Research in progress

VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLC

VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLC

VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLC is assessed from dated identity, permission and outcome evidence. This article separates verified facts from findings that the current record cannot support.

Verification strength91/100
Research completeness33/100
Quality evidence1/6
Last researched2026-07-23
A
Evidence-led provider article

VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLC: evidence, responsibilities and open questions

VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLC is assessed from dated identity, permission and outcome evidence. This article separates verified facts from findings that the current record cannot support.

What the record establishes

The legal name currently recorded is VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLC. VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLC is catalogued for Investing, Private credit, Retirement & pensions, and Wealth management and the current record places its market scope in United States.

ServeAssess accepted 24 claim level facts and linked 8 sources as of 2026-07-23. Verification strength is 91/100, while research completeness is 33/100 against the fields expected for this category and role.

Responsibility and permission

VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLC is recorded as legal entity and VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLC is recorded as marketing brand. The role map controls which party receives a licence, financial metric or complaint finding.

4 product and jurisdiction permission records are active or exempt in the current map. No restricted, suspended, withdrawn or unverified permission appears in that map.

What the outcome evidence can support

The current assessment can score 1 of six substantive outcome dimensions. RegulatoryStanding is 88/100 within the eligible peer group. Current permissions and restrictions are assessed separately from enforcement history. Registration confirms status, not service quality.

No directional metric has met the requirements for the comparable metrics ledger. Raw counts remain visible in the evidence record when available, without becoming a quality score.

Price, access and intended customers

Pricing disclosure is recorded as unknown. Recorded customer types include pooled investment vehicle, charitable organization, government entity, consumers, businesses, and institutions. Access is documented through online.

For investing, the decision is which regulated firm holds the account, how orders are handled and what fees or conflicts affect the investor's result. The current record should be used with the written offer or contract rather than as a substitute for it.

Limits that affect the decision

The following limits are part of the assessment and should remain visible beside any favourable finding.

  • CustomerOutcomes lacks enough comparable evidence for a score.
  • FinancialResilience lacks enough comparable evidence for a score.
  • OperationalReliability lacks enough comparable evidence for a score.
  • PriceAndContractQuality lacks enough comparable evidence for a score.
  • TransparencyAndGovernance lacks enough comparable evidence for a score.
  • Verification strength describes the research record. It is not a provider quality rating.
  • Research completeness measures category relevant coverage. It does not reward a broad product catalogue.
  • Customer outcomes remain unscored until a valid exposure denominator and comparable handling data are available.

A focused verification path

A brokerage app, introducing broker, clearing firm, custodian and investment adviser may share one customer journey while carrying different duties. Federal and state registration may apply differently to brokers and advisers, while custody and clearing responsibilities remain firm specific.

  • Search the firm and individual in BrokerCheck or IAPD.
  • Identify the custodian and clearing firm.
  • Read account, cash sweep, margin and securities lending terms.
  • Save the legal name, source URL and observation date used for the decision.

Article version 2026-07-full-site-v1 · 479 words · candidate A selected after automated editorial checks.

02
Structured assessment

Scores, factors and research limits

Verification strength91/100

Identity, permissions, source quality and claim-level freshness.

Research completeness33/100

Coverage against the fields relevant to this category and role.

Freshness100/100

Average freshness of the accepted claims, not merely the page date.

Quality evidence: insufficient outcome data1 of 6 substantive dimensions currently scoreable. ServeAssess does not combine them into one universal quality score.
Regulatory standing8 supporting fields
88/100

Current permissions and restrictions are assessed separately from enforcement history. Registration confirms status, not service quality.

Financial resilience or backing0 supporting fields · peer group investing|role-unknown|size-unknown|US
Insufficient data

Directionally comparable resilience measures within the provider's role, category, size and jurisdiction peer group. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.

Price and contract quality0 supporting fields · peer group investing|role-unknown|size-unknown|US
Insufficient data

Comparable price and contract measures. Published terms alone do not establish good value. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.

Customer outcomes0 supporting fields · peer group investing|role-unknown|size-unknown|US
Insufficient data

Complaint volume is normalized by an exposure denominator and combined with handling measures. Complaints remain allegations, not findings. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.

Operational reliability0 supporting fields · peer group investing|role-unknown|size-unknown|US
Insufficient data

Comparable delivery, uptime, incident or processing measures within the same peer group. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.

Transparency and governance1 supporting field
Insufficient data

Pricing, contract, ownership, complaint route, privacy and responsible entity disclosures are not yet complete enough to score.

