On this page
Key Takeaways
- The TIPS due diligence framework assesses investment managers across four core categories: Third-party verification, Internal controls, Pedigree, and Strategy to identify operational irregularities and potential fraud.
- Independent custodians separate asset management from asset holding, preventing an investment advisor from having sole control over trade execution, record keeping, custody, and client reporting.
- Thorough background investigations for investment managers cost between $750 and $1,500 and should be cross-referenced with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and state securities regulator databases.
You worked hard for your money. Maybe it took decades of building a business or years grinding through a career that finally paid off. So why would you hand that money over to someone after one lunch meeting and a firm handshake?
Most people do exactly that. They pick an advisor based on a referral from a friend, a nice office, or that reassuring tone that says "I've got this." And for most people, it works out fine. But when it doesn't work out, it really doesn't work out.
The Framework Born From History's Largest Financial Fraud
The Bernie Madoff scandal exposed how even sophisticated investors can fall victim to financial fraud. What made it particularly devastating wasn't just the scale but how preventable it was. The warning signs were there for anyone who knew what questions to ask.
This disaster led to the development of what's known as the TIPS framework. It stands for Third-party verification, Internal controls, Pedigree, and Strategy. Each letter represents a category of questions that, if asked properly, can help identify potential fraud before it destroys your wealth.
The beauty of TIPS is that it's not some complex algorithm. It's a series of practical questions that anyone can ask before handing over their wealth.
T: Third-Party Verification (Don't Let Them Grade Their Own Homework)
The first question is simple: Who else is watching?
In many fraud cases, the perpetrator controls every aspect of the operation. They act as their own administrator, run their own brokerage, and use friendly firms as auditors. Everything that should be checked by independent parties is instead controlled by one person or entity.
A legitimate advisor uses an independent custodian. This means the person managing your money is not the same person holding your money. Think of it like a restaurant where one person cooks and a different person handles the cash register. You want separation.
You want an auditor who actually understands the business they're auditing. And not just any auditor. One that you could call up and verify things independently if you wanted to.
Here's a red flag: if an advisor's statements contain disclaimers that discourage third-party verification, or if they become defensive when you mention wanting independent confirmation of performance, walk away. You should want your advisor to welcome scrutiny.
I: Internal Controls (Who Signs the Checks?)
The second piece looks inside the advisor's operation. Does the firm have a compliance manual? Who reviews trades? Is there segregation of responsibilities?
Major financial collapses often happen when one person controls too many functions. You want to know that the person placing trades isn't also the person recording them. You want someone independent reconciling accounts. You want multiple eyes on everything.
One due diligence approach demands that every firm have a CFO in the structure, or at least access to one under contract. The CFO's job is to make sure the back office has depth. They report on financial matters without reporting to the investment manager. It's another layer of verification.
Red flags include operations where key functions are handled by just one or two people, or where the investment manager has sole control over trade execution, record keeping, and client reporting.
P: Pedigree (Go Beyond the Google Search)
Impressive credentials can actually work against you if they create a false sense of security. Many fraudsters have built reputations that blind people to red flags.
Pedigree matters, but it needs to be verified, not assumed.
Within the first fifteen minutes of talking to any investment manager, you should be able to identify someone you both know. The finance industry isn't that big. If you can't find a common connection, start digging.
More importantly, never move forward without a proper background check. Not a quick Google search. An actual investigative background check run by someone who knows how to find what's been buried. For $750 to $1,500, you can get a thorough professional background investigation on anyone. If you're about to invest hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars with someone, that's a rounding error.
Check with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) database and state securities regulators. Look for any history of customer complaints, regulatory actions, or criminal charges.
S: Strategy (Does the Math Actually Work?)
The final piece is about returns. Not whether they're good, but whether they make sense.
Each investment strategy has a return pattern that matches what it does. If someone tells you they're running a global macro strategy but showing you perfectly smooth returns, something is wrong. Global macro involves big swings. The returns should look like saw teeth, not a straight line.
Match the return pattern to the strategy being described. If you're hunting bear, you should see bear tracks. If you see deer tracks instead, you're not tracking what you think you're tracking.
A Sharpe ratio of 1.0 is good. A Sharpe ratio of 5 or 7 means something is being hidden. Either the risk is buried somewhere or the numbers are fake.
Be suspicious of:
- Consistently positive monthly returns with minimal volatility
- Returns that seem disconnected from market conditions
- Strategies that can't be easily explained or replicated
- Performance that's significantly better than similar strategies
Why This Matters More Than Ever
The wealth management industry has changed since major financial frauds. Regulations tightened. Awareness increased. But human nature hasn't changed. People still trust credentials over verification. People still get seduced by smooth returns. People still don't want to ask uncomfortable questions because they're afraid of seeming rude.
Every family with real wealth needs someone whose job is to ask these questions on their behalf. Not the advisor recommending the investment. Someone else entirely. Someone whose only allegiance is to the family.
This is where the concept of a governance layer comes in. A structure that sits between the family and their advisors, verifying independently, checking the checkers.
If you're managing substantial wealth and don't have a governance structure in place, you're relying on luck more than you probably realize. The TIPS framework gives you a starting point, but implementation requires follow-through.
DAG works with families to build these structures and maintain them over time. Use the contact page to start a conversation about what proper oversight looks like for your situation.
The Guardian at the Gate
One family came to DAG after realizing they'd been nodding along to quarterly reports without ever independently verifying anything. Their advisor controlled custody, reporting, and strategy decisions. Everything ran through one firm. It felt convenient at the time.
DAG helped them restructure. Independent custody. Separate reporting verification. Regular background checks on all key personnel. The family still uses their original advisor for some things. But now there's a structure in place that ensures proper oversight.
That's the whole point. Trust is good. Verification is better.
The families who've lost everything to financial fraud weren't stupid. They weren't careless in the way most people think of careless. They just trusted when they should have verified. They assumed pedigree meant integrity. They believed returns that felt too good because they wanted them to be real.
The TIPS framework isn't complicated. It's a series of straightforward questions. But asking them requires accepting that the people managing your money might not deserve your blind trust. That's uncomfortable. It's also the only responsible way to protect what you've built.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the TIPS framework for advisor due diligence?
The TIPS framework stands for Third-party verification, Internal controls, Pedigree, and Strategy. Developed after the Bernie Madoff scandal, it provides practical questions investors can ask before hiring an investment manager. The framework guides reviews of independent custodians and auditors, operational separation of duties, professional background checks, and whether an investment strategy's reported returns match its expected risk profile.
Why should an advisor use an independent custodian?
An independent custodian ensures that the person managing your money is not the person holding your assets. In many fraud cases, perpetrators control trade execution, custody, accounting, and client reporting within a single firm. Using a separate custodian provides essential separation of responsibilities, allowing independent verification of account balances and preventing an investment manager from fabricating account statements without third-party oversight.
How should an investor check a financial advisor's background?
Investors should look beyond simple search engine results and verify common industry connections. A thorough due diligence process includes commissioning a professional investigative background check, which typically costs between $750 and $1,500. Additionally, investors should check the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) database and state securities regulatory records to search for any past customer complaints, formal regulatory actions, or criminal charges.
What performance red flags suggest an investment strategy may be fraudulent?
Warning signs include consistently positive monthly returns with minimal volatility, results disconnected from market conditions, and performance that cannot be easily explained or replicated. An unusually high Sharpe ratio of 5 or 7 indicates hidden risks or falsified numbers, whereas a ratio of 1.0 is standard. Return patterns must always match the stated strategy rather than showing unrealistic, smooth gains.