Every question, including the unflattering ones

Fund administration software that runs the monthly cycle of an open-end investment fund: you enter the balances, flows and costs, and it computes the NAV, the unit price per fee series, the fees and every participant’s value, then produces the statements.

The person who currently closes a fund’s month in a spreadsheet. Typically one administrator or manager, a fund with somewhere between a handful and a few hundred participants, and one to three fee series. It is not built for a fund administrator servicing hundreds of funds.

The Dutch term for the unit price, and the word the app uses throughout. It is computed per fee series each month as the sum of that series’ holder values divided by its units outstanding. New units are issued and redeemed at it.

A share class. It has its own management fee, its own performance fee, its own high-water mark setting, its own launch price and its own koers history. A participant can hold units in more than one, and the monthly calculation applies each series’ own rates.

Yes. Funds sit under an organisation and you can have as many as you like, each with its own series, participants, accounts, settings and reporting language. Each fund is billed separately at 149 euro per month.

Yes, and the monthly close in particular was built to be finished on one. Every screen is responsive, the close is a sequence of short steps rather than one wide table, and the review step fits a phone without horizontal scrolling.

No. It runs in the browser, so there is nothing to install and nothing to update. You can add it to your phone’s home screen if you want it to open like an app.

You need to know your own fund: what the assets were worth at month end, what came in and went out, and what it cost to run. The unit accounting, the fee waterfall and the reconciliation are the parts FundFlow does, and every computed figure can be opened to show how it got there.

One question decides it: do your investors hold units in a pool that you price periodically, or do they hold commitments you draw down over time? Units fit directly. Commitments are not something FundFlow administers, so most closed-end private equity and venture funds are not a fit.

No. There are no commitments, capital calls, drawdown schedules or distribution waterfalls. It is worth establishing that before you spend time on a trial, which is why it is on the private equity and venture capital pages as well.

No. FundFlow values a fund once per calendar month. If your fund deals daily, or your prospectus commits you to a daily price, this is not the right tool for it and no trial will change that.

There is no floor. A fund with eight participants and one series is a normal use of it, and the price does not change with size. The work each month is proportional to the fund: fewer accounts and fewer participants means fewer numbers to enter.

The engine is not the constraint; the shape is. Hundreds of participants across a few series is fine. Thousands of individual investors dealing every day, or a fund that needs member-level administration of its own, belongs in a different class of system.

Yes. Month-end asset values are inputs you provide, whether they come from a broker statement, a valuation report or your own model. Everything downstream is derived from them, so an illiquid fund works the same way as a listed one.

No. It values the fund, not what the fund owns. There is no portfolio-company register, no property or tenancy records and no securities master beyond what a dividend booking needs. You enter asset values and cash flows.

No. It produces no regulatory returns of any kind, and it does not make a fund compliant with anything by itself. It is administration software: the figures it produces are inputs to whatever reporting your fund owes elsewhere.

No, and it is not meant to. What it does is give your accountant figures they can follow: every computed number keeps its inputs and its formula, locked months cannot be edited, and four reconciliations have to pass before a month closes.

Not much. The sixteen pages exist because people search for their own kind of fund, but the question underneath is always the same one about units against commitments. If your investors hold units and you price monthly, it fits regardless of what the fund calls itself.

Five steps. Enter the closing balance of each bank and broker account, confirm the deposits and withdrawals that landed in the month, book the income and costs, run the calculation and read the review, then confirm and lock. Everything after the third step is computed.

The typing is the only work, and there is not much of it: one balance per account, the flows to confirm, and the month’s costs. For a fund with a few accounts and a dozen participants it is a short sitting. The second month is quicker than the first because the setup already exists.

Bank balances against NAV, broker balances against NAV, the sum of participant holdings against fund assets, and fees calculated against fees actually paid. All four run on every calculation, and each shows its difference rather than a pass or fail badge.

The month cannot be locked. You go back, find what is missing, and recompute. Forcing a lock past a failing check is possible but restricted to administrators, deliberately awkward, and recorded.

No. Exactly one month per fund is open at a time, so you close them in order. That is what makes "which month am I working in" a question with one answer, and it is how a koers history stays continuous.

Two routes. An administrator can reopen the period, which requires a written reason that is stored with the event, or you correct it through the current open month, which is how a fund administrator would normally handle it. You cannot quietly edit a locked month: the database rejects the write.

As often as you like. It derives everything from stored inputs and fully replaces its own output, so the same inputs give the same answer every time. If you change an input after computing, the period is flagged as needing recomputation rather than quietly showing the old figures.