Evidence confidence48 supporting fields
93/100

Identity resolution, source trust, claim support and claim level freshness.

Verification and coverage factors

Identity12 supporting fields
83/100

Legal identity, official domain, contact evidence and verified entity roles.

Regulation8 supporting fields
88/100

Current permissions and restrictions are assessed separately from enforcement history. Registration confirms status, not service quality.

Evidence quality48 supporting fields
95/100

Supported claims, high trust evidence and independent source coverage.

Service evidence7 supporting fields
65/100

Whether the provider's claimed service is supported. Breadth is not rewarded.

Transparency1 supporting field
Insufficient data

Pricing, contract, ownership, complaint route, privacy and responsible entity disclosures are not yet complete enough to score.

How to read this
  • Verification strength describes the research record. It is not a provider quality rating.
  • Research completeness measures category relevant coverage. It does not reward a broad product catalogue.
  • Customer outcomes remain unscored until a valid exposure denominator and comparable handling data are available.
  • Financial resilience remains unscored until at least two comparable directional measures are available.
  • Price and contract quality remains unscored until comparable cost and term measures are available.
  • Operational reliability remains unscored until comparable delivery or incident data are available.
  • An active registration confirms identity or permission in its stated scope. It is not a recommendation or service quality endorsement.
  • ServeAssess does not publish a universal composite quality score across unlike provider roles.

Calculated 2026-07-23 from 3 independent sources.

Observed strengths

  • Regulatory standing: 88/100 from 8 eligible evidence fields. Current permissions and restrictions are assessed separately from enforcement history. Registration confirms status, not service quality.

Limits and open questions

  • Financial resilience or backing: insufficient comparable data. Directionally comparable resilience measures within the provider's role, category, size and jurisdiction peer group. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.
  • Price and contract quality: insufficient comparable data. Comparable price and contract measures. Published terms alone do not establish good value. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.
  • Customer outcomes: insufficient comparable data. Complaint volume is normalized by an exposure denominator and combined with handling measures. Complaints remain allegations, not findings. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.
  • Operational reliability: insufficient comparable data. Comparable delivery, uptime, incident or processing measures within the same peer group. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.
  • Transparency and governance: insufficient comparable data. Pricing, contract, ownership, complaint route, privacy and responsible entity disclosures are not yet complete enough to score.
  • Verification strength describes the research record. It is not a provider quality rating.
  • Research completeness measures category relevant coverage. It does not reward a broad product catalogue.
  • Customer outcomes remain unscored until a valid exposure denominator and comparable handling data are available.

Potential fit signals

pooled investment vehicle customerscharitable organization customersgovernment entity customersconsumers customersbusinesses customersinstitutions customersonline access

Based on recorded customer and access fields. This is not a suitability recommendation.

03
Entity and role graph

Who markets, contracts, administers and carries the obligation

A brand can represent several legal parties. Complaints, financial facts and permissions must be attached to the party responsible for that function.

VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLClegal entity
verified
VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLCmarketing brand
reported
04
Permission map

Products, roles and jurisdictions

investingUS · legal entity · SEC file 801-65229
active
retirementUS · legal entity · SEC file 801-65229
active
wealth managementUS · legal entity · SEC file 801-65229
active
private creditUS · legal entity · SEC file 801-65229
active

Underlying licence records

U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionUS · SEC file 801-65229
active
05
Source ledger

Evidence behind this profile

ClaimConfidenceStatus
legal name: VOYAGER MANAGEMENT, LLC98%accepted
regulatory status: active98%accepted
regulatory reference: SEC file 801-65229; organization CRD 135434; status approved; effective 01/20/2006; latest ADV filing 02/23/202698%accepted
offers service: investing72%candidate
offers service: retirement72%candidate
reported client type: pooled investment vehicle72%candidate
reported client type: charitable organization72%candidate
reported client type: government entity72%candidate
reported website: http://www.voyagermgt.com/72%candidate
reported regulatory assets under management: 20855295772%candidate
official domain: https://www.voyagermgt.com/55%candidate
official domain: https://www.voyagermgt.com/55%candidate
offers service: wealth management55%candidate
offers service: private credit55%candidate
organization crd number: 13543498%accepted
sec file number: 801-6522998%accepted
current registration status: Approved98%accepted
registration status effective date: 01/20/200698%accepted
latest form adv filing date: 02/23/202698%accepted
main office city: LOS ANGELES98%accepted