Preparing for an Investment Compliance Audit: Best Practices in Documentation and Reporting

Introduction: Navigating the High Stakes of Investment Compliance Audits

The landscape for asset management firms is increasingly characterised by rigorous oversight and heightened expectations. Regulatory bodies globally, including the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), are intensifying their scrutiny, driven by objectives of ensuring market integrity, protecting consumers and investors, and maintaining overall financial system stability. The sheer volume of regulatory change underscores this trend, with some analyses indicating over 8,000 individual regulatory notifications relevant to financial services firms across just eight key jurisdictions annually. Recent years have seen significant rule-making activity, such as the SEC’s (now vacated) Private Fund Adviser rules , the FCA’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) , and the ongoing implementation of MiFID II  and the Consumer Duty , all demanding robust compliance frameworks within asset management firms.

Parallel to this regulatory pressure, investors, particularly sophisticated institutional limited partners (LPs), are conducting increasingly stringent Operational Due Diligence (ODD) before committing capital. ODD moves beyond investment strategy analysis to probe the operational backbone of a manager, assessing the robustness of internal controls, the clarity of governance structures, the effectiveness of compliance programmes, the resilience of IT infrastructure, and the overall quality of the operational environment. This convergence of intensified regulatory examination and demanding investor ODD creates a dual pressure point for asset managers. Readiness is no longer merely about passing a periodic regulatory check; it involves continuously demonstrating operational integrity and a strong compliance posture to attract and retain capital in a competitive market. Failing an ODD review can directly result in lost allocations and stunted growth , while excelling can serve as a significant competitive differentiator.

The consequences of failing to meet these heightened expectations are severe. Non-compliance can trigger substantial financial penalties, often running into millions or even billions of dollars depending on the severity and jurisdiction. Beyond fines, firms face the risk of significant reputational damage , which can erode investor trust and hinder future business development. Operational disruptions stemming from investigations or remediation efforts can further strain resources , and in extreme cases, compliance failures can lead to the suspension or loss of operating licences. The cost of non-compliance consistently outweighs the cost of achieving and maintaining compliance. Studies and industry reports highlight this disparity, with average non-compliance costs estimated at nearly $9.4 million to $15 million, compared to average compliance costs around $3.5 million to $5.5 million. This significant gap strongly suggests that proactive investment in a robust compliance infrastructure—encompassing skilled personnel, well-defined processes, and effective technology—yields a substantial positive return on investment, primarily through the mitigation of severe financial, operational, and reputational risks. Audit readiness should therefore be viewed not as a burdensome cost centre, but as a strategic imperative that safeguards the firm, builds stakeholder trust , enhances operational efficiency , and ultimately protects the firm’s bottom line. Indeed, a significant majority of business leaders (73%) recognise that meeting compliance standards improves their company’s reputation.

This article serves as a guide for asset management firms, specifically targeting the needs of Operations Managers, Compliance Officers, Fund Administrators, and CEOs of boutique firms. It aims to provide practical, actionable best practises for preparing for investment compliance audits and operational due diligence reviews. The focus is on three critical pillars: fortifying internal controls, mastering documentation and record-keeping, and building irrefutable audit trails. By understanding regulatory and investor expectations and implementing the strategies outlined herein, firms can navigate the high stakes of compliance audits with greater confidence and position themselves for sustained success.

Preparing for an Investment Compliance Audit: Best Practices in Documentation and Reporting Acclimetry

Understanding the Audit Battlefield: What Auditors and Investors Scrutinise

Effective preparation for any review, whether by regulators or investors, begins with understanding the specific areas under examination. While the nuances may differ, both regulatory audits and investor ODD share a common goal: assessing the integrity, robustness, and compliance of an asset manager’s operations.

Regulatory Audit Focus (FCA & SEC)

Regulators approach audits with specific mandates and objectives.

The FCA’s key objectives revolve around ensuring market integrity, protecting consumers, promoting competition, and maintaining confidence in the financial system. FCA audits often involve detailed reviews of a firm’s systems, controls, processes, and documentation, sometimes including on-site visits. Examiners scrutinise adherence to the extensive FCA Handbook, including:

  • Systems and Controls (SYSC): Particularly rules governing the compliance function, internal audit, risk management, and outsourcing.
  • Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS): Rules for safeguarding and administering client money and assets.
  • Conduct of Business Sourcebook (COBS): Standards for dealing with clients.
  • MiFID II Compliance: Requirements under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, including reporting and organisational controls.
  • Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR): Ensuring clear allocation of responsibilities and individual accountability for senior staff.
  • Financial Crime Prevention: Robust Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) controls.
  •  Consumer Duty: Ensuring firms deliver good outcomes for retail customers, focusing on product governance, price/value, consumer understanding, and support.
  • Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR): Rules around ESG disclosures and labelling, including anti-greenwashing provisions.
  •  Valuation Practices: Particularly for private or illiquid assets.

 

FCA examiners look for clearly documented policies and procedures, tangible evidence that these policies are being implemented effectively, and proof of adequate governance and oversight. For 2025, the FCA has signalled priorities including the integrity of private markets (especially valuation and conflicts of interest), operational and financial resilience, securing good consumer outcomes (with a focus on ongoing advice fees), sustainable finance implementation, and combating financial crime.

The SEC, operating under a different legislative framework, focuses on adherence to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and its associated rules. Key areas of scrutiny include:

  • Rule 206(4)-7 (Compliance Programme Rule): Requires registered investment advisers (RIAs) to adopt and implement written policies and procedures, conduct annual reviews, and designate a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO).
  • Rule 204-2 (Books and Records Rule): Mandates the creation and maintenance of specific records, including trade blotters, client communications, compliance documentation, and performance calculations.
  • Rule 206(4)-2 (Custody Rule): Governs the safeguarding of client funds and securities, often requiring surprise exams or annual audits for private funds.
  • Rule 204A-1 (Code of Ethics): Requires codes covering personal trading and fiduciary duty.
  • Marketing Rule (Rule 206(4)-1): Regulates advertising practises, including testimonials, endorsements, and performance advertising.
  • Fiduciary Duty: A cornerstone of SEC oversight, examining whether advisers act in the best interest of clients, provide full and fair disclosure, and eliminate or mitigate conflicts of interest.
  • Fees and Expenses: Scrutiny of fee calculations, expense allocations (especially in private funds), and the adequacy of disclosures related to fees and conflicts.
  • Valuation Practises: Particularly for illiquid or hard-to-value assets, ensuring policies are robust and consistently applied.
  • Cybersecurity and Data Privacy: Assessing compliance with Regulation S-P (privacy notices and safeguarding customer information) and Regulation S-ID (identity theft prevention).
  • Record-keeping: Including the retention of business-related electronic communications, even those on “off-channel” platforms.

 

The SEC’s 2025 examination priorities continue to emphasise fiduciary standards, compliance programme effectiveness (including annual reviews and CCO adequacy), risks associated with complex products (crypto, alternatives, illiquids), private fund adviser practises (fees, expenses, conflicts, valuation, Marketing Rule compliance), cybersecurity (particularly Regulation S-P implementation), the use of AI, and adherence to books and records requirements. Notably, commercial real estate exposure is highlighted as a specific risk factor due to interest rate sensitivity.

Common Audit Triggers & Types

Audits are not always predictable. They can be:

  • Routine/Periodic: Scheduled examinations as part of regular supervisory cycles.
  •  Risk-Based: Triggered by the regulator’s assessment of a firm’s risk profile or specific activities.
  • Thematic: Reviews focusing on a specific topic or risk across multiple firms (e.g., FCA’s reviews on private asset valuation  or unit-linked funds ).
  • For Cause: Initiated due to specific events like customer complaints, whistleblower allegations, significant market events, or material compliance breaches.  

 

The nature of the audit can also vary. Statutory audits of financial statements may be required annually for certain FCA-regulated firms, particularly MiFID investment firms, unless specific size exemptions apply. Even firms exempt from statutory audits might require a Client Money and Custody Asset (CASS) audit if they handle client assets. These CASS audits can provide either reasonable assurance (a positive opinion on compliance) or limited assurance (a negative opinion confirming no breaches were indicated). The SEC’s (now vacated) Private Fund Audit Rule mandated annual audits for private funds advised by registered advisers, meeting specific independence and GAAP standards , requirements often already met by funds complying with the Custody Rule’s audit provision.

Investor ODD: Core Areas of Investigation

Investor ODD adopts a risk mitigation perspective, aiming to ensure an investment manager’s operational infrastructure is sound and capable of safeguarding assets and supporting the investment strategy. While checklists vary, common areas of focus include :

  • Firm Structure & Governance: Evaluation of the organisational chart, stability and experience of key personnel (including compensation and incentives), clarity of decision-making processes, board oversight, and how conflicts of interest are identified and managed.
  • Financial Stability: Assessment of the management company’s financial health, including cash reserves, burn rate, sources of funding, path to profitability (breakeven AUM), and concentration risk within the client base.
  • Compliance Programme & Internal Controls: Review of the compliance manual, key policies (Code of Ethics, Valuation, Trading, AML/KYC, BCP), the CCO’s role, resources, and independence, regulatory examination history and findings, effectiveness of internal controls over key processes (e.g., trade execution, reconciliation, cash movements), and the overall compliance culture.
  •  Valuation Process: Deep dive into valuation policies and procedures, especially for illiquid or complex assets, including the independence of the process, frequency of valuation, use of third-party valuation agents, and documentation supporting valuation decisions.
  • Technology & Cybersecurity: Assessment of IT infrastructure reliability and scalability, data security measures, cybersecurity policies and testing (vulnerability/penetration testing), disaster recovery and business continuity plans, and vendor risk management for technology providers.
  • Third-Party Service Providers: Due diligence performed on key vendors like fund administrators, auditors, prime brokers, and custodians. ODD teams often seek independent verification of services and controls directly from these providers.
  • Trading and Operations: Review of trade lifecycle processes, including order management, execution, allocation, settlement, and reconciliation. Examination of cash management controls and collateral management practises.
  • Reporting and Transparency: Assessment of the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of reporting provided to investors.

 

An important takeaway is the significant overlap between the areas scrutinised by regulators and those examined during investor ODD. Core operational functions like internal controls, valuation procedures, compliance programme documentation, cybersecurity preparedness, and third-party vendor management are critical for both types of reviews. This convergence implies that firms building robust operational frameworks to satisfy demanding investors are simultaneously strengthening their posture for regulatory audits, and vice versa. Preparing holistically for operational integrity is far more efficient than attempting to address regulatory audits and ODD requests in isolated silos.

