Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.
Compliance officers are, by any reasonable measure, experts. They hold qualifications that take years to earn, develop an understanding of regulatory frameworks most people in financial services never fully acquire, and build institutional knowledge that no keyword-match system can replace. At their best, they're the professionals who separate actual risk from a false alarm — and explain precisely why it carries a certain risk.
There's a craft to their work that, when properly applied, is the difference between a firm that manages risk and one that gets blindsided. And yet, a lot of their efforts are misdirected toward communications that should never have crossed their desk.
How False Positives Took Over the Compliance Officer's Day
To understand how we got here, it helps to remember the pressure compliance teams have operated under. The Dodd-Frank Act, passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, significantly expanded the scope of what firms were expected to supervise. Then came the explosion of the smartphone — and eventually, a dozen different communication channels that remained outside the determined supervision perimeter.
When the SEC and FINRA began issuing nine-figure fines for off-channel communications, the message to compliance functions was unambiguous: If it isn't captured, it's a liability. Cover everything. The technology industry responded with tools optimized for breadth — comprehensive capture, generous flagging, maximum coverage.
The logic was entirely defensible, and comprehensive capture remains non-negotiable. But the technological failure to intelligently filter for relevance has placed a staggering burden on the humans who must review these flags.
The Mathematical Problem of Blanket Surveillance
In practice, this means compliance professionals spend hours reviewing messages that have nothing to do with business. They review a message to a spouse, a doctor's appointment, or a birthday text — communications that have no business being in a review queue, but end up there because the underlying technology was never designed to tell them apart.
A 2025 benchmark study of 200+ compliance leaders found that firms lose an average of $232,457 annually to false positives in mobile communications alone. The more consequential number is in the calendar.
More importantly, those dollars represent hours of expert attention spent on low-value work. For the compliance officer, this is hours that could be spent on substantive review, pattern analysis, or building out the kind of proactive supervision program that impresses an examiner. Instead, they're clearing a queue of personal communications that should never have reached them. It's not just inefficient; it's a misallocation of some of the most expensive professional attention in the firm.
