PAMM vs MAM — from a manager's seat
Most decision frameworks compare PAMM and MAM from the broker's seat. Try it from the manager's. The answer changes — and so does what your investor portal needs to do.
Administrator
Most PAMM-vs-MAM articles explain the operational differences from the broker's perspective: pooled accounts, master-feeder structures, allocation logic, and fee engines.
Flip the seat. You are the manager. Now the questions look different.
What does it cost me when an investor leaves mid-month?
In a PAMM, the answer is "it depends on lock-ups". In a MAM, individual sub-account closures are cleaner but reconciliation gets noisier as the book scales.
How do my investors see their position?
PAMM investor statements are high-quality but pooled — investors see their slice of the master, not their own trades. Some investors find that opaque.
MAM investors see their own trades. Better optics for sophisticated investors; worse for retail.
How does fee crystallisation work?
Daily accrual is standard. Crystallisation cadence (monthly / quarterly / on-redemption) depends on the manager's mandate and should be visible to the investor in the portal.
What we tell managers
If your investor base is institutional or family-office heavy, MAM is usually the cleaner fit. If it is retail-heavy and you want lock-up control, PAMM. Either way, we are running the operating layer regardless of the platform — your manager workflow is what matters.
Newsletter
Liked this piece? Get the next one.
One short note per fortnight on brokerage operations. No spam, no upsells. Unsubscribe in one click.
