The Asset Manager’s Dilemma: When Consultant Database Reporting Becomes Self-Managed

Automation has improved data collection, streamlined consultant database submissions, and reduced the administrative burden on asset managers.

But recently another shift has begun to emerge.

Some reporting providers are transitioning away from service-driven models toward pure software platforms, where managers are expected to submit and manage their own database reporting through self-service tools and support queues.

Automation can be extremely valuable. However, consultant database reporting has always been more than a submission process. It is an ongoing exercise in data and informational governance, oversight, and accuracy.

When that oversight disappears, issues often go unnoticed.

At IMSS, we frequently conduct independent reporting audits for investment managers. These reviews often reveal problems that have existed for months—or sometimes years—without the manager realizing it.

Common issues include:

• Historical performance records that do not accurately align with strategy updates.

• Firm & strategy data missing from consultant databases.

• Incorrect profile definitions that impact the universe a strategy falls under.

• Inconsistent reporting fields across platforms i.e. strategy/vehicle names.

• Legacy database subscriptions still being billed following acquisitions.

• Incomplete or outdated manager profiles that affect search visibility.
  

None of these issues typically arise from negligence. Most managers assume their reporting process is working as expected.

But when the process becomes entirely self-managed, problems can accumulate quietly.

This matters because consultant databases are not simply repositories of information. They are primary tools used by institutional consultants and allocators when screening managers during investment searches. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting can reduce visibility or create questions about the underlying information.

Technology can streamline data handling, but software alone cannot evaluate whether reporting remains consistent across dozens of databases, whether historical data aligns with strategy changes, or whether certain databases are still relevant following industry consolidation.

That level of oversight requires experience.

At IMSS, our approach combines automation with hands-on reporting expertise. Our team reviews submissions, validates data consistency, monitors database changes, and helps ensure that manager information remains accurate across the consultant database landscape.

Increasingly, managers are asking IMSS for independent reporting audits simply to confirm that everything is working as expected.

In many cases, these reviews uncover small issues that can be corrected quickly. In others, they reveal gaps that may have been affecting a manager’s visibility for some time.

As consultant database reporting continues to evolve, technology will play an increasingly important role. But successful reporting will still depend on something that software alone cannot provide: expert oversight and accountability.

For managers unsure whether their reporting process is capturing these details, an independent review can provide valuable clarity.

Sometimes the most important question is simply:

Who is actually managing your consultant database reporting?

Contact IMSS to learn how we review and audit your data for accuracy in support of an optimized reporting strategy and support you through every step.