We study what mandatory work actually costs the firms that perform it. What a file takes to produce, where the time goes, and how often it has to be done twice. Then we publish it.
Compliance and professional operations are among the least measured functions in financial services. The published benchmarks are written for large institutions, and describe almost nothing about the firms that carry this work as a service.
Each study asks a small number of firms the same few questions, in confidence, and returns the ranges to everyone who took part. No firm is named. No figure is attributed.
What periodic refresh and enhanced due diligence cost fund administrators, corporate service providers, trust companies and compliance outsourcers. Volume, cost per file, and first pass rework rate.
Every firm answers the same short set, so the ranges mean something. No survey form, no scoring model, no maturity assessment.
Around fifteen per study, chosen for comparability rather than volume. We would rather have fifteen people who know their numbers than two hundred who guessed.
Findings are published as ranges. No firm is named, no figure is traceable, and we never ask for client names, client data or documents.
Everyone who takes part receives the full findings before publication, together with their own position in the range.
Studies we are weighing for the next round. If one of these is your problem, tell us and it moves up the list.
Third party administrators and claims outsourcers in insurance.
Mid tier audit firms across Singapore and Malaysia.
Published findings go out to a short list when each study closes. Nothing else is sent to it.
