# Management and performance fee check > Management and performance fee check: Fee basis, rates, periods Checked: proven by code. Produces fee checks, differences. Source: https://www.sumarity.ai/library/management-and-performance-fee-check/ Wealth, asset management and fund administration # Management and performance fee check Reads nAV history, fee terms, the fee invoices. Produces fee checks, differences. Code works out every figure, the Judgement Engine answers the narrow questions, and whatever stays uncertain goes to a person. Proven by codeBilling and revenue assurance Start from this workflowMore for asset management What it decides ## Narrow questions, each with a check behind it. Fee basis, rates, periods Proven by code: recomputed from NAV and terms. Code proves the answer from the data itself: totals tie, a match is exact, the quote is on the document. Most of these judgements settle without a person. | Reads | NAV history, fee terms, the fee invoices | Produces | Fee checks, differences | Who signs | A person on your team, with every figure traced to its document and every call on record | Process | Billing and revenue assurance | Industry | Wealth, asset management and fund administration See it run ## Every line, decided where it's safest. An example run. Each stage lights up as a line is decided there; pick a stage to see its lines. ReadsNAV history, fee terms, the fee invoicesCodeReads, matches, ties out and works out every figure.JudgementFee basis, rates, periods. Settles only when it clears the cutoff and code proves it.A personGets whatever stays uncertain, with the evidence. Their ruling tunes the next run.ProducesFee checks, differences Management and performance fee check · example run Example run | Ref | Item | Value | Decided by | Q3 | Management fee, class A1.2% × average NAV × days | 184,220.00 | Code · computed | Q3 | Management fee, class I0.8% × NAV, matches the invoice | 61,410.00 | Code · computed | Q3 | Performance feeAbove the high-water mark · 0.92 · hurdle met | 92,000.00 | Engine · proven | Q3 | Rebate to investor XSide letter rate · 0.90 | −8,400.00 | Engine · proven | Q3 | Fee on a closed share classCharged after closure? | 3,100.00 | To a person | Settled 4 To a person 1 Settled wrong 0 Illustrative lines. Amber rows are the Judgement Engine's calls; each settles only above its cutoff and when its check agrees. What it could save ## Your volumes in. Your hours out. In our tests, between 24% and 42% of items still went to a person after tuning. Set your own share; a pilot measures it on your data. Items per run Runs per month Minutes per item by hand Cost per hour Share of items that still need a person: 30% By hand today80 ha month With Sumarity24 ha month, for the items people decide Saved56 hCHF 53,760 a year Related ## Start from what's closest. ### Billing and revenue assurance in other work Healthcare ### Charge capture reconciliation Services delivered vs billed Proven by codeRetail and hospitality ### Supplier rebates and promotional allowances Rebate earned under which agreement Proven by codeEnergy ### Meter-to-bill validation Reading plausible; bill right Vetoed by code ### More for asset management ### Custody reconciliation Each custody line's type; matches to the book Proven by codeTested ### Custody break follow-up Age, severity, NAV impact Proven by code ### Cash and position reconciliation, multi-custodian Matches across custodians and the PMS Proven by code Questions ## What buyers ask What happens when Sumarity isn't sure? Nothing settles below the cutoff, or when the check disagrees. The item goes to a person in the inbox with what the engine saw, its best answer and the runner-up. The person's ruling is kept and tunes the next run. How are its judgements checked? Code proves the answer from the data itself: totals tie, a match is exact, the quote is on the document. Most of these judgements settle without a person. Can we change it to fit how we work? Yes. Start from this workflow and describe your differences in plain words. The design assistant revises it, the validator checks it, your expert reviews it on the canvas, and your admin publishes it. Does it read our files as they are? Yes: spreadsheets and CSV in any layout, PDFs, bank formats and e-mail attachments. Sumarity suggests how each column maps, proves the mapping on a sample and remembers it once a person confirms it. Where does our data go? Sumarity runs in Zurich. Your data, backups and logs are stored in Switzerland. How does it get better? Your team's rulings become an answer key. Better questions and cutoffs are proposed, tested on data they haven't seen, and published only when your admin approves. It improves itself, with permission. ## Start from this workflow. Run it on your data. A pilot runs alongside your own process for a few weeks, at our cost, and ends in a line-by-line comparison. Talk to usBack to the library