The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) recently published a report which highlights and summarises their findings on name screening practises of selected mid-sized and small Financial Institutions (FI’s) in Singapore. The findings are not dramatic since good practises are established and many FI’s have Standard Operating Procedures in place. However, there seems to be a lot of room for improvement as well. The report mentions an ‘uneven robustness’ of the screening framework and processes, indicating that some FI’s mastered the discipline but (many) others are struggling with name screening.

There are two points from the report are worth mentioning: The report indicates that a there seem to be a lack of senior management oversight at several FI’s. The second aspect of the report relates to the fact that many FI’s rely heavily on their system vendors with regard to settings, parameters, and interpretation of screening results. Most of these observations coincide with what we see in our daily practises when working with our clients across the globe. There’s a big difference though. In our practises we always look at FEC compliance from three different angles namely, good, cheap, and fast. We assist our clients to meet the regulations and support them to ensure that all compliance processes are done to the agreed quality levels as stipulated by MAS and other regulators. In addition, we also consider two additional dimensions which include cost and speed where speed usually relates (in)directly to customer impact.

To achieve optimal customer impact can come at a cost and might affect customers in some way. Although cost and speed are not primary considerations for regulators, these two dimensions should be prioritised by FI’s. If you or your organisation struggles with name screening, or if you just want a high level of risk assessment, some assurance or a thorough review, then do not hesitate to contact us. Rolf van der Pol Director, Lysis Singapore