Related provisions for MCOB 9.4.138

81 - 100 of 216 items.

Search Term(s)

Filter by Topics

Filter by Modules

Filter by Documents

Filter by Keywords

Effective Period

Similar To

To access the FCA Handbook Archive choose a date between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2004 (From field only).

SUP 9.4.2GRP
The extent to which a person can rely on individual guidance given to him will depend on many factors. These could include, for example, the degree of formality of the original query and the guidance given, and whether all relevant information was submitted with the request. Individual guidance is usually given in relation to a set of particular circumstances which exist when the guidance is given. If the circumstances later change, for example, because of a change in the circumstances
RCB 3.6.4GRP
The issuer or the owner, as the case may be, should review legal advice as necessary. For example, advice should be reviewed if a relevant statutory provision is amended or where a new decision or judgment of a court might have a bearing on the conclusions reached which is material to the issuer's or owner's compliance with the requirements of the RCB Regulations or the RCB.
LR 5.5.3GRP
(1) The FSA will not automatically suspend, cancel or restore the listing of securities at the request of an overseas exchange or overseas authority (for example, if listing of a listed3issuer'ssecurities are suspended, cancelled or restored on its home exchange).(2) The FSA will not normally suspend the listing of securities where there is a trading halt for the security on its home exchange.(3) If a listedissuer3 requests a suspension, cancellation or restoration of the listing
MCOB 2.8.5GRP
Each rule in MCOB that requires a record also sets out a period that the record must be kept for. While not a requirement of MCOB, firms may choose to keep records for longer periods, for example, where there is the possibility of customer complaint or legal action against the firm.
MCOB 6.7.2GRP
MCOB 6.7.1 R (2) means, for example, that the required text in MCOB 6.4.4 R (7) should be replaced by text that satisfies the requirements for business illustrations in MCOB 5.7.5 R
BIPRU 14.2.9GRP
The operation of BIPRU 14.2.8 R can be illustrated by an example as follows: where the credit derivative is a first to default transaction, the appropriate percentage for the potential future credit exposure will be determined by the lowest credit quality of the underlying obligations in the basket. If there are non-qualifying items in the basket, the percentage applicable to the non-qualifying reference obligation should be used. For second and subsequent to default transactions,
BIPRU 14.2.24GRP
For example, in relation to BIPRU 14.2.23 R, collateral which is eligible only against trading bookexposures will not be applicable against non-trading bookexposures; and the large exposures limits on non-trading book positions will also remain applicable.
BIPRU 7.8.29GRP
The table in BIPRU 7.8.30G gives an example of the reduced net underwriting position calculation. The example is based on the firm starting with a commitment to underwrite £100 million of a new equity issue. Firms are reminded that in the case of an equity, the reduced net underwriting position should be treated under the simplified equity method (see BIPRU 7.8.27R (Simplified and standard equity methods) and BIPRU 7.8.27R).
BIPRU 7.8.30GRP

Table: Example of the reduced net underwriting position calculation

This table belongs to BIPRU 7.8.29G

Time

Net underwriting position (see BIPRU 7.8.17R)

Percentage reduction (see BIPRU 7.8.28R)

Reduced net underwriting position

At initial commitment 9.00am Monday

£100m gross amount is reduced by £20m due to sales/sub-underwriting commitments confirmed in writing at the time of initial commitment (see BIPRU 7.8.17R (1)) and (4)).

=

£80m

90%

£8m

Post initial commitment 9.02am Monday

Remaining £80m is reduced by £40m due to further sales, sub-underwriting commitments obtained and allocations granted (see BIPRU 7.8.17R (2) - (5)).

=

£40m

90%

£4m

At the end of working day 1

Remaining £40m is reduced to £20m due to further sales.

=

£20m

90%

£2m

End of working day 3

Remaining £20m is reduced to £5m due to further sales.

=

£5m

75%

£1.25 m

End of working day 4

Remaining £5m is reduced to £2m due to further sales.

=

£2m

50%

£1m

End of working day 5

Remaining £2m is reduced to £1m due to further sales.

