Why MNPI matters in expert network research
Material Non-Public Information — MNPI — is the central compliance risk in any primary research workflow that involves conversations with former or current industry practitioners. The risk is not theoretical. Expert network firms have faced regulatory scrutiny, enforcement actions, and reputational damage when their compliance frameworks failed to prevent the flow of material information from company insiders to investors who acted on it before public disclosure.
For institutional research teams — whether at a hedge fund, PE firm, or consulting firm — understanding what constitutes MNPI, how reputable platforms screen for it, and what your internal compliance team expects from expert network usage is not optional background knowledge. It is table stakes.
What counts as MNPI
MNPI is information that meets two tests simultaneously: it is material (meaning a reasonable investor would consider it important in making an investment decision) and it is non-public (meaning it has not been disclosed through a channel available to the general investing public).
Common examples that arise in expert network contexts include: forward-looking guidance on revenue or earnings that has not been publicly disclosed; details of pending transactions, acquisitions, or partnerships; specific pricing, contract, or customer data that is not otherwise public; and details of regulatory investigations or product failures that predate public announcement.
The challenge is that MNPI is often contextual. An expert discussing general competitive dynamics in the semiconductor sector is almost certainly fine. The same expert mentioning the specific win rate on TSMC contracts in the current quarter is a different matter entirely.
How the major platforms approach screening
GLG, AlphaSights, Third Bridge, and Tegus all have compliance frameworks that attempt to screen for MNPI risk before and during calls. The approaches vary, but the core elements are consistent across reputable platforms: expert pre-screening (verifying that the expert does not have access to material information about a covered company), call monitoring or recording, compliance attestation by the expert before each engagement, and restricted lists management.
The weakness of these frameworks is that they rely heavily on self-disclosure. An expert who knows they have material information and chooses not to disclose it is difficult to catch programmatically. This is why institutional compliance teams typically require that expert network usage be logged, that call notes or transcripts be retained, and that any unusual information surfaced during a call be escalated to compliance immediately rather than acted upon.
What MNPI screening looks like on Transcript-IQ
Every transcript listed on Transcript-IQ undergoes a compliance review before it is made available for purchase. The review process checks for forward-looking statements about specific companies, references to material information that had not been publicly disclosed at the time of the call, language indicative of insider access, and expert attestation records.
The screening methodology aligns with SEC guidance on expert network usage and FCA expectations for buy-side research practices. Each transcript carries a compliance certificate that documents the screening date and methodology — sufficient for most institutional compliance approval processes.
Expert identities are fully redacted and replaced with anonymised designations: Former VP, Tier-1 Semiconductor Manufacturer; Former CFO, Mid-Cap SaaS Company. Specific company names associated with the expert's employment history are removed where they could identify the individual or create material attribution risk.
What your compliance team will ask for
When a research team starts using an external transcript platform, internal compliance typically wants to see four things: evidence of MNPI screening methodology; expert anonymisation practices; retention of the transcript for audit purposes; and a disclosure mechanism for flagging unusual information.
Transcript-IQ addresses the first three directly through the compliance certificate, anonymisation, and the PDF format (which is easy to retain in a document management system). The fourth — escalation — is an internal process that your compliance team controls; the platform cannot manage it for you, but the structured format of the transcript makes it easier to identify and isolate the passage in question if needed.
The practical advice: before deploying any transcript platform at scale, schedule 30 minutes with your compliance team to walk through a sample transcript and confirm that the screening documentation meets your firm's standard. Most teams clear this in one meeting. The ones that don't usually have an unusually high bar for specific attestation language that can be addressed in advance.
The residual risk that no platform eliminates
The honest caveat: no external platform can fully insulate you from MNPI risk. Expert networks and transcript providers screen against what they know and what they can observe. What they cannot screen against is information that your analysts bring into the process from other sources, or information that becomes material after the transcript was recorded but before you read it.
The latter is particularly important with older transcripts. An expert call conducted eight months ago might have been clean at the time of recording. If the company discussed subsequently made a material announcement, re-reading that transcript with knowledge of the announcement could create attribution risk even if the transcript itself was properly screened.
The solution is straightforward: treat every transcript as a research input that requires your own judgment, not as a compliance-cleared investment recommendation. The platform's certificate tells you the transcript was clean at the time of review. Your judgment tells you whether the information remains appropriately priced in today's context.