Furthermore, both regulatory priorities and ODD trends are dynamic. The increasing focus on areas like ESG , cybersecurity , private asset valuation , and the application of fiduciary standards  requires firms to continuously adapt their compliance programmes and operational practises. A static, “check-the-box” approach to compliance is no longer sufficient; audit readiness demands ongoing vigilance and adaptation to emerging risks and evolving expectations.

Table: Common Audit/ODD Findings & Mitigation Strategies

To aid preparation, the following table outlines common deficiencies identified during regulatory examinations and ODD reviews, alongside suggested mitigation strategies rooted in best practises discussed throughout this report.

Finding Category

Specific Deficiency Example

Regulatory Context / ODD Red Flag

Mitigation Best Practise

Documentation & Policies

Inadequate or outdated Investment Policy Statement (IPS)

SEC 206(4)-7; ODD Governance Review

Implement regular (at least annual) IPS review and board approval process; ensure clarity on objectives, risks, restrictions.

 

Missing or incomplete client agreements/mandates

SEC 204-2; FCA COBS; ODD Legal/Compliance Review

Standardise contract templates; ensure all required clauses, signatures, dates, and fee details are present before service provision; maintain centrally.

 

Poor record-keeping; missing or inaccessible documents

SEC 204-2; FCA SYSC/CASS; ODD Documentation Review

Implement clear record retention policy ; utilise centralised document management system; automate retention/disposal where possible.

 

Insufficient documentation of compliance reviews/testing

SEC 206(4)-7; FCA SYSC

Formalise annual review process; document scope, findings, actions taken; maintain records.

Internal Controls

Weak segregation of duties

SOX; General Control Principle; ODD Operational Review

Clearly define roles; separate authorisation, execution, custody, and recording functions where feasible ; implement compensating controls (e.g., manager review) if segregation is limited.

 

Lack of documented approval for exceptions (e.g., policy overrides, trade errors)

IPS Requirements; ODD Control Review

Establish formal exception approval workflow with defined authority levels; ensure all exceptions are documented with rationale and approval evidence ; maintain audit trail [Pillar 3].

 

Ineffective pre-trade or post-trade compliance checks

Client Mandates; Regulatory Rules (e.g., UCITS); ODD Trading Review

Implement automated pre-trade checks integrated with OMS ; conduct regular post-trade monitoring ; ensure rules accurately reflect restrictions.

 

Weak cybersecurity controls (e.g., access management, incident response)

SEC Reg S-P/S-ID; FCA SYSC; ODD IT/Cyber Review

Implement strong access controls (MFA, least privilege) ; conduct regular vulnerability/penetration testing ; develop and test incident response and BCP plans.

Conflicts of Interest

Failure to identify, manage, or disclose conflicts

SEC Fiduciary Duty; FCA Principles/COBS; ODD Governance Review

Maintain comprehensive conflicts inventory; implement robust policies for managing/mitigating conflicts; ensure full and fair disclosure in Form ADV/offering docs; ensure governance oversight.

 

Preferential treatment of certain investors without proper disclosure/consent

SEC Private Fund Rules (vacated but indicative); ODD Investor Relations Review

Establish clear policies on preferential terms (fees, liquidity, information); ensure disclosures meet regulatory standards and LPA requirements.

Valuation

Inadequate valuation policies/procedures, especially for illiquids

SEC Advisers Act; AIFMD; Fair Value Accounting Standards; ODD Valuation Review

Document detailed valuation policy approved by board/committee; use independent sources/third-party agents where possible ; ensure consistent application; maintain supporting documentation.

 

Lack of independence in valuation process

ODD Governance/Valuation Review; Regulatory Best Practise

Ensure valuation function/committee has operational independence from portfolio management; document challenges and overrides.

Fees & Expenses

Inaccurate fee calculations or expense allocations

Client Agreements (IMA/LPA); SEC Advisers Act; ODD Financial Review

Implement automated fee calculation checks; ensure expense allocation methodology is clearly defined, consistently applied, and accurately disclosed ; conduct periodic reviews.

Reporting & Filing

Inaccurate or inconsistent regulatory filings (e.g., Form ADV)

SEC Advisers Act; FCA Reporting Rules

Implement process for regular review and updating of filings; ensure consistency across documents (ADV, marketing materials, client agreements) ; use checklists.

 

Misleading performance advertising

SEC Marketing Rule; GIPS (if claimed)

Ensure performance calculations are accurate and comply with standards (e.g., GIPS); maintain backup documentation; ensure all disclosures are clear, fair, and not misleading.

Pillar 1: Fortifying Internal Controls

A robust system of internal controls serves as the bedrock of any effective compliance programme and is fundamental to achieving audit readiness. Internal controls are the specific policies, procedures, practises, and organisational structures designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in several key areas: effectiveness and efficiency of operations, reliability of financial reporting, safeguarding of assets, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Both regulators and ODD reviewers place significant emphasis on the design and operating effectiveness of these controls.

Designing an Effective Control Framework

The process of designing a control framework should be systematic and risk-based.

  • Risk Assessment: The starting point is a thorough risk assessment to identify and analyse the potential risks the firm faces across its operations. This includes understanding operational risks (e.g., process failures, human error), market risks, credit risks (e.g., counterparty default), liquidity risks, and compliance risks (failure to adhere to regulations or internal policies). Risks should be prioritised based on their potential impact and likelihood of occurrence , allowing the firm to focus control efforts where they are most needed.
  • Control Types: A well-designed framework incorporates a blend of control types :
    • Preventive Controls: Aim to stop errors or irregularities before they happen. Examples include segregation of duties, mandatory approvals, system access restrictions, data validation edits, and physical security measures.
    • Detective Controls: Designed to identify errors or irregularities after they have occurred, allowing for timely correction. Examples include reconciliations, performance reviews, exception reports, internal audits, and log monitoring.
    • Corrective Controls: Actions taken to remedy identified errors or irregularities and prevent their recurrence. Examples include disciplinary actions, process redesign, and system patches.
  • Key Control Activities: Certain control activities are fundamental across most asset management functions:
    • Segregation of Duties (SoD): This is a critical preventive control aimed at reducing the opportunity for any single individual to both perpetrate and conceal errors or fraud. Essential duties to segregate include authorisation, execution, custody of assets, and record-keeping. For example, the person executing trades should be different from the person settling them and the person reconciling the positions. Where staffing constraints limit segregation, documented compensating controls, such as heightened supervisory review, are necessary.
    • Authorisation and Approvals: Clear policies must define who is authorised to approve various transactions (e.g., trades, expenses, wire transfers, policy exceptions) and the limits of their authority. Approvals must be documented and verifiable. Approval workflows, especially for exceptions, are crucial.
    • Access Controls: Access to sensitive systems (e.g., portfolio management, trading, accounting, client data), physical assets, and confidential information must be restricted based on the principle of least privilege – granting access only as needed for job responsibilities. This involves robust user authentication (passwords, multi-factor authentication ), defined user roles and permissions, regular access reviews , and prompt revocation of access upon employee termination or role change.
    • Reconciliations: Regular and timely reconciliation of cash balances, security positions, and account statements against internal records and third-party data (e.g., custodian, administrator) is a vital detective control. Discrepancies must be investigated and resolved promptly.
    • Physical Security: Protecting tangible assets like hardware, cheques, and sensitive documents through measures like locked storage and access controls is also important.

The Compliance Function: Structure, Responsibilities, and Independence

The compliance function is central to maintaining and overseeing the internal control framework.

  • Regulatory Requirements: The SEC’s Rule 206(4)-7 mandates that RIAs designate a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) responsible for administering the firm’s compliance policies and procedures. The FCA’s SYSC 6 rules require certain firms, such as management companies, to establish and maintain a permanent, effective, and independent compliance function, led by an appointed Compliance Officer. Other FCA-regulated firms must allocate responsibility for compliance oversight to a director or senior manager.
  • Role and Authority: The CCO or Compliance Officer is tasked with developing, implementing, and maintaining the compliance programme, monitoring its effectiveness, advising business units on compliance matters, conducting training, investigating potential violations, and reporting findings and recommendations to senior management and the board. To be effective, the compliance function must possess the necessary authority, resources, expertise, and access to all relevant information. The CCO should be competent, knowledgeable about regulations, and empowered to enforce policies.
  • Independence: Independence is paramount for the compliance function’s credibility and effectiveness. Compliance personnel should ideally not be involved in the business activities they are monitoring. Their compensation structure should not create conflicts that could compromise their objectivity. ODD reviews frequently assess the independence and effectiveness of the compliance function.
  • Senior Management Accountability (FCA SMCR): In the UK, the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR) reinforces individual accountability at the highest levels. Specific Senior Management Functions (SMFs), such as Compliance Oversight (SMF16)  and Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO) (SMF17) , are assigned to approved individuals. Each SMF holder has a formal Statement of Responsibilities outlining their specific accountabilities. Crucially, SMFs have a statutory Duty of Responsibility, meaning they can be held personally accountable if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent regulatory breaches within their areas of responsibility. This includes ensuring effective delegation and maintaining appropriate oversight of delegated tasks. The regime also mandates rigorous fitness and propriety assessments, including regulatory references and criminal record checks, for SMF holders.

 

The effectiveness of internal controls is not merely about having policies on paper; it’s about demonstrating a functioning system of governance and accountability. This system must satisfy both regulators, who focus on rule adherence and systemic integrity (evidenced by the FCA’s SMCR and the SEC’s focus on CCO liability), and investors performing ODD, who assess the firm’s overall operational soundness and trustworthiness. Therefore, the rigorous documentation and regular testing of controls are just as critical as the design of the controls themselves, as failures often stem from poor documentation or inadequate oversight.

Continuous Monitoring and Testing: Beyond the Annual Review

While regulations like SEC Rule 206(4)-7 mandate at least an annual review of compliance policies and procedures , best Practise and regulatory expectations increasingly point towards more frequent, if not continuous, monitoring and testing. The FCA, for instance, requires ongoing monitoring and assessment of compliance measures.