=

£1m

25%

£0.75 m

Start of working day 6

£1m remaining

=

£1m

0%

£1m
SUP 16.3.16GRP
The firm is responsible for ensuring delivery of the required report at the FSA's offices by the due date. If a report is received by the FSA after the due date and the firm believes its delivery arrangements were adequate, it may be required to provide proof of those arrangements. Examples of such proof would be:(1) "proof of posting" receipts from a UK post office or overseas equivalent which demonstrates that the report was posted early enough to allow delivery by the due
SUP 16.3.26GRP
Examples of reports covering a group are:(1) the compliance reports required from banks under SUP 16.6.4 R;(2) annual controllers reports required under SUP 16.5.4 R;(3) annual close links reports required under SUP 16.5.4 R(4) consolidated financial reports required from banks under SUP 16.7.7 R;(5) consolidated reporting statements required from securities and futures firms under SUP 16.7.24 R;17(6) reporting in relation to defined liquidity groups under SUP 16.12.17
SYSC 3.2.4GRP
(1) The guidance relevant to delegation within the firm is also relevant to external delegation ('outsourcing'). A firm cannot contract out its regulatory obligations. So, for example, under Principle 3 a firm should take reasonable care to supervise the discharge of outsourced functions by its contractor.(2) A firm should take steps to obtain sufficient information from its contractor to enable it to assess the impact of outsourcing on its systems and controls.
SYSC 3.2.5GRP
Where it is made possible and appropriate by the nature, scale and complexity of its business, a firm should segregate the duties of individuals and departments in such a way as to reduce opportunities for financial crime or contravention of requirements and standards under the regulatory system. For example, the duties of front-office and back-office staff should be segregated so as to prevent a single individual initiating, processing and controlling transactions.
BIPRU 7.3.11GRP
(1) An example of BIPRU 7.3.10R is as follows. The current market value of a particular equity is £2.50. If a firm contracts to sell this equity in five year's time for £3 it would treat the notional short equityposition as having a value of £2.50 when calculating the equity PRR.(2) In effect, the forward position has been treated as being equivalent to a spot position for the purposes of calculating equity PRR. To capture the risk that the forward price changes relative to the
BIPRU 7.3.17GRP
An example of BIPRU 7.3.16R is as follows. A firm decides to treat a FTSE Eurotop 300 future under the standard equity method, and furthermore, chooses to treat it as one notional position. The table in BIPRU 7.3.16R requires that this notional position be treated as if it were from a separate notional country rather than any of the countries to which the underlying equities are from.
MCOB 1.2.5GRP
(1) In order for a loan to fall within the definition of a regulated mortgage contract, at least 40% of the total of the land to be given as security must be used as or in connection with a dwelling. Therefore, the variation in approach provided for in MCOB 1.2.3 R(2) can only apply where the loan being used for a business purpose is secured against a property at least 40 per cent of which is used as a dwelling. It cannot apply to a loan secured on property that is used solely
MCOB 1.2.8GRP
(1) Firms are reminded of the requirement in MCOB 2.2.6 R that any communication should be clear, fair and not misleading when substituting an alternative for the term 'mortgage' in accordance with MCOB 1.2.7 R(1).(2) Possible alternatives to the term 'mortgage' include, for example, 'secured business overdraft', 'secured loan' or 'secured business credit'.
REC 2.5.10GRP
A conflict of interest arises in a situation where a person with responsibility to act in the interests of one person may be influenced in his action by an interest or association of his own, whether personal or business or employment related. Conflicts of interest can arise both for the employees of UK recognised bodies and for the members (or other persons) who may be involved in the decision-making process, for example where they belong to committees or to the governing body.
REC 2.5.11GRP
The FSA recognises that a UK RCH2 has legitimate interests of its own and that its general business policy may properly be influenced by other persons (such as its owners). Such a connection does not necessarily imply the existence of a conflict of interest nor is it necessary to exclude individuals closely connected with other persons (for example, those responsible for the stewardship of the owner's interests) from all decision-making processes in a UK recognised body. However,
DEPP 6.5A.3GRP
(1) The FSA may increase or decrease the amount of the financial penalty arrived at after Step 2, but not including any amount to be disgorged as set out in Step 1, to take into account factors which aggravate or mitigate the breach. Any such adjustments will be made by way of a percentage adjustment to the figure determined at Step 2.(2) The following list of factors may have the effect of aggravating or mitigating the breach:(a) the conduct of the firm in bringing (or failing
DEPP 6.5A.4GRP
(1) If the FSA considers the figure arrived at after Step 3 is insufficient to deter the firm who committed the breach, or others, from committing further or similar breaches then the FSA may increase the penalty. Circumstances where the FSA may do this include:(a) where the FSA considers the absolute value of the penalty too small in relation to the breach to meet its objective of credible deterrence;(b) where previous FSA action in respect of similar breaches has failed to improve
FEES 4.4.9DRP
3To the extent that an authorised payment institution or an EEA authorised payment institution has provided the information required by FEES 4.4.7 D to the FSA as part of its compliance with another provision of the Handbook, it is deemed to have complied with the provisions of this section.
COLL 6.3.6GRP

