Ok
Enquire
logo_outline-1
false
Home > Insights > Checklists > wealthmanagement,  asset management,  investment management,  checklist,  banks,  supplier oversight

Could You Prove Your Third-Party Oversight to a Regulator Tomorrow?

Download Supplier Oversight Checklist

Third-party and supplier risk is one of the  crucial areas of regulatory scrutiny right now. The FCA expects firms to know their concentration risk exposure, evidence oversight of critical suppliers with tested proof rather than vendor assertions, and demonstrate that exit and substitutability plans hold up against real impact tolerances. Many firms can describe their third-party oversight in a policy document. Fewer can evidence it the way a regulator, an auditor or a board committee will actually test it.
 
This self-assessment gives senior management and risk, compliance and resilience leaders a concise readiness check against exactly what regulators are looking for: concentration risk, evidenced due diligence, connected governance and a genuinely tiered, continuously monitored supplier population. Work through it against current, documented evidence, not what you assume is in place, to see where oversight or resilience arrangements need greater challenge before someone else asks the question first.

Who is this for?

This checklist is for compliance, risk, financial crime, surveillance and governance leaders at banks, insurers, pensions, hedge funds, asset and wealth managers, e-money and payment firms, and other FCA-regulated businesses. If you own third-party oversight, supplier risk or operational resilience and need to know where your evidence gaps are before your regulator or board finds them, this is for you. 

Download it to assess:

Regulators' concerns: whether you know how exposed you are to concentration risk, whether your due diligence rests on tested evidence rather than vendor assertions, and whether your exit and incident-reporting arrangements would hold up under real pressure.

Due diligence and evidenced oversight: whether control expectations are agreed with suppliers up front rather than discovered at renewal, and whether the evidence you hold is continuous, tested and reported to the board as a metric rather than a narrative.

Connecting the dots: whether continuous monitoring, named accountability, enterprise risk integration and operational resilience testing are actually joined up, or running as four separate exercises that never meet.

The new model: whether your supplier population, including fourth parties, is tiered and mapped, tested evidence has replaced assertion for top-tier suppliers, and concentration risk is tracked as a standing board metric rather than raised once and forgotten.

Prefer to talk it through as well?

Already fairly confident in your answers? Skip ahead and book a discovery call with our team to pressure-test them directly.