Fundway is the first platform that lets any aspiring or seasoned investment manager looking to set up a fund vehicle compare the costs of verified, trusted service providers within seconds. Fundway replaces dozens of emails and hours of back-and-forth correspondence with a simple click. To provide more clarity on the process leading up to a fund setup, we asked Mark Meyer (MM), Relationship Manager Funds EMEA at Bolder Group, to walk through these key topics.

1.         When someone comes to you unsure where to set up their fund, what's the first thing you ask them?

MM: It always helps to remember what a fund manager aims to achieve and what is required from that perspective, such as access to financial markets, access to prospect investors, liquidity requirements, regulation and costs are all contributing factors to the ultimate decision. The first thing we look at is the investor profile: where the target investors are based, what they are familiar with, and what they need to feel comfortable subscribing into the fund. Choosing the jurisdiction is more than a tax or legal decision, but it is also about the credibility. In some cases, a fund structure technically works, but if the investor base does not trust it, fundraising can be a challenge. That’s why we typically start by ensuring the domicile aligns with the manager’s business objectives and the target investors.

2.         What's the most common mistake first-time managers make when choosing where to launch?

MM: Starting a Fund with a too small investor base resulting in chosing a inappropriate liquidity structure. At Bolder, we believe first-time and emerging managers benfit more from start-up options, such as a BVI incubator fund or a Dutch FGR under the light regime (of course, this still depends on the investor base and voerall strategy). But it is key to avoid overengineering the structure when launching for the first time. As a reminder, a fund can always be restructured and redomiciled later on when there is enough AUM and investor requirements to justify the upgrade.

3.         Does the fund's strategy itself steer the choice of jurisdiction, say a long-short equity fund versus a venture capital or private equity fund, or does that come later?

MM: The fund’s strategy determines the optimal fund structure, for example a closed end limited partnership or an equilavent may be the most suitable structure for a fund. In that case Cayman might be the jurisdiction of choice because of its familiarity amongst institutional investors.The strategy is always relevant, but it is usually considered together with the fund’s liquidity profile, investor expectations and target size. For example, liquid strategies such as long-short equity often point towards an open-ended structure, while venture capital or private equity strategies are typically better suited to closed-ended vehicles. The jurisdictional choice then follows from that structural analysis, combined with regulatory, operational and investor considerations.

4.         How much does cost alone usually decide it, versus everything else combined?

MM: Cost is a decisive factor, especially for emerging managers launching with smaller AUM. However, it should not be assessed in isolation. The right structure needs to balance set-up and running costs with investor acceptance, regulatory fit, tax considerations, operational efficiency and future scalability. In practice, we help managers determine whether a jurisdiction is commercially sensible for where they are today, while still giving them room to grow.

5.         How big a factor is the tax treatment of the jurisdiction itself, versus the tax treatment of the investors putting money in?

 MM: These days, funds are amost always set up as a tax neutral structures. Most of the „typical“ fund jurisdictions offer tax netreul structures specifically designed for (alternative) Investment funds. Both matter, but they play different roles. Many fund structures are designed to be tax neutral or tax transparent at the fund level, which means the investor’s own tax position becomes especially important. Managers therefore need to understand who will invest, where those investors are resident and whether the proposed structure creates any reporting, withholding or tax inefficiencies for them. At Bolder, we support the operational and administrative side of this assessment, while managers and investors should always obtain appropriate legal and tax advice for their specific circumstances.

6.         If someone plans to raise money from investors in the US, EU, and Asia at the same time, does that change which country makes sense?

MM: A fund manager should always consider local regulatory requirements in the contries of the prospect investors, otherwise, regulation can apply to the jurisdiction in which the fund manager is domiciled, the jurisdiction of the fund structure, and the jurisdiction of the investors. Global standards such as FATCA and CRS have made cross-border reporting more consistent, but investor familiarity still matters. US, EU and Asian investors may each have different expectations around fund domicile, documentation, reporting, tax treatment and regulatory comfort. The practical question is which structure gives the manager the best combination of investor confidence, compliance efficiency and fundraising flexibility.

7.         How much does it usually come down to where the manager operates, or where their investors are?

 MM: The manager’s location can affect substance, governance, service provider coordination and taxation of management-related income, while the investors’ location affects distribution, documentation and reporting expectations. As we operate in a digital market, managers can access investors globally, but the structure still needs to stand up from a regulatory, tax and operational perspective. For that reason, Bolder typically looks at the full ecosystem around the fund and recommends that clients seek independent legal and tax advice where needed.

8.         Are there jurisdictions you think more people should consider, that they usually overlook, whether for cost, tax, or how easily you can raise money there?

MM: For emerging managers, the Netherlands is often worth considering more seriously, as it is an onshore European jurisdiction. Dutch funds can be relatively efficient to set up and operate, and may offer a practical route for managers who want a credible structure without immediately taking on the cost base of larger fund domiciles. That said, it is not suitable for every situation. Local presence, regulatory scope and marketing limitations, including reverse solicitation considerations under lighter regimes, need to be assessed carefully before launch.

9.         Has anything changed recently, like new EU rules, that affects where someone should set up or how easily they can market their fund across borders?

MM: The regulatory environment continues to evolve, particularly in Europe, so managers should avoid treating jurisdiction selection as a one-time decision. Developments such as AIFMD II and ongoing cross-border marketing requirements emphasise the importance of knowing the investor base and understanding the distribution plans. For smaller launches, a leaner structure may be more appropriate at the beginning, with the option to move to a more sophisticated or higher-cost jurisdiction once the fund has sufficient scale.

10.   If someone's stuck between two jurisdictions and can't decide, what's the one question you'd ask to help them decide?

MM: We would ask: which jurisdiction will give your target investors the greatest confidence to subscribe, while remaining commercially viable for the fund’s current size? That question brings the decision back to the fundamentals: investor acceptance, cost, regulatory fit, tax considerations and long-term scalability. Ultimately, the structure must work for the manager, but it also has to work for the investors who will commit capital to the fund.