Yes, and it is quick. A fund with no flows and no costs still has a month-end value and therefore a koers, and skipping a month would leave a hole in the price history that every later return calculation runs through.

From the wizards you used when they happened. A deposit or withdrawal entered during the month arrives in the close as a flow to confirm, so the close is where you check them against what the bank actually shows rather than where you remember them.

It is the single month you anchor a fund at when you start: the koers and each holder’s units at a date you choose. You need one, because every return and every fee afterwards is computed relative to it. It is what lets your history start where your existing records end.

Yes, subject to their roles: editors can enter bookkeeping, and administrators can change configuration and lock. If you turn on NAV confirmation, the close deliberately needs two people, because the person who prepares the month cannot be the one who confirms it.

Gross return at fund level first, then each holding grows by it, then the management fee comes off, then the performance fee is charged on whatever is left above that participant’s high-water mark, then the new mark is stored, then the koers per series. The order is what most spreadsheets get wrong.

Closing assets minus opening assets minus the net flows, over opening assets. Deposits confirmed for the month enter at the start of it, which is the convention a monthly NAV cycle uses.

The series rate divided by twelve, applied to the value at the start of the month. The rate is set in basis points on the series and is not restated anywhere else, so there is one place it can be wrong and one place to fix it.

On the excess above that participant’s own high-water mark, after the management fee has come off, at the series rate. If the mark has not been cleared there is no performance fee at all, however well the fund did that month.

Per unit, on each holding, carried forward month to month. That is the detail that decides whether an investor who joined after a drawdown pays for someone else’s recovery. A fund-level mark gets that wrong for everybody who did not join on day one.

Yes, per series. A series can charge a management fee only, or a performance fee without a mark, or both with a mark. There is also an optional reset of the mark when a participant withdraws.

Two reasons. Postgres NUMERIC is exact decimal, so a total of 99,994.26 stays 99,994.26 instead of becoming 99,994.26000000001 and compounding down a column. And the waterfall exists as one implementation rather than thousands of copied cells, so there is no row where a formula was dragged one cell too far.

It ships with a database-level test suite including golden-master comparisons: fixed inputs whose expected outputs were checked against a real fund’s own figures, to the cent. Beyond that, the only test that convinces anybody is running your own month through it and comparing.

Any computed figure on any screen. Each one keeps its inputs and its formula, so you can open it and see the actual numbers that went in and the period they belong to. In a meeting that is usually where the discussion ends.

No. The calculation carries full precision and rounds only where a value has to be presented or paid. TypeScript in this product never does money arithmetic at all: it formats what the database computed.

Yes. Set a weighted mix on the fund, enter its monthly index values, and the dashboard blends it onto the NAV chart with an outperformance figure since inception. It is part of the fund’s record rather than a separate quarterly exercise.

A four-step flow: who they are and how to reach them, their bank accounts, which series they are joining and with how much, then a review. Nothing is written until the review, and when it is, the participant, the holding and the first pending deposit are created together, so you cannot end up with half of one.

Yes, as you type, by checksum. One account per participant is marked primary, and a participant can have several.

The entry koers for the month it lands in, and the review step names which month that is before you commit. Units are issued at that price, which is what keeps the unit count and the NAV consistent with each other.

Partial or full. A partial withdrawal redeems the units the amount corresponds to. A full withdrawal redeems every unit at the close rather than paying out a typed amount, so rounding never strands a few euro in an account that should be closed.

Yes. The review step says so before you commit, because it changes what that participant pays in performance fees from then on and it is not something to discover later.

Yes, and the monthly calculation runs per series and per participant, so each holding is charged at its own series’ terms and carries its own high-water mark.

Not as a single transfer action. You redeem from one series and subscribe to the other, which is what actually happens economically and leaves both series’ unit counts and koers histories correct.

Yes. A new series has its own launch date and initial price, so it starts clean rather than inheriting a history it was not part of.

Their holding goes to zero units at the close and they stop appearing in later calculations, but the record and its history stay. They are also skipped when a report goes out, rather than being sent an empty statement.

Yes. Every change is written to a searchable, filterable, paged history that sits beside the participant’s holdings and bank details. It is written automatically, so it is not something anybody has to maintain.

No. Access is for the people who administer the fund, in four roles. Participants receive their statements by email as a personalised PDF, which is what almost every fund of this size actually wants.

Yes, both, as part of adding them. They are what the dividend withholding summaries and the annual statement need, so they are collected at the point where you already have them to hand.

Once, against the security: name and ticker, the position held, the ex-date and pay date, the gross amount, its currency and the rate you converted at. On save it is allocated across participants by their share of the fund.