  • Frequency and Scope: Regular internal audits and control testing are essential for proactively identifying weaknesses. The frequency should be risk-based, with higher-risk areas potentially requiring more frequent testing (e.g., daily or weekly for certain trading controls) than lower-risk areas (which might be reviewed quarterly or annually). Testing should assess both the design effectiveness (is the control designed properly to mitigate the risk?) and the operating effectiveness (is the control actually working as intended?). Common testing methods include reviewing documentation, interviewing staff, observing processes, re-performing controls, and analysing data samples or full populations.
  • Pre-Trade vs. Post-Trade Compliance: A critical distinction exists between pre-trade and post-trade compliance monitoring.
    • Pre-trade controls aim to prevent breaches before they occur by checking proposed orders against investment guidelines, regulatory restrictions, and internal limits. Examples include automated checks for restricted securities, concentration limits (issuer, sector, country), liquidity constraints, or client-specific mandates integrated into the Order Management System (OMS). Effective pre-trade compliance requires accurate, real-time data and seamless integration between portfolio data and the compliance engine.
    • Post-trade controls aim to detect breaches after trades have been executed. This typically involves end-of-day or periodic batch reviews of holdings and transactions against guidelines. While necessary, relying solely on post-trade checks is insufficient as breaches are identified after the fact, potentially causing client harm, requiring trade corrections, or leading to regulatory issues. The ideal state involves robust, automated pre-trade checks complemented by diligent post-trade monitoring and reconciliation. Real-time compliance monitoring systems aim to bridge this gap, continuously evaluating portfolio positions against rules throughout the trading day.
  • Leveraging Technology: Manually monitoring and testing controls across complex portfolios and numerous regulations is inefficient and prone to error. Automation technologies, often part of RegTech solutions, are increasingly vital. They enable continuous monitoring of controls , generate real-time alerts for potential breaches , facilitate the testing of entire data populations rather than just samples , and streamline the documentation of testing activities.

 

The integration of pre-trade and post-trade compliance checks within a single, robust system is a significant operational challenge but offers substantial benefits. Relying solely on post-trade detection mechanisms means identifying violations only after they have occurred, potentially necessitating costly corrections or leading to client detriment. Effective pre-trade controls, which act preventatively, are therefore essential. However, their successful implementation hinges on the availability of high-quality, real-time data and sophisticated system integration capabilities, underscoring the value of modern, integrated compliance platforms.

Learning from Mistakes: Common Control Deficiencies and Prevention

Analysing common failings identified during regulatory exams and ODD reviews provides valuable lessons for strengthening internal controls. Frequent deficiencies include:

  • Policy and Procedure Gaps: Policies being inadequate, outdated, or simply not followed in Practise.
  • Weak Governance and Oversight: Insufficient oversight by senior management or governance bodies, lack of clear accountability, or inadequate resources allocated to compliance and risk functions.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Failure to adequately identify, manage, document, or disclose conflicts of interest, particularly concerning affiliated transactions, fee arrangements, or personal trading. The FCA specifically noted instances where conflicts were only partially identified or documented.
  • Valuation Weaknesses: Inadequate policies or procedures for valuing assets (especially illiquids), lack of independence in the valuation process, or insufficient documentation supporting valuation decisions.
  • Operational Failures: Weaknesses in core processes like trade execution (leading to issues like cherry-picking ), reconciliation, fee calculation , or expense allocation. Lack of segregation of duties is a common root cause.
  • Cybersecurity and Data Governance: Inadequate cybersecurity controls, poor data management practises, lack of robust BCP/DR plans.
  • Record-Keeping Failures: Incomplete or inaccurate records, failure to retain required documentation or communications.
  • Failure to Remediate: Not addressing findings from previous audits or reviews effectively.
  • Lack of Training: Insufficient or ineffective training for staff on policies, procedures, and regulatory obligations.

 

Preventing these deficiencies requires a multi-faceted approach:

  • Strong Tone at the Top: Leadership must visibly champion a culture of compliance and ethical behaviour.
  • Clear Documentation: Develop, maintain, and regularly update comprehensive and clear policies and procedures.
  • Robust Training: Implement ongoing, role-specific training programmes.
  • Adequate Resourcing: Ensure the compliance and risk functions have sufficient resources, expertise, and authority.
  • Rigorous Testing: Conduct regular, thorough testing of controls and processes.
  • Prompt Remediation: Address identified deficiencies promptly and track remediation efforts to completion.
  • Leverage Technology: Utilise automation for monitoring, testing, and documentation where possible.
  • Document Everything: Maintain clear records of policies, procedures, training, testing, findings, remediation actions, and approvals.

 

Conflicts of interest remain a particularly challenging and high-priority area for both regulators and investors. Effective management requires more than just identification; it demands robust controls, transparent disclosure to clients and investors, and demonstrable oversight from governance bodies. The complexity arises because conflicts can be subtle and pervasive, touching areas like fee structures, expense allocations, affiliated service providers, side-by-side management of different fund types, and personal trading. A proactive and transparent approach, supported by strong internal controls and clear documentation, is essential to navigate this risk effectively.

Pillar 2: Mastering Documentation and Record-Keeping

Comprehensive, accurate, and accessible documentation is the tangible evidence that underpins a firm’s compliance programme and operational integrity. Auditors and ODD teams rely heavily on documentation to verify adherence to regulations, policies, and client mandates. Mastering documentation involves not only creating the right documents but also managing them effectively throughout their lifecycle.

The Investment Policy Statement (IPS): A Living Document

The Investment Policy Statement (IPS) is a foundational governance document for many investment portfolios, particularly those managed for institutional clients, endowments, foundations, or pension plans. While not always mandatory for all client types, it represents best Practise and is often expected or required by institutional investors and certain regulations.

  • Purpose and Importance: The IPS serves as a strategic roadmap, establishing a clear understanding of investment goals, risk tolerance, constraints, and the overall management philosophy. It provides discipline, especially during volatile market periods when emotional decisions might otherwise prevail. It defines roles, responsibilities, and guidelines for all parties involved in the investment process. For regulated entities, it helps demonstrate compliance with fiduciary duties and specific investment management regulations. It also forms the basis for performance evaluation.
  • Essential Content: A comprehensive IPS should be tailored to the specific client or pool of assets but generally includes :
    • Statement of Purpose/Scope: Clearly define the assets covered by the policy.
    • Investment Objectives: Articulate specific goals, such as capital preservation, income generation, long-term growth, or meeting liability requirements. Define return expectations (e.g., target return, benchmark outperformance) and distribution needs.
    • Roles and Responsibilities: Define the duties and authority of the governing body (e.g., Board, Investment Committee ), internal staff (e.g., CIO, Treasurer, Investment Staff ), and any external parties like consultants or investment managers. Specify who is responsible for policy setting, execution, monitoring, and manager selection/termination.
    • Risk Tolerance and Management: Clearly define the client’s or fund’s tolerance for various risks (market, credit, liquidity, concentration, operational). Establish specific risk limits, diversification requirements (e.g., maximum allocation per issuer, sector, geography), and criteria for assessing credit quality. Define risk metrics to be monitored.
    • Asset Allocation: Specify the strategic (long-term) target allocations to various asset classes and permissible ranges around these targets. Outline the policy for rebalancing back to target allocations (e.g., frequency, tolerance bands).
    • Permissible Investments and Restrictions: List eligible asset classes and security types. Explicitly state any prohibited investments (e.g., derivatives, commodities, private placements unless specifically allowed). Define concentration limits and quality standards for specific instruments (e.g., fixed income ratings , counterparty limits ). Include criteria for selecting brokers and dealers.
    • Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Define the benchmarks against which portfolio and manager performance will be measured. Specify the frequency and format of performance reporting.
    • Review and Amendment Process: State how often the IPS will be reviewed (at least annually is common Practise and sometimes required ) and the process for making and approving amendments.
  • Approval and Exception Management: The IPS itself, and any material amendments, should be formally approved by the governing body (e.g., Board of Directors, Investment Committee). Crucially, the policy must define a clear process for handling and approving any exceptions to the stated guidelines. This process should specify who has the authority to grant exceptions (e.g., Treasurer for minor exceptions, CFO or Committee for larger ones ), the circumstances under which exceptions might be considered, and the requirement for written documentation of the exception, its rationale, and the approval. This documentation forms a critical part of the audit trail (discussed in Pillar 3).

 

The IPS should not be a static document filed away after creation. Its value lies in its active use as a guide for decision-making and a tool for governance. Regular reviews ensure it remains relevant to the market environment and the client’s evolving circumstances. The process for managing and documenting exceptions is particularly critical; it acknowledges that deviations may sometimes be necessary but ensures they occur within a controlled and accountable framework.

The Audit-Ready Documentation Checklist

A successful audit or ODD review hinges on the ability to produce relevant documentation promptly. Maintaining a well-organised  and comprehensive library of compliance-related documents is essential. The following table provides a checklist of key documents typically requested, their purpose, regulatory links, and common retention considerations.

Document Type

Description/Purpose

Key Regulatory Link / ODD Area

Typical Retention Period Considerations

Governance & Policy

 

 

 

Investment Policy Statement (IPS) & Revisions

Outlines investment objectives, strategy, risk tolerance, guidelines, responsibilities, review process.

Client Mandates; ODD Governance

Life of relationship + regulatory period (e.g., 5-7 years post-termination).

Compliance Manual & Procedures

Comprehensive set of internal policies covering trading, ethics, valuation, risk, BCP, AML/KYC, cybersecurity, etc.

SEC 206(4)-7; FCA SYSC; ODD Compliance Review

Current version + versions from past 5 years (SEC 204-2) ; FCA periods vary.

Code of Ethics & Violation Records

Governs personal trading, conflicts, fiduciary duty. Records of breaches and actions taken.

SEC 204A-1; ODD Ethics/Compliance

Current code + codes from past 5 years; Violation records for 5 years after end of fiscal year violation occurred (SEC 204-2).

Annual Compliance Review Documentation

Evidence of required annual review of policies & procedures.

SEC 206(4)-7(b); ODD Compliance Review

5 years from end of fiscal year review was conducted (SEC 204-2).

Organisational Charts & Governance Records

Shows reporting lines, committee structures. Minutes of Board/Committee meetings.

ODD Governance; FCA SMCR

Varies; often 5-7 years or longer for governance records.

Regulatory Filings (Forms ADV, PF, FCA Returns, etc.)

Submissions to regulators detailing firm information, AUM, risks, etc.

SEC/FCA Filing Requirements

Typically 5-7 years or as specified by regulation.

Client & Investor Related

 

 

 

Client Agreements (IMAs, LPAs) & Mandates

Defines relationship, services, fees, investment guidelines, restrictions.

Contract Law; SEC/FCA Conduct Rules; ODD Legal/Client Review

Life of relationship + regulatory period (e.g., 5-7 years post-termination).

Subscription Documents

Investor commitments and representations.

Fund Formation Docs; ODD Investor Relations

Life of fund + regulatory period.

Due Diligence Records (KYC/AML)

Evidence of client identification, verification, and risk assessment.

AML Regulations (BSA, EU AMLD); ODD Compliance

Typically 5 years after relationship ends (varies by jurisdiction).

Investor Communications & Disclosures

Letters, emails, marketing materials, performance reports, fee disclosures, conflict disclosures.

