As private market assets move from the margins into the core of high-net-worth portfolios, the structures used to hold them and the governance that supports those structures are coming under increasing scrutiny.
In this interview, Aidan Golden talks to Stephen Atkinson, Global Head of Sales and Marketing at Utmost, about how the expectations of regulatory authorities are evolving, what this means for advisers and trustees, and why good outcomes increasingly depend on how assets are administered, valued and funded over time, not just on what is being invested in.
AG : Private markets are now widely seen as a core allocation for HNW investors. What has changed, and why are regulatory authorities paying closer attention?
SA : Private markets have grown up. Ten or fifteen years ago, they were largely the preserve of institutions and a small number of sophisticated family offices. Today, they are a central part of portfolio construction for many high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth investors.
From a regulatory perspective, that shift matters. As private assets move from the periphery into the mainstream, the focus broadens from individual investment decisions to the structures and systems supporting those investments. Regulatory authorities are asking whether long-term promises to policyholders are being supported by appropriate governance, valuation discipline and liquidity management.
This is not about discouraging investment in private markets. It is about recognising that these assets behave very differently from listed securities and ensuring the infrastructure holding them is genuinely fit for purpose.
AG : When regulators talk about risk in this context, what risks are they really concerned about?
SA : It is rarely about the investment idea itself. More often, the focus is on how assets are held, governed and managed over time.
Regulators are increasingly concerned with valuation discipline, liquidity management and counterparty strength. Private assets are not priced daily and do not offer predictable exit routes. As a result, the risk sits less in short-term market movements and more in how those assets are administered within a structure.
We are also seeing regulators push back on informal or overly bespoke interpretations of risk. Recent regulatory clarification in other areas of the insurance market reinforces a consistent message. When insurance structures are involved, the focus is firmly on the legal and economic reality of the structure and on the insurer standing behind it, rather than on looking through to underlying assets or assumptions.
That same mindset is now being applied more broadly as private assets become mainstream within wealth structures. Governance, operational capability and financial strength matter just as much as asset selection if long-term outcomes are to be protected.
AG : Liquidity is often misunderstood with private assets. Where do advisers most commonly misjudge it?
SA : The most common mistake is assuming that a product’s liquidity features are the same as the liquidity of the underlying assets.
Some structures appear to offer smoother access or periodic liquidity, but the assets beneath them remain fundamentally illiquid. That mismatch can create pressure if investor behaviour changes or market conditions deteriorate.
Insurance-based structures, by contrast, are inherently long-term. They are designed around extended investment horizons and structured liquidity management, which aligns more closely with the reality of private market investing. That alignment can significantly reduce the risk of forced asset sales during periods of stress.
For advisers, the key is understanding not just when clients can access capital, but how that access is funded and what assumptions sit behind it.
AG : Valuation is another area attracting the attention of regulators. What should advisers and trustees be aware of?
SA : Valuation in private markets is necessarily imperfect, but that does not mean it can be casual.
Advisers and trustees should understand how valuations are produced, how often they are refreshed and how they are challenged. Are independent valuations used? How are model assumptions reviewed? How are valuation lags reflected at policy level?
Within an insurance framework, valuation discipline is reinforced by regulatory capital requirements and governance processes. That does not remove uncertainty, but it does introduce structure, consistency and accountability, which is exactly what regulators are looking for.
AG : Operational capability comes up repeatedly. What differentiates insurers that can safely hold complex assets?
SA : Experience and scale matter a great deal. Holding private assets is not just about custody. It involves managing cashflows, capital calls, distributions, valuations and reporting over many years, often across multiple jurisdictions.
Insurers that have invested in specialist teams, robust operating models and strong external partner networks are far better placed to absorb that complexity without passing unnecessary risk on to clients or trustees.
From an oversight perspective, it is no longer enough to assess an insurer’s financial strength alone. What really matters is whether the insurer has the right operational depth and governance, supported by experienced investment and technical teams, to administer complex assets throughout the life of a policy.
AG : For trustees and advisers, what does “good oversight” look like in practice today?
SA : It does not mean becoming a private markets specialist. But it does mean asking better questions.
Trustees and advisers should expect clear answers on asset eligibility, valuation processes, liquidity management and governance arrangements. They should understand how capital calls are funded, how cash buffers are managed and how risks are monitored over time. Importantly, oversight is shifting from a product-centric exercise to a system-level one. It is about understanding the ecosystem supporting the investment, not just the investment itself.
AG : Are there any red flags advisers should watch for?
SA : Over-promising on liquidity is a major one, as is a lack of transparency around valuation methodology or operational processes.
Another red flag is when complex assets are introduced without a clear explanation of how they will be administered over time. If the operational story is unclear, that is usually a warning sign.
Complex assets can sit very successfully within insurance-based structures, but only when the underlying governance and infrastructure are robust.
AG : Looking ahead, what do you expect to change over the next 12 to 18 months?
SA : I expect regulatory scrutiny to intensify rather than recede. Private markets will continue to grow, and with that growth will come higher expectations around governance, transparency and risk management.
For advisers and trustees, this raises the bar. Structure selection will increasingly become a risk management decision, not just an administrative one. Those who engage proactively with these changes, and who choose partners with proven capability in handling complex assets, will be best placed to deliver sustainable outcomes for their clients.
Private markets offer significant opportunity. The challenge is ensuring they are held in structures that genuinely support their long-term nature.