A stored table by paying country. Choosing the country prefills the rate, and you can override it if your fund’s situation differs. A live preview shows gross, withheld and net before you save, so a wrong rate is visible while it is still cheap to fix.

By ownership share at the time it is booked, computed rather than typed. That is what keeps the parts adding up to the whole, which a manual allocation cannot guarantee once rounding is involved.

Yes. Their page shows yearly totals, expandable to the per-country rows behind them, which is the shape a tax return asks for.

Yes. The year-end report has a dividend withholding summary block, personalised per recipient, and its figures are frozen when you save the report so a later recomputation cannot change a statement that already went out.

You enter the gross amount, its currency and the rate you converted at, so the fund records what arrived and what it became. A fund itself is administered in a single currency: there is no currency translation of the fund’s own figures.

No, because that would change a valuation that has been reported. Either an administrator reopens the period with a reason, or you book it in the current open month, which is how a fund administrator would handle a late notification anyway.

A report you compose once out of blocks: fund summary, series table, fee summary, participant metrics, your own commentary, a disclaimer and a dividend tax summary. The blocks carrying a recipient’s own figures fill themselves in per recipient.

Yes. Preview the exact statement one named recipient will get, personalised blocks and all, before anything is sent. That is the check that catches the mistake a mail merge makes.

Each recipient gets their own PDF attached to the email, in the language configured for the fund.

Every send is recorded as its own row per recipient, with a status. A failure is visible as a failure and can be retried on its own without resending to everybody.

They are recorded as a failed delivery rather than silently dropped, so the gap is visible. A recipient with no figures for the period is skipped instead of being sent an empty statement.

No. Sending is something you do deliberately, after you have looked at the month. There is no automatic monthly send, and that is a choice rather than a gap: a statement that goes out because a timer fired is a statement nobody checked.

No. Computed blocks store their values when you save the report, so a later recomputation cannot alter a statement that has gone out. What was sent stays what was sent.

Choose a year whose months are locked and the annual report is drafted for you, dividend withholding summary included, ready to edit before it goes out. It uses the same blocks as a monthly statement, so the year-end is not a separate format to maintain.

Yes. You close monthly, because that is how the engine values the fund, and you compose a report for whatever period was asked for. The quarterly pack is then the same document each time with new figures in it.

Not today. There is no white-label option: statements carry your fund’s name, your commentary and your disclaimer, but the document design is FundFlow’s. If that is a blocker, say so before you start.

A few minutes to the point where a fund exists. The wizard asks who you are, verifies your email with a one-time code, takes your company details and creates your first fund. No card is collected at any step.

It stays where it is, and it is not imported. You anchor the fund at one opening month, stating the koers and each holder’s units at a date you choose, and close forward from there. Earlier years remain in your existing records, and the anchor month ties the two together.

No. There is no statement import and no CSV upload. Every figure gets into the system because a person put it there or because the engine derived it from one that was, which is a deliberate choice about provenance and also a real limit on how fast a large book can be set up.

No. There are no bank or broker connections and no market data feed. You enter the closing balance per account each month.

That is exactly the test to run, and the honest answer is that it usually matches to the cent when the fee terms are entered correctly and differs when they were not quite what the spreadsheet was doing. Either outcome is worth knowing, which is why the trial is 30 days rather than a demo.

Four things: the closing assets of the fund at a month you already trust, the koers at that month, each participant’s units and current high-water mark, and the fee rates per series. With those you can anchor a fund and close the next month.

Yes, and it is a sensible way to start. Create a fund with made-up figures, run a month, then create the real one once you know the shape. Funds are independent of each other.

Yes, ask. You get an answer from someone who knows the code rather than a form response, and for a first fund that usually saves more time than reading anything.

Stop before the 30 days are up and nothing is charged, because no card was collected. Ask us to delete the data and we will, subject to any legal retention duty.

149 euro per fund per month, or 1,428 euro per fund per year. The price does not change with the size of the fund, the number of participants or the number of people who log in.

The first 30 days, with no card collected at any point in signup. There is nothing to cancel to avoid a charge, because there is nothing to charge against.

No. One price for the fund, and everything the monthly close and reporting need is in it. Row-level security, locking, the audit trail, two-person NAV confirmation, benchmarks, dividend tax summaries and reporting are not a higher tier.

Neither. It is per fund. Twelve participants cost the same as three, and adding a colleague as an editor or reviewer costs nothing.

Three times the per-fund price. There is no volume discount today, and no bundle.

Prices are stated excluding VAT. Dutch VAT is added where it applies.

The fund needs a subscription to carry on being closed. Your data is not deleted when a trial lapses, and nothing is taken from you automatically, because we hold no payment details.