Table: This table belongs to COLL 6.3.2 G (2) (a) and COLL 6.3.3 R (Valuation)1.

Valuation and pricing

1

The valuation of scheme property

(1)

Where possible, investments should be valued using a reputable source. The reliability of the source of prices should be kept under regular review.

(2)

For some or all of the investments comprising the scheme property, different prices may quoted according to whether they are being bought (offer prices) or sold (bid prices). The valuation of a single-priced authorised fund should reflect the mid-market value of such investments. In the case of a dual-priced authorised fund, the issue basis of the valuation will be carried out by reference to the offer prices of investments and the cancellation basis by reference to the bid prices of those same investments. The prospectus should explain how investments will be valued for which a single price is quoted for both buying and selling.1

1

3(2A)

Schemes investing in approved money-market instruments5should value such instruments on an amortised cost basis on condition that:5

55

[Note:CESR's UCITS eligible assets guidelines with respect to article 4(2) of the UCITS eligible assets Directive]

(3)

Any part of the scheme property of an authorised fund that is not an investment should be valued at a fair value, but for immovables this is subject to COLL 5.6.20 R (3) (f) (Standing independent valuer and valuation).

(4)

For the purposes of (2) and (3), any fiscal charges, commissions, professional fees or other charges that were paid, or would be payable on acquiring or disposing of the investment or other part of the scheme property should, in the case of a single-priced authorised fund,2 be excluded from the value of an investment or other part of the scheme property. In the case of a dual-priced authorised fund, any such payments should be added to the issue basis of the valuation, or subtracted from the cancellation basis of the valuation, as appropriate. Alternatively, the prospectus of a dual-priced authorised fund may prescribe any other method of calculating unitprices that ensures an equivalent treatment of the effect of these payments.2

(5)

Where the authorised fund manager has reasonable grounds to believe that:

it should value an investment at a price which, in its opinion, reflects a fair and reasonable price for that investment (the fair value price);

(6)

The circumstances which may give rise to a fair value price being used include:

  • no recent trade in the security concerned; or
  • the occurrence of a significant event since the most recent closure of the market where the price of the security is taken.
In (b), a significant event is one that means the most recent price of a security or a basket of securities is materially different to the price that it is reasonably believed would exist at the valuation point had the relevant market been open.

(7)

In determining whether to use such a fair value price , the authorised fund manager should include in his consideration:

4(7A)

Where the authorised fund manager, the depositary or the standing independent valuer have reasonable grounds to believe that the most recent valuation of an immovable does not reflect the current value of that immovable, the authorised fund manager should consult and agree with the standing independent valuer a fair and reasonable value for the immovable.

(8)

The authorised fund manager should document the basis of valuation (including any fair value pricing policy) and, where appropriate, the basis of any methodology and ensure that the procedures are applied consistently and fairly.

(9)

Where a unit price is determined using properly applied fair value prices in accordance with policies in (8), subsequent information that indicates the price should have been different from that calculated will not normally give rise to an instance of incorrect pricing.

2

The pricing controls of the authorised fund manager

(1)

An authorised fund manager needs to be able to demonstrate that it has effective controls over its calculations of unit prices.

