From both a regulatory and risk management perspective, the NAV lies at the heart of the investment management industry. Yet, against a backdrop of increasingly complex investment fund strategies, shortening settlement cycles, diverse regulatory regimes, and reliance on multiple third parties, how can firms best adapt their approach to NAV calculation and oversight? “When you reflect on it, NAVs really are critical to investors, investment managers, and regulators,” says Adrian Whelan, BBH global head of market intelligence. “Accurate NAVs are essential for investor buy or sell orders, performance benchmarking, and for calculation of fund fees. Firms must demonstrate their effective oversight and calculation, even where NAV production is conducted by a third party.

“This responsibility comes as rising portfolio sophistication, increased trading volumes, and speed of NAV delivery to global distribution chains have material impacts on oversight model efficiency.”

According to Waystone head of fund operations oversight and country manager for Ireland, Ollie Walsh, the picture is influenced by the increasingly global nature of the business. “We are seeing more and more global or cross-jurisdictional clients wanting to consolidate their service providers and have just one point of cross-border, cross-product support,” he says.

“Increasingly, clients seek a consolidated global service offering. Yet respecting the different regulatory nuances in jurisdictions such as the UK, Ireland, and Luxembourg is also extremely important.”

Automation ambitions

In an evolving asset servicing business, technology is key. Yet Alpha FMC senior partner Caoimhe Munif believes steps to fully automate NAV calculation and oversight remain some way off.

In fact, Alpha FMC’s annual Global Operations Survey shows a gulf between plans to automate and execution on those endeavors. In 2022, 38% of industry teams said they wanted to automate areas such as NAV production, but the 2025 survey found only 19% were doing so.

Many companies, she says, still rely on manual processes such as spreadsheet calculation to strike NAVs, complicating any oversight.

“While the ambition to become fully automated is there, we know that our industry still has a lot of spreadsheets flying around, with many firms relying on what is now quite outdated and potentially error prone technology. That said, in an increasingly complex market people do realize spreadsheet technology is neither robust nor scalable,” she says.

Walsh believes the investment industry is moving closer towards a zero-tolerance style environment where accuracy of fund valuations is ever more important. In this world, NAV oversight could play a valuable role in underpinning accounting accuracy.

“No matter where investors are located or what they are invested in they simply want accuracy in their NAVs. Investors want to know where they stand and have a consolidated view of how much their assets are worth. The last thing they want to hear about is any accounting errors or complications,” he adds.

With an increasing proliferation of funds across jurisdictions, Walsh says centralized data gathering is becoming increasingly important.

“Our task is to consolidate the gathering of information and report it back in a meaningful manner so it can be interrogated by the regulated entity on site in any jurisdiction the investor operates in.”

The ownership question

In turn, Whelan notes the allocation of NAV oversight responsibilities can fall across a range of parties, including fund administrators, local management companies, and depositories. Whelan also wonders if this risks blurring the understanding of the allocation of respective responsibilities.

For Munif, the ultimate line of responsibility is absolutely clear. “While investment managers can outsource activities such as NAV Calculation and oversight, they cannot outsource their accountability. While many parties may be involved in administering aspects of a fund, investment firms know that they own and are ultimately responsible for NAV production,” she says.

While European regulators place the ultimate responsibility on management companies and AIFMs, Walsh adds that fund administrators can and do play a key role in the valuation process and can often provide useful additional NAV oversight.

“The fact valuations can be tested and given additional scrutiny is healthy and can give an extra layer of certainty that oversight has been conducted in an appropriate manner,” he says.

Realistic assessment

According to Munif quality data and its effective use are key to managing the NAV and NAV oversight processes. Yet she believes companies must also be honest about their technological strengths and shortcomings.

“We talk a lot about data and technology but there is a more fundamental point. Being honest about where your NAV oversight is today with the governance committees that you have and the boards you deal with is key.”

“Looking at how much valuation work is done manually and what data sources you are stitching together to conduct reconciliations can help redefine what NAV oversight means to you and how you can improve the valuation and oversight process,” she concludes.

Ultimately, it’s critical for asset managers, management companies, and service providers to have accurate NAV data to protect investors and to fulfill their oversight obligations. Managers need a NAV oversight solution that is less manual, error-prone, and resource-intensive.