Yes. A subscription is per fund, so funds are independent for billing as well as for administration.

The people you give access to, through their membership of your organisation. Every table has row-level security, so it is not a filter the application adds to its queries: a query that tried to read another organisation’s fund returns nothing because the database refuses to return it.

Administrator, editor, viewer and reviewer. Everyone with access reads, editors write bookkeeping, fund configuration and destructive actions are administrator only, and reviewer is read-only by design for the person who verifies rather than prepares.

Enforced, by database policy. A request the policy forbids fails at the database regardless of which screen it came from, so hiding a button is never the only thing standing between a viewer and a write.

Only by an administrator reopening it, which requires a written reason that is stored with the event. Until then the database rejects writes to that period outright.

An audit trigger is attached to every business table, and it writes to a log that no application user can read or alter. On top of that, each participant’s change history is visible in the app, searchable and paged.

Yes. Turn on NAV confirmation for the fund and the person who prepares the month submits it rather than locking it, and somebody else confirms. The preparer cannot be the confirmer. It is a setting per fund.

Not yet. Sign-in is email and password, with the address verified by a one-time code at signup, password strength rules, and recovery by one-time code. There is no two-factor authentication and no single sign-on today, and we would rather say so than let a security page imply otherwise.

No. We hold no SOC 2, ISO 27001 or comparable certification, and we display no badges for ones we do not have. What we can show you is exactly how access and immutability work, which is on the security page.

No. There is no uptime commitment and no service-level agreement on offer at this price, and a page that implied one would not be worth reading.

Three services, named here and in the privacy statement so you do not have to ask: Supabase holds the database and the authentication behind sign-in, Cloudflare serves the application, and Resend delivers the emails and statements you send.

The hosting region for the database is set per deployment, and application delivery is over Cloudflare’s network. If your fund needs a specific storage region committed in writing, ask before you start rather than after.

You are. For the participant data you enter about your investors we are the processor, handling it on your instructions to run the service. For the people who sign in to FundFlow, we are the controller of their account data.

For as long as your account is open, and afterwards for as long as a legal duty requires, including the seven-year retention Dutch tax law imposes on administrative records. Ask us to delete sooner and we will, unless a legal duty says otherwise.

You can ask for a copy and we will provide it. There is no self-service export button today, which is worth knowing in advance: it means a copy is a request rather than a click.

Strictly necessary ones for the session that keeps you signed in, and your language and theme are remembered locally. Beyond that, one analytics cookie for Google Analytics, loaded through Cloudflare Zaraz, and only after you accept it in the consent banner. No advertising cookies, no remarketing, no profiling and no cross-site tracking, ever.

No. Your fund data is used to run the service for you and for nothing else. Website analytics never receives it either: identifiers for the organisation, the fund and the participant are stripped out of page addresses before anything is sent, and no name, amount, balance or valuation is ever included.

Fully. The interface, the emails and the PDF statements are all available in Dutch and English, and the figures are identical either way because they come from the same calculation.

Yes. The reporting language is a setting per fund, separate from the language you personally use the app in.

Not today. The reporting language is set per fund rather than per participant, so a fund with a genuinely bilingual investor base sends one language. Worth knowing if that is your situation.

No. A fund is administered in a single currency and there is no currency translation of its figures. A dividend that arrived in another currency is entered with the rate you converted at, which is a different thing.

Yes, per locale: the decimal comma, the thousands separator and the date order all follow the language you are in, and the PDF follows the fund’s reporting language.

Not on any timetable. Dutch and English cover the funds this was built for, and a third language is a real commitment across the interface, the emails and every statement rather than a translation file.

Email support@fund-flow.nl, or use the contact form. You get an answer from someone who knows the code rather than a form response. There is no phone line and no round-the-clock desk at this price.

No. There is no public API and no integration surface today, so nothing can read or write your fund data programmatically from outside.

No daily NAV, no commitments or capital calls, no distribution waterfalls, no portfolio-company or property tracking, no liability or solvency modelling, no regulatory returns, no statement or CSV import, no bank or broker connections, no multi-currency, no public API, no two-factor authentication and no white-label statements.

Because the alternative costs both of us more. A manager who signs up expecting capital calls finds out on day one and leaves, and we have wasted their evening. It is cheaper to be dull about the limits and right about the fit.

Yes, and the ones that come with a description of the fund behind them are the useful kind. What we will not do is promise a date.

It was developed to run the monthly administration of one fund, every rule checked against how that fund actually worked, and then opened up as a product because the job is the same for every manager doing it in a spreadsheet. It is built in the Netherlands.

Send it. If a page should have answered it, the page gets fixed as well.