Balancing Speed, Compliance and Control in Modern Asset Management

Sunday Standard

Balancing Speed, Compliance and Control in Modern Asset Management

Having spent time in Asset Management Operations, one thing has become very clear; expectations have changed, and they have changed quickly. Clients no longer have the patience for slow turnaround times or opaque processes. They want real-time visibility, faster execution, and a level of service that feels effortless. At the same time, regulation has not eased, if anything, it has become more demanding. Governance, Risk and Compliance expectations continue to grow in both scope and complexity.

The question is not whether firms should prioritise efficiency or control. The real challenge is figuring out how to deliver both consistently.

Operations Has Quietly Become Strategic

Operations used to sit in the background. It was largely process-driven, often manual, and not always seen as a source of competitive advantage. This is no longer the case. Today, Operations sits right at the centre of client experience, regulatory compliance, and business scalability. It is where expectations collide: speed versus accuracy, cost versus control, automation versus oversight.

Clients are not benchmarking us against other asset managers anymore; they are comparing our service to the best digital experience they have had recently. Which changes the bar completely. The pressure is real.

Technology Helped – But Also Exposed Gaps

Most firms have already invested heavily in automation, workflow tools, Robotic Process Automation (RPA), and more recently, Artificial Intelligence (AI). These investments have improved processing speed and reduced manual effort. But they have also surfaced something uncomfortable. Speed is relatively easy to improve in isolation. What is much harder is improving speed without weakening controls or increasing risk.

In some cases, the opposite happens. A process is automated, but then layer on additional approvals, manual overrides, or duplicate checks, often in response to audit findings or regulatory concerns. Before long, we have recreated complexity in a different form. There are some processes which are technically automated but still feel slow because of how many touchpoints sit around them.

The Problem with Layering Controls

Controls rarely get removed; they accumulate. Each audit point, each incident, each regulatory update tends to introduce another control. Individually, they all make sense. Collectively, they can become heavy.

Over time, we end up with multiple reviews of the same data, unnecessary approvals, and manual interventions that do not meaningfully reduce risk anymore. They just slow things down. This is where organisations start to lose the balance they were trying to achieve in the first place.

A Shift Toward Risk-Based Thinking

The firms that seem to be navigating this better are the ones leaning into risk-based approaches. Not every client, transaction, or process carries the same level of risk, so why treat them as if they do? When we start segmenting by risk, things open up. Lower-risk activities can move quickly through automated workflows, while attention is given where it actually matters.

It sounds obvious, but it requires a mindset shift. It means being comfortable with not applying the same level of control everywhere – and having confidence in the framework that supports that decision.

Embedding Controls, Not Adding Them

Another shift is around how controls are applied. In more mature environments, controls are not something that sits around the process; they are built into it. Systems enforce rules automatically, flag exceptions in real time, and prevent errors before they happen rather than detecting them after the fact.

AI is starting to play a role here as well, particularly in areas like anomaly detection, document verification, and transaction monitoring. Used well, it does not remove human judgement; it just changes where that judgement is applied. Instead of reviewing everything, teams can focus on what actually looks unusual or high-risk. This is a much better use of time.

It Still Comes Down to People and Alignment

Technology alone does not solve this. Getting the balance right requires alignment across Investment Operations, Risk & Compliance, and Internal Audit. The Three Lines of Defense model is not new, but in practice, it is often fragmented. When these functions operate in silos, we tend to get tension.  Speed on one side, and control on the other. When they work together early in the design of processes, the outcome is very different. We get workflows that are both efficient and defensible from a risk and regulatory standpoint.

Don’t Forget the Client View

It is easy to get caught up in internal priorities, but the client experience is where all of this ultimately shows up. Clients do not see our r control framework; they feel the delays, the repeated requests for information, the lack of transparency when something is stuck. They care about security and compliance, but they also care about responsiveness. If processes become too cumbersome, it starts to erode confidence, even if everything is technically “working as designed.”

Where This Is Heading

Operational excellence is no longer about being the most controlled or the most efficient in isolation. It is about how well we integrate both.

The firms that will stand out are the ones that simplify where possible, apply controls intelligently, and use technology in a way that enhances, not complicates, how work gets done. That is not easy, and there is no single blueprint. But it starts with being willing to question existing processes, not just adding to them.

Because in the end, moving faster only creates value if we are still in control, and having strong controls only matters if they don’t stop us from moving.

The post Balancing Speed, Compliance and Control in Modern Asset Management first appeared on Sunday Standard and is written by Thusano Thuto