Client stories
Notes from private banks, family offices, and advisory teams who asked us to audit wealth management applications.
“We sent twelve discretionary mandate packs before a quarterly committee. Mind Cache Path returned findings on ten within the week and flagged two where the source-of-wealth letters referenced a company that no longer matched the registry extract. The reservation: their memo is dense — our juniors needed a walkthrough of the severity labels the first time.”
— Head of onboarding, Bangkok private bank
“The Fee & Mandate Consistency Check caught a performance-fee clause that still referenced an old high-water mark after we moved the client to a flat advisory schedule. Quiet work, useful paper trail for our internal audit.”
— Operations manager, regional wealth boutique
“Pre-Onboarding Document Audit saved us from promising a custody go-live date. The exhibit set looked thick, but three statements were password-locked drafts. We would have preferred a same-day turnaround; five days was still acceptable for that prospect.”
— Family office coordinator, Chiang Mai (remote review)
Extended story: multi-entity discretionary pack
A Singapore-linked family sought a discretionary wealth mandate through a Bangkok desk. The application named four holding companies and a personal trust. Our Full Application Audit mapped beneficial-owner charts against the registry packs and found one intermediate company missing from the application’s ownership annex, even though its bank statement sat in the exhibit folder.
The relationship team paused the committee submission, added the annex page, and re-ran signatures. Custody funding proceeded on the revised date rather than bouncing at the custodian’s document gate. The client’s mild frustration was the delay; the bank’s view was that a two-day slip beat a three-week restart.
Extended story: suitability refresh sample
A private bank asked us to sample twenty suitability files tied to older wealth management applications ahead of a product migration. Suitability File Review showed seven files where the risk questionnaire still reflected a prior “income” objective while the new mandate draft said “growth.” Findings were handed to the RM group as a batch memo; we did not speak with end clients. Two files needed fresh questionnaires before migration letters went out.