SEC Marketing Rule; FCA COBS; Advisers Act Anti-Fraud; ODD Investor Relations

5 years from end of fiscal year last used (SEC 204-2 for ads/perf); varies for other comms.

Operational & Transactional

 

 

 

Trade Records (Blotters, Tickets, Confirmations)

Detailed records of all securities transactions.

SEC 204-2; FCA Record-Keeping; MiFID II

5 years (SEC 204-2); 5-7 years (MiFID II).

Valuation Documentation

Records supporting asset valuations (methodology, inputs, sources, reviews, approvals).

Fair Value Accounting (ASC 820/IFRS 13); Advisers Act; AIFMD; ODD Valuation Review

Support for financial statements; typically 5-7 years.

Performance Reports & Calculations

Records supporting performance presented to clients/prospects. GIPS compliance records if applicable.

SEC Marketing Rule; GIPS Standards; ODD Performance Review

5 years from end of fiscal year last disseminated (SEC 204-2) ; GIPS requires specific records.

Risk Reports & Assessments

Documentation of credit, market, liquidity, operational risk analysis and monitoring.

FCA SYSC; AIFMD; ODD Risk Review

Varies; often linked to policy review cycles or specific event analysis.

Internal/External Audit Reports & Remediation

Findings from audits and evidence of corrective actions taken.

Regulatory Exam Preparedness; ODD History Review

Typically 5-7 years or longer, depending on significance.

Training Records

Evidence of employee training on compliance, ethics, cybersecurity, etc.

SEC/FCA Compliance Programme Requirements; ODD HR/Compliance

Duration of employment + regulatory period.

Vendor Due Diligence & Contracts

Records of DD performed on key service providers and contracts.

FCA Outsourcing Rules (SYSC 8); ODD Service Provider Review

Life of contract + regulatory period.

Audit Trail Logs

System and manual logs tracking key activities, changes, approvals.

SEC 17a-4; SOX; General Control Principle

Retention tied to underlying record or specific regulation (e.g., 3-6 years for 17a-4 ).

Exception Approval Records

Documentation of approvals for deviations from policy/guidelines.

IPS Requirements; Internal Controls

Typically retained with related transaction/activity records.

 

Performance Reporting & GIPS

Accurate and transparent performance reporting is crucial for maintaining investor trust and meeting regulatory expectations. The Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) have emerged as the globally recognised best Practise for calculating and presenting investment performance. While voluntary, GIPS compliance is adopted by a vast majority of leading asset managers  and is increasingly expected or required by institutional investors.

Key principles of the GIPS standards include:

  • Fair Representation and Full Disclosure: The ethical foundation, requiring transparency and honesty in performance presentations.
  • Firm-Wide Compliance: Firms must define the scope of their “firm” and bring all relevant assets into compliance.
  • Compositae Construction: To prevent “cherry-picking” of best-performing accounts, GIPS requires firms managing segregated accounts to group all actual, fee-paying, discretionary portfolios with similar strategies/objectives into composites. Pooled funds meeting the definition must also be included.
  • Input Data Integrity: Accurate performance relies on accurate underlying data, particularly valuations.
  • Standardised Calculation Methodologies: Ensures comparability across firms.
  • Presentation and Reporting: Mandates specific disclosures, including composite descriptions, fee information, benchmark details , and risk measures. Requires presenting a minimum of five years of annual GIPS-compliant performance initially, building up to ten years.

 

Claiming GIPS compliance offers significant advantages beyond just meeting a standard. It enhances credibility and trust with investors , facilitates easier comparison between managers , provides a competitive edge in attracting allocations , serves as a valuable marketing tool , and often drives improvements in internal data quality and processes. Independent verification of GIPS compliance by a third party can further bolster these benefits. This positions GIPS compliance not merely as a technical reporting exercise, but as a strategic decision that signals institutional quality and commitment to transparency, resonating strongly with sophisticated investors.

Regulatory Record Retention Requirements

Regulators mandate that firms maintain comprehensive and accurate records to demonstrate compliance with laws and rules, facilitate supervision, and protect investors. Poor record-keeping is a frequent source of regulatory deficiencies and operational risk.

  • SEC Requirements (Rule 204-2): This rule under the Advisers Act is extensive, requiring RIAs to maintain a wide array of “true, accurate and current” books and records. This includes, but is not limited to: journals, ledgers, memoranda of orders (order tickets), chequebooks, bank statements, bills, financial statements, written agreements (client contracts, LPAs), all communications received and sent relating to recommendations or advice, documentation supporting performance presentations, advertising materials, Code of Ethics records (including violations), compliance policies and procedures, and annual review documentation. The general retention period is five years from the end of the fiscal year of the last entry, with the records kept in an easily accessible place, the first two years in an appropriate office of the adviser. Specific requirements exist for records related to the (vacated) Private Fund Adviser rules. Broker-dealers face separate, detailed requirements under Exchange Act Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4, covering trade blotters, ledgers, customer accounts, order tickets, confirmations, and communications “relating to its business as such”. Rule 17a-4 specifies retention periods (often 3 or 6 years) and format requirements (including WORM or equivalent audit trails for electronic records).
  • FCA Requirements: The FCA Handbook mandates firms maintain adequate records to demonstrate compliance with regulatory obligations. Specific requirements are embedded within various sourcebooks like SYSC (e.g., compliance procedures ), CASS (client asset records ), and COBS (client communications, suitability records ). MiFID II imposes significant record-keeping obligations, often requiring retention for five to seven years, covering transactions, communications leading to transactions (including phone calls and electronic messages), and client agreements. Firms must determine which communications are “significant” and require retention.
  • Other Considerations: Data privacy laws like GDPR impose obligations regarding the retention and deletion of personal data, requiring firms to justify holding data and delete it when no longer necessary for legal or regulatory purposes. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) mandates retention periods for audit workpapers (7 years) for auditors of public companies and imposes requirements on public companies regarding financial record retention and internal controls.
  • Best Practises: Effective record retention requires a strategic approach, not just storage. Key practises include:
    • Develop a Formal Policy: Create a clear, written document retention policy outlining what records to keep, why, for how long (considering all applicable regulations), storage methods, access controls, and disposal procedures.
    • Conduct Data Inventory/Audit: Understand what data and records the firm holds, where they are stored, and their regulatory relevance.
    • Identify Regulatory Scope: Determine all applicable retention requirements (SEC, FCA, GDPR, SOX, state laws, etc.).
    • Centralise and Automate: Use technology (document management systems, compliance platforms) to centralise records, automate retention schedules, and manage disposal.
    • Ensure Security and Accessibility: Protect records from unauthorised access, loss, or destruction. Ensure records are readily accessible for audits and regulatory requests.
    • Train Staff: Educate employees on the retention policy and their responsibilities.
    • Regular Review: Periodically review and update the policy to reflect changes in regulations, business activities, and technology.
    • Defensible Disposal: Implement secure and documented procedures for destroying records once their retention period expires. Retaining records unnecessarily increases storage costs and potential legal/discovery risks.  

 

This lifecycle approach to record retention—encompassing creation, identification, storage, retrieval, and disposal—is crucial. It requires moving beyond simply meeting minimum timeframes to establishing a strategic programme that balances compliance obligations with operational efficiency and risk management. Automation plays a key role in managing the complexity of overlapping regulations and vast amounts of data, ensuring records are kept appropriately, securely, accessibly, and disposed of defensibly.

Pillar 3: Building an Irrefutable Audit Trail

An audit trail serves as the chronological narrative of key activities within an organisation, providing a verifiable history of transactions, decisions, and system interactions. It is the fundamental evidence that allows auditors, regulators, and internal reviewers to understand what happened, when it happened, and who was responsible. In the context of an investment compliance audit or ODD review, a robust and reliable audit trail is not merely helpful; it is essential for demonstrating control effectiveness, supporting financial reporting, investigating discrepancies, and proving adherence to policies and regulations.

Defining the Gold Standard

A high-quality audit trail provides more than just a log of events. It is characterised by:

  • Completeness: Capturing all significant actions related to a process or transaction, including creations, modifications, deletions, and approvals.
  • Accuracy: Reflecting the true sequence and details of events.
  • Chronological Order: Recording events sequentially with accurate timestamps.
  • Attribution: Clearly identifying the user or system process responsible for each action.
  • Context: Providing sufficient detail to understand the nature and purpose of the recorded event.
  • Integrity/Immutability: Being protected from unauthorised alteration or deletion.
  • Accessibility: Being readily available for review by authorised personnel, auditors, and regulators.

 

Essentially, the audit trail should provide the necessary support for the representations made in financial statements or compliance reports, demonstrating that underlying records agree and that processes complied with established standards.

Why It’s Critical

The absence or inadequacy of an audit trail is a significant red flag for auditors and regulators. Robust audit trails are critical because they:

  • Demonstrate Compliance: Provide evidence that policies and procedures were followed and controls were operating effectively.
  • Support Audits: Facilitate the work of internal and external auditors by allowing them to trace transactions and verify information efficiently. Good audit trails lead to smoother, faster, and potentially less costly audits.
  • Enable Investigations: Provide essential evidence for investigating errors, discrepancies, compliance breaches, or potential fraud by reconstructing the sequence of events.
  • Deter Fraud: The mere existence of a comprehensive audit trail can deter internal fraud, as employees know their actions are being recorded.
  • Enhance Accountability: Clearly linking actions to individuals promotes responsibility.
  • Meet Regulatory Requirements: Specific regulations often mandate the creation and retention of audit trails (e.g., SEC Rule 17a-4 for broker-dealers , SOX requirements for financial reporting controls ).

Documenting Key Decisions: Beyond Transactions

While audit trails are often associated with financial transactions, their scope must extend to cover critical decisions and judgements made throughout the investment and compliance process. Simply logging that a transaction occurred is insufficient; the basis for actions and conclusions must be documented. This requires capturing the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’. Key areas include:

  • Investment Decisions: Documenting the analysis and rationale supporting investment selections, ensuring alignment with the IPS and client mandates. This might involve linking investment committee minutes or research notes to trade records.
  • Valuation Decisions: Recording the chosen valuation methodologies, key inputs and assumptions, sources of data, results of any back-testing, and the rationale for any overrides or adjustments, particularly for illiquid or hard-to-value assets. Independence of the process should also be demonstrable.
  • Policy Exceptions: Maintaining a clear record for every approved exception to the IPS or other compliance policies. This record must include details of the exception, the justification, the date, and evidence of approval by the authorised individual or body, as defined in the relevant policy. This creates traceability for deviations from standard procedures.
  • Compliance Actions: Documenting the investigation process, findings, corrective actions taken, and resolution for any identified compliance breaches or policy violations. Records of periodic compliance reviews and testing must also be maintained.
  • Risk Assessments: Retaining documentation of risk assessments performed, including the analysis of credit, market, liquidity, and operational risks associated with investments or processes.
  • Significant Findings and Issues: A crucial requirement under PCAOB standards (relevant for audits of public companies and broker-dealers, and often considered best Practise elsewhere) is to retain documentation related to significant findings or issues that are inconsistent with or contradict the final conclusions reached by the engagement team. This includes records of consultations and how differences in professional judgement were resolved. This demonstrates a thorough and objective process.

