This interview was originally published in the PFCFO's 2025 Future of Fund Services report.
With LPs demanding faster, more transparent reporting, technology is no longer optional – it’s essential. As investors shift to seeking on-demand, detailed reporting from private equity managers, Christine Egbert, Juniper Square general manager of fund administration, and Dorota Kowalski, senior director of fund accounting, describe the role of technology in providing fund administration services of the future at scale and speed.
Q. How have LP demands around GP reporting escalated over the past five years?
Christine Egbert: LPs definitely require more granular and transparent reporting, but the biggest change has been the demand for accelerated reporting. Three to five years ago it would have been OK to have a 60-day reporting period, but every year the expectation goes up. It is now standard to see 45-day reporting, with some clients pushing for reporting within 30 days. For some asset classes it is possible to adjust relatively easily, but for others with more complex structures, it takes more work and resources.
As the whole industry makes this shift, the availability of on-demand data will increasingly become an expectation among LPs who are looking for more than the ability to pick up PDFs of capital account statements and quarterly reports from more static investor portals.
Dorota Kowalski: LPs are much more sophisticated and as their private market portfolios have grown, so have their regulatory and compliance obligations. They are investing large sums in GP programs and want to feel looked after. This has made direct access to data more and more important for LPs. They want dynamic tools that provide direct data access and allow them to run real-time analytics without relying on GPs for every request.
Q. How are GPs managing to meet rising LP expectations?
DK: Legacy processes and outdated technology are making it harder than ever for GPs to scale effectively. Most GPs are modernizing infrastructure, automating processes and enhancing data management to address evolving LP expectations. But for most GPs, the investment required to complete a back-ofÏce upgrade on their own is prohibitive. It is a heavy lift to overhaul operating models and build data platforms and automation tools in-house from scratch, which means more GPs are opting to outsource.
CE: Fund managers seeking to scale their back ofÏce effectively at the right cost will increasingly look for third-party support. They realize it is the most efÏcient option for updating technology and back-ofÏce infrastructure to the new level required, and at a pace that matches the accelerating speed of the industry and continued technology innovation. Outsourcing can feel like losing control over data and reporting. The right fund administrator with a technology mindset eliminates that concern with real-time transparency and visibility, giving GPs confidence in their operations.
Q. How comfortable are LPs with GPs outsourcing increasing volumes of back-office work to third parties?
DK: When a GP decides to work with a service provider, LPs expect service providers to maintain strict internal controls, adhere to compliance standards and seamlessly support both the GP and investor base. In our experience, if the GP has selected the right provider, then LPs will welcome the decision to outsource.
CE: LPs welcome the idea of outsourcing when there is common alignment and because it helps to improve reporting quality and transparency, as well as provides independent verification of data and compliance. Ultimately, LPs are looking for a level of institutional maturity from a GP’s back ofÏce, whether that is an internal team or a partner that the GP works with to support their fund administration function.
Q. Where is the industry headed in adopting bespoke, proprietary technology versus a “best-of-breed” technology option?
CE: While proprietary technology does offer the benefit of customization, it is very costly. Alternatively, best-of-breed solutions deliver institutional-grade technology that offers robust functionality and allows flexibility.
It is worth remembering that there is a big difference between an institutional-grade technology product that carries recognized quality assurance that has been developed by a specialized provider compared to something that’s built in-house by a GP that doesn’t spend all their time thinking about technology solutions and may not have the same rigorous level of quality assurance.
In addition, in-house technology development leaves managers reliant on team members who build that technology, which poses problems if people leave. When you opt for institutional-grade technology, you’re getting an infrastructure that supports that platform, as well as continuous revenue advancements to invest further in the technology, which is critical as technology is evolving so rapidly. It is very difficult to adapt quickly and optimize investments if you build your IT infrastructure yourself.
DK: We’re focusing our technology development resources on how we can move data in and out more efficiently while connecting software and services in a new way that delivers a truly integrated private markets investing experience. Our teams are continually innovating as the industry evolves, helping our GP customers reduce operational burdens and achieve greater efficiency.
Q: What’s the role of Artificial Intelligence in future back-officeback office improvements?
CE: Understanding data and having a platform in place to structure and access data effectively is essential not only to meet rising investor expectations, but also to take advantage of the opportunities presented by AI to drive back-ofÏce efÏciency.
Firms will need to have a solid foundation in place to harness AI and it will be difÏcult for those that are not as technologically advanced in the back ofÏce, even at a fundamental level, to do so.