Related-party DAT adviser agreements: benchmark the stack, not the label.
A disclosed related-party relationship can make a provider agreement more important to review, but the label alone does not tell a Board whether the economics are high, low, comparable or justified. The work starts by separating objective relationship facts from economic and governance terms.
1. Identify the overlap precisely
“Related party” can describe different facts: provider ownership by a director or executive, overlapping control, strategic investors, adviser principals serving on the Board, financing-linked relationships or other disclosed affiliations. The source record should say exactly what the overlap is instead of using the label as a conclusion.
2. Pull governance rights into the same table as fees
A provider may receive more than money. Public agreements can include consent, consultation, nomination or other governance rights that affect the company's ability to change managers, amend investment guidelines or make leadership decisions. Those rights are part of the economic and control profile even when they do not have an obvious dollar price.
Governance fields worth normalizing
- Board seat or nomination rights
- Consent rights over manager changes or amendments
- Consultation rights on executive changes
- Investment-guideline approval rights
- Related financing or capital commitments
- Ownership or control relationships
- Committee review / approval process disclosed by the issuer
3. Treat equity economics as compensation, not decoration
Shares, preferred stock and warrants can materially change the provider's economics and incentives. A clean comparison should record the grant date, number of securities, exercise price, vesting or forfeiture conditions, financing-linked formulas and whether rights survive termination.
4. Related-party review needs independent comparables
The strongest peer set is not simply “other related-party DAT companies.” It is a set of agreements that are economically comparable: similar provider role, asset mandate, discretion, term, fee base, performance mechanics and exit structure. Related-party status is then an additional governance dimension.
5. Currentness matters because relationships change
Provider ownership, Board composition, finance leadership and contract terms can all change after the original agreement is signed. A benchmark should use current filings and amendments rather than assume that the original relationship map still governs.
6. Board-side questions to answer
- What exactly makes the provider related to the issuer?
- What services and decision authority does the provider actually have?
- How do recurring, performance and equity economics compare with independent mandates?
- Which rights could affect amendment, replacement or exit?
- Were material terms amended after the original approval?
- What realized public outcomes exist for comparable arrangements?
- Which facts support comparability and which facts make a peer non-comparable?
7. Keep factual benchmarking separate from legal conclusions
A public-source stress test can identify disclosed relationships, compare economics, map governance rights and show public precedents. It should not convert those facts into an opinion that directors satisfied or breached fiduciary duties, that a transaction was fair or unfair, or that a contract is enforceable.
Related research
DAT provider fees explained →
DAT provider exit economics →
CEA / 10X public case note →
Public methodology →
FAQ →