Where this gets hard

Across a portfolio the work is not harder than it is for one fund. It is the same work, many times over, and it has to come out different each time.

The assessment lands with you

Funds outsource their business risk assessment to their administrator. You are appointed to perform the obligations, so the assessment is yours to produce and yours to stand behind, at every fund you administer.

One is judgement. A portfolio is production

At a single fund, tailoring the assessment is a piece of senior work. Across a portfolio, the only manual route that fits is one document with the names changed, and a document like that is worth less at every fund it covers.

They are not as alike as they look

Same jurisdiction, same structure, same service set, and still different: different investors, different asset classes, different delegates, different appointed parties. The differences are the part that has to be written down.

The question comes one fund at a time

Not how the portfolio is handled. What this fund does, what risk it carries, and what you concluded about it.

What a per-fund position rests on

Each fund gets its own run. The three things that make a run specific to one fund are things you already hold.

The standing is already yours

Someone has to approve each fund’s company profile: the record of what that fund does, which is what relevance is read against. Your appointment is what gives you the standing to do it: you are appointed to perform that fund’s AML obligations, down to appointing its MLCO and MLRO. The per-fund profile is not extra work we invented. It is the written form of what you already carry.

Relevance is read for the fund, not the portfolio

The company profile that fund approves says what it does. Its business risk assessment says what risk it carries. The national risk assessment says what the jurisdiction says about that risk. All three feed what GapSure puts in front of you for that fund, and what it sets aside as not relevant to it.

“Not relevant” is a result you can show

On one organisation’s run, 708 of 3,367 obligations were set aside as not applicable. The model read each one against the company profile that organisation had approved, and judged it not relevant to what they do. None of the 708 failed, and none was checked against the policies. At one fund that is a convenience. Across a portfolio of near-identical funds it is the difference between a position per fund and many copies of one document.

One fund at a time, by design

Each fund sits in GapSure as its own organisation, with its own company profile and its own policy set, and you move between them. There is no single screen that shows the portfolio at once. That is the point: what you can put in front of an examiner is a position for that fund, not an aggregate.

The record is per fund

Every gap, every systems-generated improvement and every decision your team took is recorded for that fund: the reasoning on each row of its mapping report, and who changed and accepted what in its activity record.

Start with one fund

Pick one fund you administer. Its policy set goes in, with that fund’s company profile and its business risk assessment. You read what comes back for that fund: the gaps, the improvements, and what was set aside as not relevant to it. Then the next fund: the same work, a different answer.

What you get back, per fund
  • ✓ Gaps found against verified knowledge
  • ✓ Coverage scored: Comprehensive to None
  • ✓ Systems-generated procedure improvements
  • ✓ Stronger procedures, reviewed & accepted
  • ✓ Its mapping report and its activity record
What stays with you
  • ✓ The company profile each fund approves
  • ✓ The decision on every improvement
  • ✓ The procedures themselves, yours to keep
  • ✓ Responsibility for the obligations. Govix supports the work; your firm and the fund remain responsible

Find gaps. Close them. Prove it.

See what GapSure returns for one fund before you decide anything about the rest.