Run-off management: outsource or handle in-house?
A structuring choice for platforms
Faced with the obligation to have a run-off management arrangement in place under the ECSPR (EU 2020/1503), crowdfunding platforms must make a structuring choice: organise this continuity in-house, or rely on a specialised external provider.
On paper, handling it internally may seem to offer more control. In practice, the operational reality is more complex.
In-house: a demanding model over time
In principle, nothing prevents a platform from internalising this arrangement.
But in practice, this choice requires a high level of organisation and exposes the platform to several constraints.
Managing your own run-off does not simply mean "keeping the service running". It means recreating, over an extended period, a complete operational structure… with no commercial activity.
In concrete terms, this means:
- Maintaining an operational technical infrastructure for several years
- Retaining key skills to manage repayments, cash flows and support
- Continuing to meet regulatory obligations (KYC, AML/CFT, GDPR, tax reporting, regulatory reporting)
- Ensuring continuity of relationships with payment service providers
There is also a point that is often underestimated: managing defaulted projects. When certain projects encounter difficulties, the platform must be able to coordinate recovery, interact with investor representatives and follow through on proceedings that can be lengthy and complex.
A run-off can last several years.
The challenge is therefore less technical than structural: keeping an organisation running over time, including on sensitive cases, when the platform is no longer commercially active.
Outsourcing: a structured approach
Conversely, the majority of platforms choose to rely on providers specialising in run-off management. This approach meets regulatory expectations and provides access to an arrangement that is already operational and tested.
In practice, several factors explain this trend:
- The operational complexity of run-off management over time
- The need to guarantee continuity of cash flows and data without interruption
- The requirement to maintain a high level of regulatory compliance, even after cessation of activity
- The difficulty of bearing these constraints internally without a dedicated structure
Outsourcing thus provides access to:
- Tools and processes that are already proven
- Cost sharing across multiple platforms
- An organisation designed to operate over several years
- A clear and transparent framework for both investors and regulators
Specialised solutions such as Run Off
In this context, certain solutions have been specifically structured to address these challenges.
Run Off, developed by Capsens, is built on this logic. The solution enables platforms to anticipate run-off management well in advance, particularly through regular data migration tests, ensuring the quality and transferability of information in the event of cessation.
When activated, the platform takes over to ensure the continuity of operations: data access, schedule monitoring, cash flow management and the provision of dedicated dashboards for all stakeholders.
Today, this type of solution has become a reference across the European market, with a significant number of platforms relying on it to structure their continuity plans.
Ultimately, an organisational choice
The issue is not simply a matter of choosing between in-house and outsourced.
The real question is this: is the platform able to guarantee, over time, reliable monitoring of investments — including in the event of default — after its activity has ceased?
Some platforms have the resources and organisation needed to handle it internally. Others choose to rely on a specialised provider to secure this scenario.
Conclusion
Run-off management is often perceived as a regulatory constraint. In reality, it is a key element of a platform's credibility.
In practice, the ability to rely on a proven, structured and rapidly deployable arrangement often makes all the difference.
