Risk and compliance teams have a language problem.
They’ve become accustomed to regulatory providers defining “obligations” as long, text-filled documents, or worse, PDFs that link out to other documents.
But that definition of obligation is inaccurate.
The obligation itself is a specific line item explaining exactly what your firm must do—or not do—to be compliant. And there are real risks associated with the traditional top-down, data dump approach to obligations.
1. Lost Time: When regulatory technology solutions fail to deliver the actual obligation, and instead provide oceans of regulatory text, it’s the risk and compliance team that then has to sift through that information to determine exactly what needs to be done.
2. Inconsistent Naming Conventions: Because compliance teams have to find their own obligations, then create an obligations register to follow, they risk using language that doesn’t align with regulatory standards, which becomes a big problem when regulations change.
3. Regulation Change Issues: Compliance teams using traditional providers also have to sift through regulatory change documents whenever changes are made—which is often—to determine both what they are and if they even impact their firm at all.
There’s a better way. Download our infographic to learn why, when it comes to regulatory obligations, less is more—more time, more certainty, more consistency.