This recent Pittsburgh Post Gazette article has the details...

As usual, I am always somewhat surprised by what firms get mentioned in these types of articles on corporate investigations. Sure there are the usual suspects, like Kroll, which deserves by virtue of its sheer size, mention in any such article. However, there are always firms I'm unfamilair that show up, while other prominent and well known players don't merit a mention. The article is interesting, to me at least, in these sense that it shows how quickly new investigative turf can become commoditized.

Most of the firms featured in the article as gp-to Hedge Fund vetters do what I think of (perhaps unfairly) as "chop shop" style work. These types of vendors do a volume-based business, predominately operating on a stripped down check list approach to investigation. Rather than trying to be truly comprehensive, they work on the law of averages that nine times out of ten their cut-rate, limited approach won't miss any outlying or obscure details that would be an issue for their clients.

Now based on my background, I am simply biased against this approach. But then, from my first day in the business I was steeped in the practice of "bespoke" investigations, each project and budget tailored for the specific needs of the client. Now, certainly I've worked on a shoestring from time to time and overperformed for the sake of retaining a client who might beget more work, but I'll never be convinced that a checklist is the best way to conduct an investigation.

Then again, these firms appear to be doing quite well. Clients? They like checklists. And they like cheap, too.

-- MDT

Labels: background checks, Kroll