 

Capturing the context and rationale behind key decisions often requires linking system-generated logs with human-generated documentation like meeting minutes, approval forms, or justification memos. An effective audit trail integrates these elements to provide a complete picture.

Ensuring Immutability and Accessibility

For an audit trail to be reliable, its integrity must be protected, and it must be readily accessible when needed.

  • Immutability: Records must be safeguarded against unauthorised modification or deletion. For electronic records, this is often achieved through technology that meets specific standards. SEC Rule 17a-4, for example, requires broker-dealers using electronic storage systems (ERS) to preserve records either in a non-rewriteable, non-erasable format (WORM) or in a manner that maintains a complete, time-stamped audit trail capturing all modifications, deletions, dates, times, and user identities, allowing for the re-creation of the original record.
  • Accessibility: Audit trails and the underlying records must be easily and promptly retrievable for examination by regulators, auditors, or internal compliance staff. SEC Rule 17a-4 requires broker-dealers to have facilities to immediately produce records stored electronically and readily download them in human-readable and usable electronic formats. Retention policies must ensure accessibility for the required duration.
  • Technical Requirements: Meeting these standards often necessitates specific technological capabilities. Firms relying on electronic systems must ensure their chosen solutions meet the stringent requirements for immutability (or equivalent audit trail logging) and accessibility mandated by relevant regulations. Simple logging features in standard business software may not suffice.

Technology’s Role

Manually creating and maintaining comprehensive, immutable, and accessible audit trails is practically impossible in today’s complex, high-volume environment. Technology, particularly specialised compliance and workflow automation platforms, is essential. These systems can:

  • Automatically log user actions, system events, data modifications, and approvals with accurate timestamps and user IDs.
  • Enforce workflows, ensuring required steps and approvals are completed and logged.
  • Provide centralised storage for audit trail data, making it easier to manage and retrieve.
  • Generate audit reports efficiently.
  • Incorporate features designed to meet specific regulatory requirements like WORM or equivalent logging.

 

While technology automates the capture of what happened, when, and by whom, firms must ensure processes are in place to link this data with the rationale for key judgements and decisions, creating a truly comprehensive and irrefutable record. Furthermore, firms must navigate the potential tension between comprehensive audit trails and data privacy obligations. Audit trails should be designed to capture necessary accountability information (user ID, role, action, timestamp) without storing excessive or unnecessary personal data, unless explicitly required by regulation.

The Audit Preparation Playbook: A Step-by-Step Guide

Successfully navigating an investment compliance audit or ODD review requires a structured, proactive approach rather than a last-minute scramble. Preparation should be viewed as an ongoing process, integrated into the firm’s regular operations. The following phases outline a playbook for effective audit readiness.

Phase 1: Scoping, Planning, and Gap Analysis

This initial phase lays the groundwork for the entire preparation effort.

  • Understand the Scope and Requirements: The first step is to clearly understand the specific nature and scope of the upcoming review. Is it a routine regulatory exam, a thematic review focused on a specific risk area (like valuation or cybersecurity), an ODD request from a prospective investor, or a statutory financial statement audit? Identify the applicable regulations, standards (e.g., GIPS, if relevant), or ODD questionnaire requirements. Stay abreast of recent regulatory updates and priorities. Crucially, review findings and recommendations from previous audits or ODD reports to ensure past issues have been addressed and to anticipate potential areas of focus.
  • Define Objectives and Timeline: Establish clear internal objectives for the audit preparation process. Develop a detailed and realistic timeline, mapping out key milestones such as policy updates, control testing, evidence gathering, internal reviews, and deadlines for providing information to the auditors. Factor in the auditors’ or ODD team’s availability, as reputable firms are often booked well in advance. If a formal Statement of Work (SOW) exists, ensure its deadlines are incorporated into the plan. Starting the preparation process early is paramount.
  • Conduct Gap Analysis / Pre-Audit Assessment: Perform a critical self-assessment comparing the firm’s current state (policies, procedures, controls, documentation) against the requirements of the anticipated audit or review. Regular internal audits are a best Practise for proactively identifying gaps. This gap analysis should cover all relevant areas, including IT infrastructure, information management, risk management practises, operational processes, and financial reporting controls. Consider engaging external consultants or conducting a formal readiness assessment, especially before a significant audit or if internal resources are limited. Compliance automation tools can significantly streamline the gap analysis process by providing real-time visibility into control effectiveness and documentation status.

Phase 2: Remediation and Resource Allocation

Once gaps are identified, the focus shifts to closing them and ensuring the right resources are in place.

  • Prioritise and Remediate Gaps: Address the identified deficiencies based on their potential risk and impact. This may involve revising policies, strengthening controls, improving documentation, providing additional training, or implementing new technology. Implement the necessary changes systematically. Crucially, document all remediation efforts, including the actions taken, timelines, and verification of effectiveness, as auditors may review this.
  • Allocate Resources Effectively: Audit preparation requires dedicated resources. Assign clear roles and responsibilities to individuals or teams for specific preparation tasks. Designate a single, knowledgeable point of contact to liaise with the auditors, ensuring timely responses and efficient communication. Ensure sufficient budget, personnel time, and technological support are allocated to the preparation effort. Inform all relevant departments (e.g., IT, Operations, Legal, Portfolio Management) of their roles and expected contributions.

Phase 3: Evidence Management – Gathering, Organising, and Presenting

This phase focuses on efficiently handling the documentation required by the auditors.

  • Obtain and Understand the Request List: Request the auditor’s or ODD team’s detailed list of required documents and information (often called a Prepared by Client or PBC list) as early as possible. Clarify any ambiguities regarding the requests. If using a fund administrator, share the list and coordinate responsibilities and timelines.
  • Gather Evidence Systematically: Collect all requested documentation, ensuring it covers the specified period and scope. Refer back to the comprehensive documentation checklist (Pillar 2) to ensure completeness.
  • Organise and Manage Evidence: Maintain documentation in an organised , accurate, and up-to-date manner. Utilising a centralised repository, such as a dedicated compliance platform or a secure virtual data room (VDR), is highly recommended. This ensures information is easily retrievable, consistently managed, and securely stored. Avoid relying on scattered emails, shared drives, or spreadsheets.
  • Review and Validate Before Submission: Critically review all evidence before providing it to the auditors. Check for completeness, accuracy, internal consistency, and relevance to the request. Ensure financial schedules reconcile to the trial balance or general ledger. Submitting inaccurate or inconsistent information can lead to delays, additional auditor scrutiny, and increased costs.
  • Leverage Automation: Compliance automation tools are invaluable for evidence management. They can automatically collect evidence from various source systems (e.g., HR systems for training records, IT systems for access logs), link evidence to specific controls, manage version control, and provide a centralised platform for auditors to access information securely. This significantly reduces the manual effort involved in evidence collection and preparation, saving considerable time and resources. For instance, automation can cut preparation time by up to 50%  or save an average of 4.6 hours per week on evidence collection alone.

 

The efficiency gains realised through automating evidence management represent a significant return on investment for compliance technology. The reduction in manual effort frees up compliance and operational staff to focus on higher-value activities, such as strategic risk analysis and process improvement, rather than being bogged down in repetitive evidence gathering tasks. This shift not only streamlines audit preparation but also enhances the overall effectiveness of the compliance function.

Phase 4: Team Briefing and Auditor Collaboration

The final stage involves preparing personnel and managing the interaction with the audit team.

  • Prepare Internal Teams: Brief relevant employees and managers on the audit’s scope, timeline, and what to expect during fieldwork (e.g., interviews, walkthroughs). Clarify their roles and responsibilities in supporting the audit (e.g., providing explanations, demonstrating processes). Conduct mock interviews or walkthroughs for key personnel if necessary, particularly for regulatory exams. Reinforce the importance of transparency, accuracy, and cooperation. Foster a culture where compliance is viewed as a shared responsibility.
  • Collaborate with Auditors: Aim for a professional and collaborative relationship with the audit team, rather than an adversarial one. Engage early to understand their methodology, expectations, and key areas of focus. Respond promptly and completely to their requests for information and clarifications. Schedule regular status meetings during fieldwork to track progress, address emerging issues, and manage expectations. Open communication can prevent misunderstandings and facilitate a smoother audit process.  

 

Building this collaborative relationship can begin even before the formal audit, for instance, during a readiness assessment. Establishing rapport and mutual understanding early on can significantly reduce friction during the actual audit, leading to more constructive dialogue and potentially faster resolution of any identified issues. Furthermore, audit preparation should not be treated as a discrete project that ends when the audit report is issued. It is a continuous cycle. The findings and recommendations from each audit or ODD review must be formally reviewed, with corrective actions planned, tracked, and verified. This feedback loop ensures that lessons learnt are incorporated into ongoing compliance efforts, strengthening the firm’s posture for future reviews and preventing recurring deficiencies.

Leveraging Your Fund Administrator for Audit Success

For many asset managers, particularly those managing private equity, venture capital, or hedge funds, outsourcing middle- and back-office functions to a specialised fund administrator is common Practise. These administrators play a vital role in the day-to-day operations and can be a critical partner in achieving audit readiness.

Core Responsibilities of Fund Administrators

Fund administrators provide a range of essential services designed to support the operational infrastructure of investment funds. Their core responsibilities typically include:

  • Fund Accounting: Maintaining the fund’s books and records, including the general ledger, tracking portfolio transactions, recording income and expenses, and calculating fund Net Asset Value (NAV).
  • Financial Reporting: Preparing periodic financial statements (e.g., quarterly, annually) in accordance with relevant accounting standards (e.g., US GAAP, IFRS).
  • Investor Services: Managing investor communications, processing subscriptions and redemptions, maintaining the register of investors, distributing investor reports (including capital account statements for PE/VC funds), and handling investor queries.
  • Capital Activity Management: Administering capital calls from investors and managing distributions of proceeds or income back to investors, including complex waterfall calculations for carried interest.
  • Cash Management: Managing the fund’s bank accounts and monitoring cash flows.
  • Regulatory and Tax Support: Assisting with regulatory filings, tax reporting (e.g., K-1s for partnerships), and compliance monitoring related to areas like AML/KYC.

