Many investors in Funds of Qualified Investors (FQI) live under the dangerous illusion that the presence of a reputable bank in the role of a depositary acts as an absolute insurance policy against valuation errors or poor investment decisions by the fund manager. However, the current revision of the “best practices” by the Czech Capital Market Association (AKAT) in April 2026 definitively shatters this notion. For high-net-worth individuals and expats with assets in alternative structures, this is a critical topic: responsibility is clearly shifting, and the depositary is becoming a process controller rather than a guarantor of your funds.
The new rules, which AKAT is preparing for final approval in May 2026, clarify the boundaries within which depositaries operate. If you rely on the depositary to “check every transaction before it happens,” reality may come as an unpleasant surprise. Especially for complex assets and modern markets with fast settlement cycles, control is becoming purely an ex-post (after-the-fact) matter.
Who is Truly Responsible for Your NAV?
The AKAT proposal clearly defines that the depositary does not replace the activities of the manager or administrator, and certainly is not responsible for the results of their work. This is a vital fact: if a fund incorrectly calculates its Net Asset Value (NAV) or chooses a flawed valuation methodology for real estate or business shares, the depositary is not primarily liable for this error. Their task is merely to verify that the fund has a methodology in place and that it formally follows it.
In the area of controlling manager instructions, there is a further shift. For markets with settlement in T+1 mode (or shorter), the control is to be carried out exclusively ex-post – i.e., after the money has already left the fund. For investors in alternative structures, this means that the “brake” in the form of a depositary exists mostly on paper. The depositary is not a guard at the door, but rather an auditor who comes to check the locks the morning after a break-in.
“In the case of Funds of Qualified Investors, the depositary does not check the accuracy of the valuation itself, but only the existence of the procedure. For the investor, this means that the risk of a methodological error remains fully on the shoulders of the manager and, indirectly, on themselves.”
How to Insure Against Internal Control Failures?
Given that escalation procedures to the Czech National Bank (CNB) are, according to the new benchmark, only to be triggered as a last resort after internal procedures have been exhausted, it is possible that you may learn about a systemic problem in a fund with a significant delay. High-net-worth individuals should therefore pay increased attention to how internal control mechanisms are set up with their technical providers and managers.
Aisa International acts as your independent oversight in this complex chain of responsibility. We are not a depositary that only checks formal compliance; we are your partner analyzing the strategic stability of the entire setup. We verify whether the structure of the fund you are investing in is not built on overly benevolent methodologies that a depositary might “formally approve” but which would represent a disproportionate risk to you.
Practical Steps to Review Your Investments
-
Review the Depositary Agreement: Find out if your fund has agreed with the bank on ex-ante (advance) controls or if everything is done ex-post. For alternative assets, subsequent control is riskier.
-
Do Not Overestimate the Depositary’s Role in NAV: If you invest in illiquid assets, ask for information on who performs the independent valuation. The depositary does not guarantee the accuracy of the calculation.
-
Monitor Escalation Mechanisms: Ask about the history of the depositary’s findings. Although the depositary is not responsible for profit, their control records can reveal operational chaos before it affects your investment.
-
Rely on Independent Oversight: At a time when depositaries are limiting their role to “process control,” it is essential to have professional support by your side that sees beneath the surface of marketing presentations.
This benchmark revision sends a clear message to the market: responsibility for assets in FQIs returns to where it belongs – to the manager and to the informed decision of the investor. The role of the depositary as a “universal protector” is definitively a thing of the past.
FAQ: 5 Questions About the Role of the Depositary in FQIs
1. Is the depositary responsible if the fund goes bankrupt? In no way. The depositary is not responsible for the profitability or commercial success of the fund. Its role is purely supervisory and administrative in relation to the assets.
2. Why doesn’t the depositary check every payment in advance? With modern investment instruments and fast settlement (T+1), this is technically impossible. Ex-post control is an international investment standard, newly confirmed by AKAT.
3. Can the depositary prevent an incorrect valuation of real estate in the fund? The depositary only checks whether the fund is following its approved methodology. If the methodology is flawed but the fund adheres to it, the depositary usually does not intervene.
4. What will change after the benchmark revision in May 2026? It will be clarified that the depositary is not the “internal control” of the manager. Responsibility for NAV accuracy and day-to-day operations will rest even more clearly with the fund and the administrator.
5. What is the role of Aisa International in this process? We provide strategic oversight and financial planning. We help clients understand the risks they actually carry and where the protection of regulated institutions ends.
