Fund migrations — the process of moving a fund's administration from one platform or provider to another — are often viewed as last-resort operational fixes. In practice, they are strategic infrastructure decisions that can materially improve how a firm operates, scales, and serves its limited partners.
At AngelList, we have spent over a decade supporting venture firms with tech-enabled back-office infrastructure, from fund formation and ongoing fund management to distributions. More recently, we have expanded that support to help established funds migrate onto the AngelList platform for white-glove support and increased reporting accuracy. Through this work, we have seen that while migrations can feel complex, the right preparation, technology, and partners can make them far more manageable than many GPs expect.
To unpack when migrations make sense and how to approach them thoughtfully, I sat down with Matt DiNardo, Founder and CFO Consultant at Satori CFO LLC, and Conor Queenan, Director of Financial Accounting at Belltower Fund Group. Together, they bring both strategic and execution-level perspectives on how GPs can navigate fund migrations in a way that minimizes disruption and sets their firm up for long-term success.
Key Takeaways
Fund migrations are strategic infrastructure decisions: While often triggered by operational issues, migrations have long-term implications for how a firm operates and scales.
Timing matters as much as intent: Migrations require significant internal involvement, making periods like audits, fundraising, or major transactions poor times to switch.
LP communication should be clear and measured: Setting expectations early and explaining the rationale for change helps preserve trust and minimize confusion.
A well-run migration fades into the background: When the transition is successful, fund administration stops consuming GP attention and allows teams to refocus on investing.
The following conversation has been edited for clarity and length. You can find the full webinar recording here.
What drives fund migrations, and how do GPs know when it's time?
Matt: The most common reason is simply outgrowing your current provider. As funds grow in size and complexity, the technology or level of support that worked early on may no longer be sufficient.
Conor: Signals vary, but they usually come down to a mismatch between what the GP needs and what the administrator is delivering. That might show up as repeated reporting errors, slow turnaround times, poor responsiveness, or excessive manual work for the GP’s internal team.
What tradeoffs do GPs tend to underestimate before migrating?
Conor: The biggest tradeoff is internal time commitment. Depending on the fund’s vintage and transaction volume, migrations can involve reviewing and clarifying historical activity so the new administrator has full context.
That said, this is often a one-time investment that simplifies operations and reporting over the long term.
Matt: On the LP side, there can also be a learning curve. LPs may need to adapt to a new portal or reporting format, but with clear communication and planning, that adjustment is usually straightforward.
What questions should GPs ask themselves before evaluating new providers?
Matt: Before going to market, GPs should get clear on why they want to migrate. Is this a recurring pattern or a one-off issue? What outcomes are they actually trying to improve?
It’s also important to assess internal readiness. Who will own the process, and does the team have the capacity to support a transition? Clarity upfront makes the rest of the process much smoother.
What does a well-run migration actually look like in practice?
Conor: A successful migration starts with strong planning and coordination from day one. That includes a clear project plan, defined milestones, and regular check-ins so everyone stays aligned.
When possible, running systems in parallel for a short period can reduce risk. After the migration, reconciling closing balances from the prior administrator with opening balances at the new one helps ensure continuity and accuracy.
How should GPs communicate a migration to LPs?
Matt: The goal is to strike a balance between under- and over-communicating. LPs should understand what is changing, when it’s happening, and how it affects them.
Explaining the rationale at a high level, whether that’s better service, improved technology, or greater efficiency, helps reinforce that the change is being made thoughtfully and with LPs’ interests in mind.
How should GPs evaluate whether a migration was successful?
Conor: A few months after the transition, GPs should revisit the original reasons for migrating. Are reporting issues resolved? Is the internal workload reduced? Are LPs getting what they need more efficiently?
Matt: Often the best indicator is that fund administration stops taking up mental energy. When it fades into the background, that’s usually a sign the migration worked.
Conclusion
Fund migrations are rarely undertaken lightly, but when done well, they can become a foundational upgrade rather than a source of friction. With the right preparation and infrastructure in place, migrations can be an opportunity to reset operations and build a more scalable back office for the future.
If you’re considering a fund migration, AngelList supports established venture firms with dedicated migration teams, modern technology, and integrated fund administration designed to make transitions easier for both GPs and LPs. You can find the full webinar recording below or connect with an AngelList team member to learn more.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the speakers and may not reflect the views of AngelList or any of its affiliates. This post is not intended to be a recommendation for any investment or other advice of any kind. Past performance is not indicative of future results. An investment in venture funds involves a high degree of risk and is suitable only for sophisticated and qualified accredited investors.