Role in Compliance Documentation and Audit Support

Given their central role in managing fund data and operations, fund administrators are key players in the audit process.

  • Record Maintenance: They are the custodians of the primary financial books and records that auditors will examine. Their accuracy and organisation are crucial for a smooth audit.
  • Financial Statement Preparation: Administrators prepare the draught financial statements that are subject to audit, ensuring they comply with accounting standards.
  • Compliance Documentation: They manage critical compliance documentation, particularly related to investor onboarding (subscription documents, KYC/AML checks).
  • Audit Liaison: Fund administrators typically serve as a primary point of contact for the external auditors, coordinating requests, providing supporting documentation, and answering queries related to the fund’s financial records and operations. They prepare schedules and reconciliations required by the auditors.
  • Independent Verification: The use of a reputable, independent fund administrator provides a level of third-party validation over fund assets and valuations, which is valued by both investors and auditors.

Selecting and Managing the Administrator Relationship

The quality of audit support received is directly linked to the capabilities and diligence of the chosen fund administrator. When selecting an administrator, managers should assess their:

  • Expertise and Experience: Demonstrated track record in the relevant fund structure and asset class.
  • Technology Platform: Robust, reliable, and preferably integrated technology for accounting, reporting, and investor portals. Modern platforms can offer significant advantages in data access and reporting timeliness.
  • Compliance and Control Environment: Strong internal controls, established procedures for AML/KYC, data security, and regulatory reporting.
  • Client Service Model: Clear communication protocols, responsiveness, and potentially a dedicated point of contact.

 

Effective management of the relationship is crucial. Asset managers should:

  • Establish Clear Expectations: Define roles, responsibilities, service level agreements (SLAs), and reporting requirements clearly in the administration agreement.
  • Maintain Open Communication: Foster a collaborative relationship with regular touchpoints.
  • Provide Timely Information: Ensure the administrator receives necessary information from the manager promptly (e.g., deal documentation, valuation inputs).
  • Exercise Oversight: While outsourcing functions, the asset manager retains ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the fund’s financial statements and overall compliance. Managers must perform adequate oversight, review the administrator’s work (e.g., NAV packs, financial statements), and understand their processes. Share the auditor’s PBC list and coordinate timelines effectively.

 

The fund administrator is a critical partner in achieving audit readiness. Their ability to maintain accurate records, prepare compliant reports, and liaise effectively with auditors can significantly streamline the audit process. However, this partnership requires careful selection and diligent oversight by the asset manager. The quality of the administrator’s technology platform is increasingly a key factor ; those leveraging modern, integrated systems are better equipped to provide the timely, accurate, and easily accessible data required for efficient audits compared to administrators relying on legacy or manual processes. Ultimately, while the administrator executes many tasks, the responsibility for compliance rests with the manager.

Benefits of Using a Fund Administrator for Audit Readiness

Engaging a qualified fund administrator offers numerous benefits that contribute to audit readiness and overall operational robustness:

  • Enhanced Transparency and Credibility: Using a reputable third-party administrator signals a commitment to transparency and sound governance, boosting confidence among investors and regulators.
  • Access to Expertise: Administrators provide specialised knowledge in fund accounting, complex valuations, regulatory compliance (including AML/KYC), and tax reporting, which may be costly or difficult to maintain in-house.
  • Improved Efficiency and Scalability: Administrators leverage technology and standardised processes to handle administrative tasks efficiently, allowing the fund manager to scale operations without a proportional increase in back-office headcount.
  • Risk Absorption: Fund administrators take on operational responsibility for the functions they perform, helping to mitigate certain operational risks for the asset manager.
  • Focus on Core Competencies: By outsourcing administrative burdens, the investment team can dedicate more time and resources to portfolio management, deal sourcing, and value creation.

The RegTech Advantage: Streamlining Audit Preparedness

The increasing complexity of regulations, coupled with the demand for greater transparency and efficiency, has spurred the growth of Regulatory Technology (RegTech). RegTech leverages modern technologies to help financial institutions manage regulatory compliance more effectively and efficiently. For asset managers preparing for audits, RegTech solutions offer significant advantages in automating processes, enhancing controls, and ensuring data integrity.

What is RegTech?

RegTech applies technologies such as automation, data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and sometimes blockchain to streamline and improve regulatory processes. It aims to move beyond traditional, often manual, compliance approaches towards more reliable, scalable, and cost-effective methods. While often associated with FinTech, RegTech’s specific focus is on solving regulatory and compliance challenges.

Automating Monitoring, Testing, and Reporting

RegTech solutions excel at automating key compliance tasks that are often manual, time-consuming, and prone to error when preparing for an audit:

  • Compliance Monitoring: RegTech platforms can provide real-time or continuous monitoring of portfolios against investment guidelines, regulatory restrictions, and internal policies. They can automatically flag potential breaches or deviations, allowing for proactive investigation and remediation. These systems can also monitor for regulatory changes, alerting compliance teams to new requirements.
  • Control Testing Automation (CTA): Automating the testing of internal controls is a key application. CTA tools can execute tests frequently or continuously, analyse entire populations of data rather than relying on sampling, identify exceptions automatically, and generate testing documentation. This reduces manual effort, minimises human error, speeds up the testing cycle, and provides more comprehensive assurance over control effectiveness.
  • Regulatory Reporting: Generating and submitting regulatory reports (e.g., Form PF, MiFID transaction reports, AIFMD Annex IV) can be significantly streamlined. RegTech tools can automate data aggregation from various sources, populate required templates, validate data quality, and manage submission workflows, ensuring accuracy and timeliness while reducing the manual burden.

Creating Automated and Reliable Audit Trails

A core strength of many RegTech solutions is their ability to automatically generate robust, time-stamped audit trails. As users interact with the system, perform actions (like approving a trade exception or updating a policy), or as automated processes run, the platform logs these events. This provides:

  • Traceability: A clear record of who did what, when, and how data or processes were changed.
  • Transparency: Visibility into compliance activities and decision-making processes.
  • Immutability: Features designed to ensure the integrity of the audit log, often meeting regulatory standards like WORM or equivalent.
  • Efficiency: Automated logging eliminates the need for manual record-keeping of system activities, ensuring completeness and accuracy.

Integrated Platforms vs. Point Solutions: A Strategic Choice

  • When adopting RegTech, firms face a choice between implementing multiple specialised “point solutions” or opting for a more comprehensive “integrated platform”.
  • Point Solutions: These tools are designed to solve a specific problem, such as KYC verification, trade surveillance, or e-communications archiving.
    • Pros: Often offer deep expertise and best-in-class features for their specific niche ; typically faster to deploy for immediate needs ; may have lower initial costs.
    • Cons: Can lead to fragmented data across multiple systems (data silos) ; require managing multiple vendor relationships, integrations, and contracts ; integrations between point solutions can be complex and costly to build and maintain ; difficult to achieve a holistic view of compliance risk ; scalability can be limited.
  • Integrated Platforms: These offer a suite of connected modules or functionalities within a single system, covering multiple compliance areas like policy management, risk assessment, control testing, incident management, reporting, and audit trail generation.
    • Pros: Provide a centralised repository for data and workflows, eliminating silos ; enable seamless data flow between different compliance functions ; offer greater scalability and flexibility to adapt to changing needs and regulations ; improve collaboration and transparency across teams ; simplify vendor management ; often lead to greater long-term efficiency and potentially higher ROI.
    • Cons: Typically involve a higher upfront investment ; implementation may take longer than a single point solution ; may not have the same depth of features in every single niche area compared to a best-of-breed point solution.

 

The choice between these approaches is strategic. While point solutions can offer quick fixes for specific pain points, the inherent need for data consistency, process integration, and a holistic view in compliance and audit readiness often makes an integrated platform a more compelling long-term solution. The ability to manage policies, controls, evidence, testing, and reporting within a single, interconnected environment significantly streamlines audit preparation and ongoing compliance management.

Table: Integrated Platform vs. Point Solution for Compliance/Audit Readiness

Feature/Aspect

Point Solution

Integrated Platform

Data Management

Data often isolated within the specific tool; potential for inconsistencies across multiple solutions.

Centralised data repository; ensures consistency across different compliance functions.

Audit Trail

Provides audit trail for its specific function; consolidating trails across multiple tools can be difficult.

Comprehensive, unified audit trail across all managed activities and data changes within the platform.

Workflow Automation

Automates tasks within its specific domain (e.g., KYC check).

Enables end-to-end workflow automation across multiple compliance processes (e.g., policy review -> control testing -> issue remediation).

Reporting

Generates reports specific to its function; consolidating reports for overall compliance view requires manual effort.

Provides holistic reporting dashboards and customisable reports covering multiple compliance areas.

Scalability

Scalability often limited to its specific function; adding new compliance areas requires adding new solutions.

Designed for scalability; easier to add new modules or adapt workflows as business grows or regulations change.

Vendor Management

Requires managing multiple vendor relationships, contracts, and integrations.

Single vendor relationship simplifies procurement, support, and management.

Implementation Time

Generally faster for a single solution.

Potentially longer initial implementation for the entire platform.

Cost Structure

Lower initial cost per solution, but total cost can escalate with multiple solutions and integration efforts.

Higher upfront investment, but potentially lower total cost of ownership over time due to efficiencies and reduced integration needs.

Overall Efficiency

Can improve efficiency for specific tasks but may create overall process fragmentation.

Enhances overall operational efficiency through integration, data consistency, and streamlined workflows.

 

The ROI of Compliance Technology: Beyond Cost Savings

Investing in RegTech delivers tangible returns that extend beyond simple cost reduction.

  • Direct Cost Savings: Automation significantly reduces manual labour costs associated with compliance tasks like monitoring, testing, evidence gathering, and reporting. Optimised resource allocation and reduced need for redundant software licences also contribute. Firms report significant savings, such as 25% reduction in SaaS spend  or potential savings of $35 million through enterprise SAM. Avoiding hefty fines and penalties for non-compliance is a major component of cost savings. Studies suggest ROI can exceed 600% with payback periods under three years.
  • Operational Efficiency Gains: Processes are completed much faster – month-end closes, reconciliations, report generation, and audit preparation can be accelerated dramatically. Accuracy is improved, reducing costly errors. Audit preparation time can be cut significantly.
  • Enhanced Risk Mitigation: Real-time monitoring and automated controls testing lead to earlier identification and remediation of compliance issues and control weaknesses. Improved data security features protect against breaches. Robust audit trails enhance accountability and fraud detection.
  • Strategic Value: By automating routine tasks, compliance teams can shift their focus to more strategic activities, such as risk analysis, advisory functions, and process improvement. Better data analytics provide deeper insights for informed decision-making. Enhanced transparency builds trust with regulators and investors. Ultimately, a strong, efficient compliance function enabled by technology can become a competitive advantage.

