Defending the Decision: Buy vs Build for Compliance Controls | An Executive Briefing

AI has made building compliance technology look cheap again. Proving it works has not got any cheaper. Technology teams are pitching quick, low-cost builds, and CCOs are being asked to justify paying a vendor at all. But the hard part of a compliance control was never the code. It is proving to a board, an auditor or a regulator that the control works, long after the team that built it has moved on. Former Goldman Sachs and MUFG Managing Director James Peters and Behavox Executive Advisor Rich Ziegenbalg, who has run global surveillance at four major banks, are joined by Kim Prado, Global Head of Product at State Street, who brings the technology leader's view to the debate. Together they cover what a single firm can evidence on its own, where building still makes sense, and what accountability stays with you either way. Leave with concrete questions to ask before the next build proposal reaches your desk.

The briefing builds on James Peters' recent white paper, published on the 1LoD Knowledge Hub, on why proving a compliance control works is harder than building it. He sets out why, for most regulated firms, buying technology and services from an integrated specialist is becoming the safer route, and tests it on twelve factors: audit trails, independence, examination readiness, peer benchmarking, knowledge erosion, the cost of assurance and more. Read it before 3 December and bring your questions.