AUTOMATED SUPERVISION: HOW ONE FIRM UNCOVERED COMPLIANCE RISKS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY UNDETECTED

We often speak with firms that use search engines like Bing and Google to assist them with the manual supervision processes.

One such firm recently added Eagle Eye to their supervision processes and quickly discovered immediate returns on their investment within the first three months of its use.

What was that immediate benefit?  Reduction of risk.

Now that wasn’t the only benefit, as they saved a lot time as they went through the process. In fact, prior to using Eagle Eye they would often struggle to complete their supervision checks before the end of the quarter and would have to rush during the last two weeks of the period to get it all done.  With Eagle Eye, they finished everything with three or four weeks to spare.

But back to our original point, how did they reduce their risk?
Our client not only found the process easy, but more importantly, they uncovered previously unknown compliance risks that were routinely missed by their manual search processes.

Their new set up with Eagle Eye allowed them to scan the web in a manner unlike any they had previously experienced.

With Eagle Eye’s multi-data point scanning capabilities, this client unleashed a virtual army of web crawlers who scoured the web with dozens and dozens of powerful queries.  Then Eagle Eye analyzed all of the possible results for each monitored individual and presented the most relevant findings for their review.  Our client not only found the process easy, but more importantly, they uncovered previously unknown compliance risks that were routinely missed by their manual search processes.  With the revelations of these new regulator risks, our client was able take immediate action and take care of the issue prior to a regulatory event.

The astounding part of the story is that our client was able to accomplish all of this without having to review hundreds and hundreds of results for each monitored individual or firm.  In fact, they were able to do so by reviewing just 20 results per monitored individual during their quarterly review.

So the big question looms, what are you missing on your manual searches and can you continue to allow those risks to go unnoticed and unchecked?