Insurance · Portfolio compliance
Implementation in progress — first test passedFrom 1.5% to ~85% coverage: portfolio compliance in real time instead of a quarter behind
A manual review process that consumed 120 hours per quarter and covered just 15 of ~1'000 policies — replaced by an AI-supported real-time system with ~85% coverage. Six weeks from concept to stakeholder sign-off.
Evidence classes: measured = counted or observed in operation · calculated = computed from confirmed inputs · modelled = conservative model with stated assumptions · planned = target state, not yet realised.
- Client
- Swiss insurance company (anonymised)
- Area
- Portfolio compliance, investment guidelines
- Structure
- Regulated company, compliance team
- Project
- AI-supported portfolio compliance monitoring
- Duration
- 6 weeks (concept to stakeholder sign-off)
- Status
- Implementation in progress — first test passed
- Context
- Developed from direct industry expertise; not commissioned as an external engagement
- Reference
- Anonymised at the client's request (regulated company)
- Impact
- 15 → ~850 policies monitored (~85%), real time instead of a quarter behindplanned
Starting point
A Swiss insurance company with an investment portfolio of more than 1'000 policies faced a fundamental regulatory problem: compliance with its investment guidelines was monitored manually, on a sampling basis, once per quarter. The core issue was not negligence but capacity — with ~1'000 policies and more than 30 investment-guideline parameters, a manual process can only ever cover a fraction.
1.5% coverage
15 of ~1'000 policies were reviewed — sampled, in Excel. The remaining ~983 policies were a regulatory blind spot.
~120 hours per quarter
Around 480 hours a year went into a review process that still captured only a fraction of the portfolio.
Response time: weeks to months
Breaches surfaced in the next quarter at the earliest. Compliance gaps stayed invisible until they could become expensive.
The system
Arthova built a fully automated portfolio compliance monitoring system that transforms the entire review process — in 6 weeks from requirements analysis to sign-off by Compliance, Risk Management and IT.
Data pipeline
Automatic import from the existing portfolio systems — inside the client's stack, with the client's data.
Rules engine
More than 30 investment-guideline parameters as automated checks — complete, consistent, auditable.
Monitoring dashboard
A real-time view of every policy, its compliance status and any breaches — the whole portfolio at a glance, for the first time.
Alerting & reporting
Immediate notification when a limit is breached, plus automated compliance reports for the supervisory bodies.
Impact
The technical solution was in place after 4 weeks; the remaining 2 weeks were validation, communication and trust-building. First test passed — the figures show the validated system performance, with full rollout under way as part of the implementation.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Policies reviewed | 15 of ~1'000 (1.5%) | ~850 of ~1'000 (~85%)planned |
| Review frequency | Quarterly | Real time, continuousplanned |
| Response time to breaches | Weeks to months | Immediate (alerting)planned |
| Effort per quarter | ~120 hours | ~1 hour (review & sign-off)planned |
| Effort per year | ~480 hours | ~4 hoursplanned |
| Compliance reporting | Manual, quarterly | Automated, available on demandplanned |
| Unreviewed policies | ~983 | ~150planned |
Value calculation
- Hours saved per year
- ~476 hours (480h → ~4h)planned
- Value at internal hourly rate (~CHF 81/h)
- ~CHF 38'500 per yearplanned
- Coverage increase
- 1.5% → ~85% (~57× more)planned
- Result
- 99% less effort with ~57× more coverageplanned
- Regulatory value
- Demonstrable to FINMA / external auditorsplanned
The real value is not just the hours saved but the regulatory certainty: a missed compliance breach can trigger fines, reputational damage and regulatory action — costs that exceed the project effort many times over.
See the calculation — how these numbers are derived
Today the manual review binds ~120h per quarter (~480h/year) while covering 15 of ~1'000 policies. The target state calculates: ~1h of control & sign-off per quarter (~4h/year) → a difference of ~476h × CHF 81/h (internal cost of a compliance specialist, conservative) ≈ CHF 38'500/year. Target state, not yet realised: the system is in implementation; the first test was successful and stakeholder sign-off came after 6 weeks.
What we take from it
Scale rule checks without giving up control
The system applies the same approved rules across far more records. Exceptions and final sign-off remain with Compliance.
Six weeks is enough for a proof of value
Concept to stakeholder sign-off in 6 weeks — because the focus was on the value, not the technology. Fast prototype, fast feedback, fast iteration.
Stakeholder buy-in is the real milestone
Compliance, Risk Management, IT, executive management — everyone had to be on board. The technology was done in 4 weeks; the remaining 2 were trust-building.
Transparency builds trust
For the first time, the dashboard makes the portfolio's compliance status visible in real time. Teams can inspect deviations in specific records instead of debating assumptions.
A similar starting point in your company?
In an intro call we work out whether a closer look is worthwhile — and tell you honestly if it is not.