Expert Networks Explained: How Institutional Investors Use Them

Expert networks have become essential infrastructure for investment research. But the traditional model is evolving—and understanding the difference between legacy and AI-powered approaches matters for anyone evaluating their options.

What Are Expert Networks?

Expert networks connect institutional investors with industry specialists who can provide firsthand insights on markets, companies, and trends. A hedge fund researching a healthcare company might speak with former executives, physicians, or supply chain managers. A private equity firm conducting due diligence might interview customers of an acquisition target.

The concept is straightforward: primary research through conversations with people who have direct knowledge.

The market has grown accordingly. Expert networks represent a $4.19 billion global industry in 2025, with the U.S. accounting for roughly $1.8 billion of that total. 65% of corporations now rely on expert networks for strategic decision-making, and 58% of firms prefer them over traditional research methods for faster, actionable insights.

How Traditional Expert Networks Work

The conventional expert network model follows a consistent pattern:

1. Request submission: An analyst submits a research request describing the expertise needed—industry vertical, functional background, geographic focus, specific companies or topics.

2. Expert sourcing: The network searches its database and recruits relevant experts, typically professionals who've agreed to consult on an hourly basis.

3. Compliance screening: Both parties undergo conflict checks. Experts confirm they won't share material non-public information. Disclosures are documented.

4. Scheduling: The network coordinates availability between analyst and expert, often across time zones and busy calendars.

5. The call: A 30-60 minute phone conversation, sometimes with the network providing moderation or note-taking support.

6. Billing: Experts are compensated hourly (typically $200-1,500+ depending on seniority and specialization). The network adds its margin.

This model has served institutional investors well for two decades. But it has inherent constraints.

The Limitations of Traditional Expert Calls

Scheduling friction: Coordinating between busy analysts and harder-to-reach experts creates delays. Urgent research needs collide with calendar realities.

Variable quality: Call outcomes depend on interviewer preparation, expert engagement, and conversational chemistry. Some calls yield breakthrough insights; others feel like wasted time.

Scale constraints: Each call requires dedicated analyst time. Conducting the 20-30 expert conversations needed for thorough channel checks or competitive analysis represents a significant operational investment.

Knowledge silos: Insights live in individual analyst notes. When team members change or new projects begin, institutional knowledge doesn't transfer efficiently.

Cost structure: At $500-2,000+ per call (expert fees plus network markup), comprehensive primary research programs require substantial budgets.

These aren't flaws—they're characteristics of a human-mediated service model. But technology has created alternatives.

The AI-Powered Alternative

A new category of expert research has emerged: AI agents that conduct structured interviews autonomously. Rather than scheduling a call between analyst and expert, the expert speaks directly with an AI interviewer.

The workflow changes significantly:

1. Research design: Analysts define the questions, topics, and expert criteria—similar to traditional requests, but with more structured interview guides.

2. Expert engagement: Experts receive interview invitations and complete conversations on their own schedule, via phone or web interface.

3. AI-conducted interviews: The AI agent asks questions, listens to responses, and asks relevant follow-ups based on what the expert shares. Conversations feel natural, not robotic.

4. Automated synthesis: Transcripts are generated automatically. AI summarizes key insights, notable quotes, and patterns across multiple expert inputs.

5. Searchable knowledge base: All conversations feed into institutional memory, accessible for future research.

Comparing the Two Approaches

Factor	Traditional Expert Networks	AI-Powered Research
Scheduling	Requires coordination between analyst and expert	Expert completes on their schedule
Scale	Limited by analyst availability	Dozens of interviews can run simultaneously
Consistency	Varies by interviewer	Standardized methodology across all conversations
Turnaround	Days to weeks	Hours to days
Cost per insight	Higher (analyst time + expert fees + network margin)	Lower (no analyst time per call)
Knowledge capture	Manual notes, variable quality	Automatic transcription and synthesis
Best for	Relationship-building, nuanced exploration, sensitive topics	Broad coverage, channel checks, structured information gathering

Neither approach is universally superior. The right choice depends on research objectives.

When Traditional Networks Still Win

Some research scenarios favor human-to-human conversation:

Relationship development: Building long-term expert relationships that yield differentiated insights over years requires personal connection.

Sensitive topics: Discussions involving personnel issues, strategic pivots, or competitive dynamics may require the rapport and judgment of an experienced interviewer.

Exploratory research: When you don't know what you don't know, unstructured conversation with a skilled interviewer can surface unexpected threads.

Expert calibration: Assessing credibility, reading hesitation, and evaluating confidence levels benefits from human perception.

When AI-Powered Research Excels

Other scenarios favor the AI approach:

Channel checks at scale: Speaking with 30 customers of an acquisition target becomes feasible when you're not constrained by analyst calendars.

Competitive landscape mapping: Gathering perspectives from across an industry—suppliers, customers, former employees, partners—benefits from parallel execution.

Standardized information gathering: When you need consistent data points across multiple experts, AI ensures every conversation covers the same ground.

Speed-sensitive research: Tight deal timelines or fast-moving market situations favor approaches that don't require scheduling coordination.

Coverage expansion: Smaller teams can achieve research depth previously available only to larger competitors.

The Convergence Ahead

The distinction between traditional and AI-powered expert research will likely blur. 95% of fund managers already use generative AI in their work. 91% of asset managers are using or planning to use AI in investment research.

Traditional expert networks are adding AI capabilities. AI-native platforms are building expert databases. The industry is converging toward hybrid models that combine the scale of automation with the depth of human expertise.

For institutional investors evaluating their options, the question isn't "traditional or AI"—it's understanding which approach fits which research need, and building workflows that leverage both.

---

InsightAgent helps investment teams conduct and analyze expert interviews with AI-powered agents. Learn more about our platform.