 

The narrative around RegTech is evolving. Initially viewed primarily as a cost-saving measure, its strategic importance in managing risk, enabling data-driven insights, and building operational resilience is now widely recognised. This reframes RegTech adoption as a strategic investment necessary for navigating the complexities of modern asset management, rather than merely an operational expense to be minimised. However, it’s crucial to remember that technology augments, rather than replaces, human expertise. Skilled compliance professionals are still needed to interpret regulations, exercise judgment, manage complex exceptions, set strategy, and interact effectively with auditors and regulators. The optimal approach combines powerful technology with knowledgeable human oversight.

Special Considerations for Boutique Asset Managers

While the principles of audit readiness apply universally, boutique asset management firms often face unique challenges and must adopt tailored strategies to meet regulatory and investor expectations effectively.

The Challenge of Resource Constraints

The most significant differentiator for boutique firms is often resource limitation. Compared to larger institutions, smaller managers typically operate with leaner teams, tighter budgets, and less dedicated internal expertise in areas like compliance, IT, and risk management. This can make it particularly challenging to:

  • Navigate Regulatory Complexity: Keeping abreast of and implementing requirements from multiple regulators (like the FCA and SEC, plus specific directives like MiFID II or AIFMD) can be overwhelming for small teams.
  • Implement Robust Controls: Establishing comprehensive internal controls, including adequate segregation of duties, may be difficult with limited staff.
  • Invest in Technology: The cost of sophisticated compliance software or integrated platforms can be a significant barrier for firms with smaller AUM or revenue bases.
  • Dedicate Time to Improvement: Day-to-day operational demands often leave little time for strategic initiatives like process reviews or technology upgrades.

Regulatory Expectations and Proportionality

Regulators generally apply principles-based regulation but expect core standards to be met regardless of firm size. While the SEC acknowledges that smaller advisory firms might require simpler policies and procedures compared to large, complex organisations , fundamental obligations like fiduciary duty, accurate record-keeping, and basic internal controls remain mandatory. ODD reviewers also expect institutional-grade operations, although they may recognise that controls in smaller firms look different. There are signs of regulators considering more proportionality. The FCA, for instance, is reviewing the AIFMD framework and has proposed a tiered approach potentially based on net asset value rather than AUM, which could significantly reduce the burden for managers falling below certain thresholds (e.g., below £100 million NAV for the smallest tier, or between £100 million and £5 billion for mid-sized). This could remove some detailed, prescriptive requirements for firms reclassified from full-scope AIFM status. However, even under such proposals, a core set of baseline standards would still apply to small firms , meaning foundational compliance infrastructure remains essential.

Prioritising Compliance Efforts

Given resource constraints, boutiques must prioritise ruthlessly. A risk-based approach is crucial. Firms should focus their compliance efforts and resources on the areas posing the greatest potential harm to clients or the firm itself. This involves:

  • Conducting a Thorough Risk Assessment: Identify the most significant compliance, operational, financial, and reputational risks specific to the firm’s business model and strategy.
  • Focusing on Core Controls: Prioritise implementing and testing fundamental controls related to trading, valuation, cash management, client assets (if applicable), fee calculation, and conflict management.
  • Ensuring Foundational Documentation is Solid: Pay particular attention to the accuracy and completeness of critical documents like the IPS (if used), client agreements (IMAs/LPAs), offering documents, and regulatory filings (e.g., Form ADV).
  • Clarifying Responsibilities: Ensure clear allocation of compliance and operational responsibilities, even within a small team.

Leveraging Technology & Outsourcing Strategically

Technology and outsourcing can be powerful enablers for boutique firms, helping to bridge resource gaps and enhance capabilities.

  • RegTech Adoption: RegTech solutions can level the playing field by automating manual tasks, improving efficiency, and providing access to sophisticated monitoring and reporting tools without massive internal development costs. Cloud-based solutions are particularly advantageous, offering scalability and reducing the need for significant on-premise infrastructure investment. Boutiques should look for vendors offering solutions tailored to or scalable for smaller firms, potentially with flexible pricing models. The platform versus point solution decision carries significant weight for boutiques. While the lower initial cost of point solutions is tempting, the long-term burden of managing multiple vendors, integrating disparate systems, and dealing with potential data inconsistencies can strain limited resources. A carefully selected integrated platform, chosen for its usability, scalability, and relevant modules, might offer greater long-term efficiency and a more cohesive compliance framework, despite potentially higher upfront costs.
  • Outsourcing: Delegating certain functions to specialised third-party providers can provide access to expertise and economies of scale. Common areas for outsourcing include:
    • Fund Administration: As discussed previously, administrators handle core accounting, reporting, and investor services.
    • Compliance Consulting: Firms can provide ongoing support, help develop policies, conduct mock audits, or manage specific filings.
    • Internal Audit: Outsourcing the internal audit function can provide independent assurance.
    • IT/Cybersecurity: Managed service providers can offer specialised security expertise and monitoring. While outsourcing offers benefits, it requires careful vendor selection, thorough due diligence, clear contracts, and ongoing oversight, as the ultimate responsibility for compliance remains with the regulated firm.
  • Regulatory Hosting: For new managers, particularly in the UK, utilising a regulatory hosting platform (where the manager operates as an Appointed Representative of a principal firm) can provide a faster route to market and access to an established compliance infrastructure, though this model is also facing increased FCA scrutiny.

 

Boutique firms operate under a unique set of pressures, needing to demonstrate institutional-quality operations and compliance while managing significant resource constraints. Success requires a strategic, efficient approach that prioritises key risks and leverages external expertise and technology intelligently. The potential easing of some regulatory burdens, as suggested by the FCA’s AIFM review, may offer some relief, but the fundamental need for robust core compliance practices will remain.

Future-Proofing: Emerging Risks and Evolving Expectations (2025 Outlook)

The regulatory and operational landscape for asset managers is not static. Firms must anticipate and prepare for emerging risks and evolving expectations to maintain compliance and competitiveness. Key trends shaping the future include the proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the growing relevance of digital assets, the continued integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors, persistent cybersecurity threats, and shifting regulatory priorities.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Asset Management

  • Increasing Adoption: AI and machine learning are rapidly being integrated into various aspects of asset management. Common applications include automating routine tasks like metadata tagging for digital assets , enhancing search capabilities , improving portfolio optimisation, developing trading algorithms, managing risk, personalising client communications, and streamlining compliance monitoring and reporting. Industry surveys suggest a vast majority of finance functions anticipate using AI solutions soon.
  • Emerging Compliance Risks: The use of AI introduces new compliance challenges. Regulators like the SEC are already focusing on how firms use AI, particularly concerning :
    • Transparency and Explainability: Ensuring that AI algorithms, especially those used for investment decisions or client recommendations, are understandable and their outputs can be explained. Lack of transparency can obscure biases or errors.
    • Data Privacy and Security: AI systems often process vast amounts of data, heightening concerns about data privacy and the security of the models themselves.
    • Ethical Considerations and Bias: Ensuring AI models do not perpetuate or amplify biases that could lead to discriminatory outcomes or unfair treatment of clients.
    • Model Risk Management: Validating the accuracy and robustness of AI models, monitoring their performance, and managing the risk of model failure or unintended consequences. Unauthorised changes to models present significant risk.
    • Disclosure and Fiduciary Duty: Ensuring that the use of AI is adequately disclosed to clients and that its application aligns with the adviser’s fiduciary obligations. Firms must be able to substantiate claims made about their AI capabilities.
    • Governance and Oversight: Establishing clear policies, procedures, and governance frameworks for the development, deployment, and monitoring of AI systems. The risk of AI tools leading to further technological fragmentation within firms also exists if they are adopted as isolated point solutions rather than integrated components of the operational infrastructure.

Digital Assets & Cryptocurrency

  • Market Evolution: While volatile, digital assets and cryptocurrencies remain a feature of the investment landscape. The potential for tokenization of real-world assets is growing , and institutional interest persists, albeit cautiously. Regulatory frameworks are slowly taking shape globally.
  • Compliance Challenges: Significant regulatory uncertainty continues to challenge firms operating in this space. Key compliance risks include:
    • Asset Classification: Determining whether specific digital assets constitute securities subject to regulation.
    • AML/KYC: Applying robust anti-money laundering and customer identification procedures to digital asset transactions, which can be complex due to anonymity features. Blockchain analytics tools are emerging to assist with this.
    • Valuation: Accurately valuing digital assets, which can exhibit extreme volatility and lack established markets. FASB has issued new guidance requiring fair value accounting for certain crypto assets.
    • Custody: Safely securing and segregating digital assets, given the risks of hacking and theft. Regulatory requirements for qualified custodians are evolving (e.g., debate around SEC’s SAB 121 ).
    • Disclosure: Ensuring adequate disclosure of the unique risks associated with digital assets to investors. The SEC continues to prioritise examinations of firms involved with crypto assets offered or sold as securities, focusing on suitability, custody, valuation, risk disclosure, and compliance programme adequacy.

ESG Integration

  • Regulatory Momentum: Despite some market pushback , regulatory focus on ESG remains strong. The FCA’s SDR regime, including anti-greenwashing rules and investment labels, is being implemented. The EU’s SFDR imposes mandatory disclosure obligations. TCFD-aligned reporting is required for larger UK asset managers.
  • Compliance Imperatives: Firms face several ESG-related compliance challenges:
    • Substantiating Claims: Ensuring that any ESG or sustainability-related claims in marketing materials or fund names are accurate and can be evidenced (avoiding greenwashing).
    • Data Challenges: Obtaining reliable, consistent, and comparable ESG data across different asset classes and geographies remains a significant hurdle for reporting required metrics (e.g., carbon emissions, climate value-at-risk).
    • Process Integration: Embedding ESG considerations into investment decision-making processes, risk management frameworks, and product governance in a meaningful way.
    • Disclosure Requirements: Meeting the detailed disclosure requirements under regimes like SFDR and SDR.
    • Evolving Standards: Keeping pace with developing taxonomies, metrics, and reporting standards. ESG is also becoming intertwined with financial crime compliance, with expectations to consider environmental crimes or modern slavery risks in due diligence. ODD processes are increasingly incorporating ESG factors.

