Timeline to Approval – It’s Not You, It’s Me – and Getting Ghosted

Prepared by Mark Goldberg | November 17, 2025 | Research Note #5

---

Methodology & Interpretation Notes

This research note is based on the 2025 Alts Leaders Survey. Respondents include the majority of wirehouse/regional firms, all the top independent broker-dealers, and a growing share of the National RIA firms. The survey captures 65.9% of all known capital flows to private market alternatives in the private wealth segment.

This note focuses on timing—how long it takes a strategy to move from the first meeting to due diligence, approval, and ultimately launch. Whereas the prior “Approval Funnel by Channel” note examined the volume and conversion rates of introductions, this follow‑on note examines the duration of the vetting process: the weeks and months where momentum is either gained, lost, or quietly stalls.

The survey remains the only source that comprehensively measures the cadence of the approval process across channels. It is designed to set realistic expectations for investment managers and illuminate what ultimately drives platform progress.

Executive Summary

Getting onto a platform is still the defining hurdle for alternative investment managers. You may have the right strategy, performance, and distribution engine, but unless the offering progresses through introduction, diligence, approval, and launch, it never reaches the investor.

In 2025, new data shed light not only on how few offerings make it through (Getting on the Platform). This research note, for the first time, identifies the journey’s duration.

Across all major channels, the median time from first meeting to launch is approximately 11 months. But averages hide the range. Some approvals take as little as 3–4 months, while others run well beyond two years.

The detailed breakdown:

• Initial Meeting → Start of Due Diligence: 4.5 months (median; range 2–16)

• DD Start → Approval: 4.0 months (median; range 1–12)

• Approval → Launch: 1.0 month (median; range 0.5–6)

• Total: 11 months (median; range 3–31)

Note: The sum of the individual stage medians is lower than the median total time. This is expected. Each stage’s median is calculated independently across respondents, while the total timeline reflects the full sequence from a single platform. Because the distributions vary at each stage, the “median of the whole” will differ from the “sum of the medians.”

The implications are direct: strategies that are eventually approved tend to show early movement. Most enter due diligence within the first 3–6 months. If an offering remains idle beyond that window, the probability of approval diminishes.

This note introduces the Traction Test, a practical benchmark for managers assessing whether platform engagement is progressing or stalling.

Weighted Results by Channel

How Long Does It Take From Initial Meeting to Launch?

Wirehouse/Regionals: Large platforms with highly structured processes. A median of 11 months to launch, with longer front‑end diligence and modest variability.

Independent Broker‑Dealers: The most variable channel. Some approvals move quickly (about 4 months), while others take up to 20 months. Median ~9.5 months.

National RIAs: The broadest dispersion. Some offerings reach launch in 3 months, others exceed 30 months. Median ~7 months.

Range Matters: Most approvals occur within 7–14 months; outliers extend to 31 months, primarily within RIA channels.

Let’s Review the Results Side by Side

Across channels, timing reflects two powerful forces: volume of opportunities platforms see, and their limited bandwidth to evaluate them.

Wirehouse/Regional and National RIA firms review far more strategies than Independent BDs. High‑volume firms face structured queues and long review cycles. IBDs, despite fewer resources, often move faster due to more pragmatic internal processes.

The numbers tell the story:

• Wirehouse/Regionals: structured, deeper reviews; longer cycles.

• IBDs: pragmatic and faster; wide variation.

• RIAs: fastest and slowest timelines across all channels.

What Has Changed Since 2024?

The statistics underscore that while the number of strategies being brought to their attention and the number of meetings held are rising, the absolute number of strategies for which formal reviews are being conducted is shrinking. Due Diligence resources are constrained. Tighter pre-screening is essential to manage the flow. As a result, front-end selection of funds to be put in the queue for review is tighter than ever before. This makes timing an even stronger signal of momentum.

Platforms do not always say “no,” but “not now” is increasingly common and, in many cases, leads to the same outcome.

The Traction Test: A Practical Measure of Momentum

If due diligence has not begun within approximately 5–6 months of your first meeting, the probability of approval begins to decline materially.

Why? The median Initial → DD time is 4.5 months. Most platforms that ultimately approve a fund move it into DD within 3–6 months. Approvals are already rare: ~1 in 16 at Wirehouse/Regionals, ~1 in 5 at IBDs, ~1 in 30 at RIAs.

Reinforcing the point: As noted in the earlier funnel analysis, Wirehouse and Regional firms meet with an average of 521 strategies per year. If it has been six months since your initial meeting, that platform has likely held more than 260 additional meetings since then. Time is not neutral. A long gap gives incoming strategies time to displace your opportunity.

When to reassess: If you reach month 5–6 without follow‑ups, data room requests, committee scheduling, or DD initiation, the process is drifting toward an implicit “no.”  It’s not that your initial meeting went badly; it’s just that they’re dating someone else who they are more interested in. 

Exceptions exist, but typically involve strategic relationships, structural changes, or shifts in market narrative.

Observations & Implications

Wirehouse/Regionals: Long cycles, structured review, high volume. Highly competitive, as they see more strategies, and therefore, the initial selection time for review is the strongest indicator of interest.

Independent BDs: Rapid movement, high DD‑to‑approval conversion. Asset Managers would be better served by a quicker “no interest” than a prolonged maybe.

National RIAs: High dispersion of wait times. It reflects that RIA firms are not monolithic in approach. As noted in prior research pieces, they tend to lean heavily on sponsor familiarity and review. It takes time to get comfortable with a new sponsor.

Range Matters: Approval timelines run from 3 to 31 months. Managing expectations and pacing capital formation requires accommodating both ends of the range.

Managers must build realistic timelines and monitor early‑stage traction. Approvals take time, and a lack of movement is itself a signal.    

Closing

This research note completes the picture introduced in Getting on the Platform. The former explained how many offerings are approved; this note describes how long approvals take and how to interpret whether a strategy is progressing or quietly stalling. Understanding the process and timing of your distribution partners will allow you to gauge future success even before the first investor capital is raised.