AR oversight: the evidence a principal actually needs

The appointed representatives regime now expects principals to prove active oversight, not appointment paperwork. Most of the tooling on the market evidences that a review happened. The harder question is what the reviewer had in front of them.

The bar moved, then the bill arrived

The enhanced regime that took effect in December 2022 raised what the FCA expects of principal firms, and the 2024 multi-firm review of principals found the same weaknesses again and again, most of them traceable to oversight living in spreadsheets and consultant decks rather than as living records.

Then the bill arrived. In May 2026 the FCA published a final notice against a regulatory host over client money failings involving its appointed representative WealthTek, and the principal agreed to pay more than £19.6m to affected clients. Every principal firm in the country read that notice. The question it poses is not whether your oversight framework exists. It is whether you can evidence what it actually checked.

Attestation is one layer. The numbers are another.

Compliance platforms are good at the first layer: the register, the annual self-assessment, the dated board sign-off, the per-AR file. That layer evidences that oversight happened, and a principal needs it.

The layer underneath is different: evidence about the numbers themselves. When a hosted fund reports its AUM, was that figure verified against the administrator's records or self-declared? When its NAV moved, did anyone tie the movement to broker records? Are its regulatory filings tracked against actual deadlines, and were its fees taken at the contracted rates? A quarterly attestation cannot answer these, because they change daily.

What continuous per-fund evidence looks like: each hosted fund runs on its own platform instance, with its NAV independently recomputed, positions and cash reconciled to broker records, fee rates verified against offering documents, a filings calendar with deadlines tracked, and every exception aging visibly in a break queue with an owner. The principal's dashboard aggregates the book, which answers the question the 2024 review said principals fail: not whether each firm passes its own review, but what the book looks like as a whole.

Why this matters commercially, not just defensively

A principal that can show continuous, numbers-level oversight of every hosted fund has something its competitors mostly cannot: a concrete answer when the regulator, or a prospective AR's investors, ask how oversight actually works. The regime turned oversight into the thing principals are judged on. Evidence at the level of the numbers turns it into something a principal can sell.

MOBO runs this model live with a principal firm today: per-fund instances billed at wholesale rates, a master oversight dashboard for the principal, and the same evidence packs each underlying manager uses for its own allocators. If you host appointed representatives or run a platform, the dashboard is the demo.

More from MOBO

Shadow NAV: what it is, and what running one actually takes The questions allocator ODD actually asks What a middle office actually costs
Walk the live demo, no call, no login