Cybersecurity & Operational Resilience

  • Enduring Threat: Cybersecurity remains a top-tier risk and a major focus for regulators. The potential impact of breaches, including financial loss, operational disruption, and reputational damage, is substantial. Asset managers report significantly increased spending on cybersecurity.
  • Regulatory Expectations: Regulators mandate robust safeguards. The SEC is updating Regulation S-P to strengthen requirements for protecting customer data and responding to incidents. Examinations focus on firms’ policies, procedures, governance, data loss prevention, access controls, incident response plans (including for ransomware), and vendor risk management. The FCA’s operational resilience framework requires firms to identify important business services, set impact tolerances, and test their ability to withstand disruptions.
  • Compliance Actions: Firms need comprehensive cybersecurity programmes including regular risk assessments, vulnerability management (patching ), penetration testing, strong access controls, data encryption, employee training, robust third-party risk management, and well-rehearsed incident response and business continuity plans. Continuous monitoring and adaptation are essential.

 

The convergence of these trends, AI, digital assets, ESG, and persistent cyber threats, creates a complex web of novel compliance risks. Asset managers cannot simply layer these new requirements onto existing frameworks; they require dedicated expertise, adaptive controls, enhanced data capabilities, and potentially new technological solutions. Addressing these emerging risks proactively is key to future-proofing the compliance programme.

Anticipating Shifts in FCA/SEC Priorities (2025 Focus)

Based on recent communications, regulatory priorities for 2025 show both continuity and evolution:

  • SEC: The Division of Examinations will maintain its focus on the adviser’s fiduciary duty, particularly regarding conflicts of interest, fee transparency, and the suitability of recommendations, especially for complex, costly, or illiquid products. Private fund advisers remain a high priority, with scrutiny on fee/expense calculations and allocations, valuation of illiquids, management of conflicts (e.g., adviser-led secondaries, affiliated transactions), and compliance with the Marketing Rule and amended Form PF reporting. Compliance programme effectiveness (Rule 206(4)-7) is central, including annual reviews and CCO adequacy. Cybersecurity (especially Regulation S-P implementation and vendor risk) , crypto assets (advice, custody, disclosures) , and the use of AI  are explicitly highlighted emerging areas. The impact of the T+1 settlement cycle on books and records and operations is also a focus.
  • FCA: Key priorities for 2025 include ensuring confident investing in private markets, focusing on valuation practises and conflicts of interest management. Building firm and financial system resilience against market disruption remains crucial, emphasising risk management, liquidity, and operational resilience. Securing good outcomes for retail consumers under the Consumer Duty is paramount, with ongoing reviews of fair value, particularly for ongoing advice services and unit-linked funds. Promoting sustainable finance through engagement on SDR implementation and anti-greenwashing is key. Tackling financial crime and market abuse, with a specific focus on AML controls in private market funds, is also highlighted. The FCA continues its work on the Smarter Regulatory Framework, aiming to streamline rules across MiFID, AIFMD, and UCITS.

 

A cross-cutting theme for both regulators is the increasing reliance on data and technology for supervision. They expect firms to have robust data governance frameworks  and accurate, timely reporting capabilities. This elevates the strategic importance of a firm’s data infrastructure and the technology used to manage and report information. Firms with weak data foundations will likely face greater challenges in meeting evolving regulatory expectations and demonstrating compliance during examinations.

Conclusion: Embedding a Culture of Continuous Audit Readiness

Navigating the complex and demanding landscape of investment compliance audits and operational due diligence reviews requires more than periodic preparation; it demands a fundamental commitment to continuous readiness embedded within the firm’s culture and operations. As this report has detailed, achieving this state rests on three core pillars: robust internal controls, comprehensive documentation and record-keeping, and irrefutable audit trails.

Fortifying internal controls involves a risk-based approach, implementing a blend of preventive and detective measures, ensuring clear segregation of duties, establishing rigorous authorisation processes, and maintaining vigilant oversight through an independent and empowered compliance function. Mastering documentation requires not only meticulous creation and maintenance of essential records—from the foundational Investment Policy Statement to detailed transaction logs and compliance reports—but also adherence to complex and overlapping regulatory retention requirements, guided by a clear, firm-wide policy. Building reliable audit trails necessitates capturing not just the ‘what’ but the ‘why’ behind key decisions and ensuring these records are complete, accurate, immutable, and readily accessible.

However, policies, procedures, and systems alone are insufficient without a strong, pervasive culture of compliance. This culture must emanate from the top, with senior leadership visibly championing ethical conduct and regulatory adherence. It requires ongoing investment in comprehensive, role-specific training to ensure all employees understand their responsibilities. Fostering an environment where issues can be raised openly without fear of reprisal, coupled with clear communication channels, is also vital. When compliance is viewed as a shared responsibility integrated into daily workflows, rather than a siloed function, the effectiveness of formal controls and documentation is significantly amplified. Such a culture encourages proactive identification of potential issues and reinforces adherence to established procedures, ultimately reducing the likelihood of breaches that audits aim to uncover. As indicated by industry studies, the vast majority of compliance professionals recognise this and are actively working to build such a culture within their organisations.

Achieving and maintaining audit readiness is an ongoing journey of continuous improvement. It necessitates regular reviews of policies and controls, diligent tracking and remediation of audit findings, and constant adaptation to the evolving regulatory landscape, emerging risks like AI and digital assets, and shifting investor expectations.

Ultimately, embracing proactive compliance and continuous audit readiness should be viewed not as a regulatory burden, but as a strategic imperative. It protects the firm from significant financial and reputational damage , builds critical trust with investors and regulators , drives operational efficiency through streamlined processes and automation , and provides a solid foundation for sustainable business growth.

Managing the intricate web of documentation, controls, audit trails, regulatory changes, and ongoing monitoring presents a significant challenge, particularly in a resource-constrained environment. Technology, specifically integrated RegTech platforms, offers a powerful solution. These platforms provide the necessary infrastructure to centralise information, automate manual and repetitive tasks (such as evidence collection, control testing, and reporting), ensure data consistency across compliance functions, generate reliable audit trails, and offer the transparency required to confidently face regulatory scrutiny and investor due diligence. By embedding compliance and audit readiness into the fabric of daily operations, integrated systems empower asset managers to move beyond reactive preparation towards a state of continuous, proactive assurance.

References

  1. Private Fund Advisers – SEC.gov, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/investment/private-fund-advisers
  2. Asset management: common errors when applying for authorisation | FCA, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/authorisation/wholesale-markets/asset-management-applications-what-to-consider
  3. Operational Due Diligence: Investment Management And Funds – IMAA – Institute for Mergers, Acquisitions, and Alliances, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://imaa-institute.org/publications/operational-due-diligence-investment-management-funds/
  4. Not just another tick in a box: A new approach to Operational Due Diligence, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.aima.org/article/not-just-another-tick-in-a-box-a-new-approach-to-operational-due-diligence.html
  5. Striking the Right Balance : Navigating Operational and Investment Due Diligence in Institutional Investments, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sbai.org/asset/1F42B36E-7816-4C00-AC2150ED720D1F92/
  6. A Benchmark Study of Multinational Organizations – Ponemon Institute, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/True_Cost_of_Compliance_Report_copy.pdf
  7. www.handbook.fca.org.uk, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/SYSC/6/1.pdf
  8. External audit requirements for investment management firms, securities and futures firms and personal investment firms (not small) | FCA, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/external-audit-requirements/investment-management-firms
  9. Senior Managers Regime | FCA, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/senior-managers-and-certification-regime/senior-managers-regime
  10. Dear CEO Letter: Action needed in response to common control failings identified in anti-money laundering frameworks – Financial Conduct Authority, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/correspondence/dear-ceo-letter-action-response-common-control-failings-anti-money-laundering-frameworks.pdf
  11. INSIGHTS AND SUGGESTED ACTIONS ON THE FCA’S TCFD RULES FOR ASSET MANAGERS: – The Investment Association, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.theia.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/IA-PwC%20Report%20on%20asset%20manager%20reporting%20on%20TCFD%20-%20March%202024_2.pdf
  12. Compliance Programs of Investment Companies and Investment Advisers – SEC.gov, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2003/12/compliance-programs-investment-companies-investment-advisers
  13. 17 CFR § 275.204-2 – Books and records to be maintained by investment advisers., accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/275.204-2
  14. Compliance Matters: Common Exam Deficiencies In 2023 – NASAA, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.nasaa.org/industry-resources/investment-advisers/resources/compliance-matters-common-exam-deficiencies-2023/
  15. Fiscal Year 2025 Examination Priorities – SEC.gov, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/files/2025-exam-priorities.pdf
  16. Compliance Challenges for UK/EU Asset Managers Doing Business in the US | On-Demand Segment – PLI, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.pli.edu/programs/euuk-asset-manager-institute/434137
  17. SPARK – Preparing for ODD – Standards Board for Alternative Investments, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sbai.org/static/cc520208-b148-482f-ade7b82768fe8997/Preparing-for-ODD.pdf
  18. 12 CFR § 652.10 – Investment management. – Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/652.10
  19. Statement of Investment Policy – School Employees Retirement System of Ohio, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.ohsers.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Statement-of-Investment-Policy.pdf
  20. Internal Control Types and Activities – CFO – Syracuse University, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://finance.syr.edu/audit/general-internal-controls/internal-control-types-and-activities/
  21. Internal Control Guide & Resources – Office of Management and Budget, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://omb.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur751/files/documents/control-guide/InternalControlGuide-Section5InternalControlActivities.pdf
  22. Private Fund Advisers; Documentation of Registered Investment Adviser Compliance Reviews – Federal Register, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/14/2023-18660/private-fund-advisers-documentation-of-registered-investment-adviser-compliance-reviews
  23. 12 CFR Part 615 Subpart E — Investment Management – eCFR, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/chapter-VI/subchapter-B/part-615/subpart-E
  24. 12 CFR 652.10 — Investment management. – eCFR, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/chapter-VI/subchapter-B/part-652/subpart-A/section-652.10
  25. INTERNAL CONTROLS POLICY AND MANUAL – Columbia, TN, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.columbiatn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/346/Internal-Controls-Policy-Adopted-2-14-2019-PDF
  26. Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives – Santa Barbara Foundation, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://sbfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/IPS-Santa-Barbara-Foundation-June-2024-Final.pdf
  27. INVESTMENT POLICY MANUAL – LACERS.org, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.lacers.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/iii_investment_policy_statement.pdf?1647273360
  28. EM-33.3 Financial & Shareholder Reporting, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://ww3.fca.gov/readingrm/exammanual/New%20Exam%20Manual/33.3.pdf
  29. Books and Records | FINRA.org, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/books-records
  30. Final Report – IG-23-008 – NASA’s Software Asset Management, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ig-23-008.pdf