift upward without commensurate change in scope or complexity.
Austerus recommends that GPs undertake a structured review of their promoter and obligor fee arrangements — benchmarking against current market norms, scrutinising scope definitions, and where appropriate, renegotiating to reflect the reality that these are standard professional obligations, not bespoke premium services. Providers should be held to clear, documented deliverables for every line item.
Austerus Recommendations — Summary
- Require integrated, consistent fiduciary coverage for Cayman and Dublin-domiciled vehicles at the same service standard as flagship funds — structure type should not determine service quality.
- Insist on a unified, transparent fee schedule across all vehicles within a provider relationship, with clearly documented scope and consistent application.
- Reject onboarding fees for new vehicles within an existing GP relationship where beneficial ownership and compliance profile are materially unchanged.
- Conduct a structured benchmark review of promoter and obligor fee arrangements; renegotiate where pricing has drifted beyond reasonable market rates for defined baseline obligations.
- Build regular service and fee reviews into every fiduciary agreement — at minimum annually — with documented deliverables against which performance can be assessed.
05 — Provider Landscape: Share Trustee & Director Services
For GPs evaluating their current arrangements or forming new vehicles, the following firms are among the principal providers of share trustee and independent director services in the Cayman Islands and Dublin respectively. This is a reference landscape, not an endorsement — the quality of engagement, fee consistency, and service integration across vehicle types should be assessed independently by each firm.
🇰🇾 Cayman Islands
Share trustee and independent director services for Cayman exempted limited partnerships, exempted companies, unit trusts, SPVs, and co-investment vehicles. All firms below are active in private equity and alternative fund structures regulated by CIMA.
Maples Group (MaplesFS) — Full-service fiduciary, fund administration, and independent director services. One of the largest providers in the jurisdiction with deep PE and co-investment vehicle expertise.
Ogier Global — Specialist director and trustee services across PE, hedge, real estate, and SPV structures. Dedicated unit trust trustee capability with particular strength in Japanese-market vehicles.
Intertrust Group (CSC) — Director services, registered office, and corporate administration following merger with CSC Global. Focused on financial firms, global corporations, and private wealth structures.
JTC Group — Corporate, trustee, and administration services for PE and alternative fund structures. Active across fund establishment, registrar, and investor services in Cayman.
Ocorian — Trustee and agency support, SPV administration, and fund services from Grand Cayman. Individual director appointments and corporate trustee services across a broad range of structures.
Trident Trust — Corporate and trust administration with specialist PE and venture capital expertise. Active in digital asset structures as well as traditional closed-ended fund vehicles.
Conyers (Conyers Corporate Services) — Corporate services and fiduciary support spanning the full range of CIMA-registered structures, with established relationships across hedge, PE, and infrastructure funds.
🇮🇪 Dublin, Ireland
Share trustee and independent director services for ICAVs, Irish Investment Limited Partnerships (ILPs), unit trusts, and Section 110 vehicles. All firms below are CBI-authorised or regulated and active in AIFMD-compliant PE structures.
Maples Group (Dublin) — Legal and fiduciary services for Irish-domiciled funds including ICAVs and ILPs. Offices at North Wall Quay, Dublin with integrated Cayman–Ireland structuring capability.
IQ-EQ Ireland — AIFM, fund management, and trustee services from Dublin Docklands. IQ-EQ Trustee Services (Ireland) Limited provides share trustee and depositary-lite services for qualifying AIFs and ILPs.
Ocorian (Ireland) — AIFM solutions, fund administration, and corporate services for QIAIFs and regulated AIFs. Supports ICAVs, ILPs, and co-investment structures with CBI-authorised management company services.
JTC Group (Ireland) — Fund establishment, domiciliation, and administration services for Irish-domiciled structures. Advises on ILP and ICAV vehicle selection for PE and real assets managers accessing European markets.
Aztec Group (Ireland) — Independent fund administration and governance services for PE and private credit managers using Irish structures. Strong focus on LP reporting and regulatory compliance for AIFs.
Vistra (Ireland) — Fund domiciliation, share trustee, and corporate services for UCITS and AIF structures. Experienced across unit trust trustee appointments and ICAV governance frameworks.
Ogier (Ireland) — Legal and fiduciary services for Irish-domiciled funds. Irish office supports cross-border structuring alongside Cayman and offshore engagements for PE managers with multi-jurisdiction platforms.
GPs are encouraged to request scope-specific fee proposals from any shortlisted provider and to apply the benchmarking standards set out in this paper — particularly around onboarding fees, promoter obligation pricing, and consistency of coverage across parallel vehicles.
06 — A Call for Partnership, Not Procurement
None of what Austerus advocates here is adversarial. The best fiduciary and fund administration relationships in private equity are genuine partnerships — ones in which the provider understands the GP's strategy, anticipates the structural needs of each new fund cycle, and prices its services in a way that reflects long-term mutual value rather than transactional extraction.
Those relationships exist. GPs who have found them will attest to the operational and reputational dividend they generate — cleaner LP reporting, smoother regulatory examinations, faster vehicle formation timelines, and a level of governance credibility that holds up under the scrutiny of institutional investors conducting operational due diligence.
The standards outlined here are not aspirational. They are achievable today, from providers who are willing to build commercially and operationally coherent service models. GPs should expect nothing less, and should be prepared to restructure relationships with providers who cannot meet them.
Austerus works with private equity general partners on fund operational strategy, fiduciary provider selection and benchmarking, and LP reporting frameworks. If your firm is reviewing its current fiduciary and administration arrangements, we welcome the conversation.
Austerus Consultancy — Fund Operations Advisory
