Client Stories
Evidence from financial audit engagements on wealth management applications — specific findings, constraints, and outcomes.
Voices from recent engagements
“Their sampling of discretionary overrides showed where our IPS language and actual trades had drifted apart. The fee schedule rewrite took longer than we hoped, but the findings were hard to argue with.”
Head of Private Clients — Bangkok advisory firm · Wealth Mandate Application Audit
“We asked only for a fee schedule fairness review. They found three undocumented minimum waivers in a single quarter. I would have liked clearer redaction guidance before intake, yet the memo itself was usable in our partner meeting the same week.”
Operations lead — independent wealth practice · Fee Schedule Fairness Review
“The portfolio reporting integrity check caught a valuation-date mismatch that had survived two template updates. Our relationship managers stopped improvising footnotes after the workshop.”
Family office steward — greater Bangkok · Portfolio Reporting Integrity Check
“Discretionary boundary testing on our inherited book was thorough. Not every recommendation was cheap to implement, and that honesty mattered more than polite praise.”
Desk supervisor — private banking corridor · Discretionary Boundary Assessment
Extended story: Mandate drift after a desk merger
A mid-sized Bangkok advisory house merged two private client desks and kept both IPS templates “for a transition year.” Six months later, partners asked us for a Wealth Mandate Application Audit on forty relationships.
Document intake revealed three fee letters still citing the retired schedule. Trade sampling across one quarter showed concentration overrides approved by email but never attached to the client file. Reporting packs used the newer risk labels while the older IPS still governed discretionary language.
The draft workshop was tense — several managers felt the sample overstated the issue. We agreed to expand sampling by ten files. The second pass confirmed the same pattern at a lower rate, which was enough for the partners to freeze new discretionary authority until templates were unified.
Outcome: a single consolidated IPS, a documented exception log, and a follow-up fee fairness mini-review scoped separately. The engagement did not claim the merger was a mistake; it showed where wealth management applications had not kept pace with the org chart.