(2)

The controls referred to in (1) should ensure that:

  • asset prices are accurate and up to date;
  • investment 1transactions are accurately and promptly reflected in valuations;
  • the components of the valuation (including stock, cash, and units in issue1), are regularly reconciled to their source or prime records and any reconciling items resolved promptly and debtors reviewed for recoverability;
  • the sources of prices not obtained from the main pricing source are recorded and regularly reviewed;
  • compliance with the investment and borrowing powers is regularly reviewed;
  • dividends are accounted for as soon as securities1 are quoted ex-dividend (unless it is prudent to account for them on receipt):
  • fixed interest dividends, interest and expenses are accrued at each valuation point1;
  • tax positions are regularly reviewed and adjusted, if necessary;
  • reasonable tolerances are set for movements in the key elements of a valuation and movements outside these tolerances are investigated;5
  • the fund manager regularly reviews the portfolio valuation for accuracy5; and5
  • the valuation of OTC derivatives is accurate and up to date and in compliance with the methods agreed with the depositary.5

(3)

In exercising its pricing controls, the authorised fund manager may exercise reasonable discretion in determining the appropriate frequency of the operation of the controls and may choose a longer interval, if appropriate, given the level of activity on the authorised fund1or the materiality of any effect on the price.

(4)

Evidence of the exercise of the pricing controls should be retained.

(5)

Evidence of persistent or repetitive errors in relation to these matters, and in particular any evidence of a pattern of errors working in an authorised fund manager's favour, will make demonstrating effective controls more difficult.

(6)

Where the pricing1function is delegated to a third party, COLL 6.6.15 R (1) (Committees and delegation) will apply.

3

The depositary's review of the authorised fund manager's systems and controls

(1)

This section provides details of the types of checks a depositary should carry out to be satisfied that the authorised fund manager adopts systems and controls which are appropriate to ensure that prices of units are calculated in accordance with this section and to ensure that the likelihood of incorrect prices will be minimised. These checks also apply where an authorised fund manager has delegated all or some of its pricing1 functions to one or more third parties5.

5

(2)

A depositary should thoroughly review an authorised fund manager's systems and controls to confirm that they are satisfactory. The depositary's review should include an analysis of the controls in place to determine the extent to which reliance can be placed on them.

(3)

A review should be performed when the depositary is appointed and thereafter as it feels appropriate given its knowledge of the robustness and the stability of the systems and controls and their operation.

(4)

A review should be carried out more frequently where a depositary knows or suspects that an authorised fund manager's systems and controls are weak or are otherwise unsatisfactory.

(5)

Additionally, a depositary should from time to time review other aspects of the valuation of the scheme property of each authorised fund for which it is responsible, verifying, on a sample basis, if necessary, the assets, liabilities, accruals, units in issue1, securities prices (and in particular the prices of OTC derivatives,5unapproved securities and the basis for the valuation of unquoted securities) and any other relevant matters, for example an accumulation factor or a currency conversion factor.

(6)

A depositary should ensure that any issues, which are identified in any such review, are properly followed up and resolved.

4

The recording and reporting of instances of incorrect pricing

(1)

An authorised fund manager should record each instance where the price of a unit is incorrect as soon as the error is discovered, and report the fact to the depositary together with details of the action taken, or to be taken, to avoid repetition as soon as practicable.

(2)

In accordance with COLL 6.6.11 G (Duty to inform the FSA), the depositary should report any breach of the rules in COLL 6.3 immediately to the FSA. However, notification should relate to instances which the depositary considers material only.

(3)

A depositary should also report to the FSA immediately any instance of incorrect pricing1where the error is 0.5% or more of the price of a unit, where a depositary believes that reimbursement or payment is inappropriate and should not be paid by an authorised fund manager.

(4)

In accordance with SUP 16.6.8 R, a depositary should also make a return to the FSA on a quarterly basis which summarises the number of instances of incorrect pricing1 during a particular period.

5

The rectification of pricing breaches

(1)

COLL 6.6.3 R (1) (Functions of the authorised fund manager) places a duty on the authorised fund manager to take action to reimburse affected unitholders, former unitholders, and the scheme itself, for instances of incorrect pricing1, except if it appears to the depositary that the breach is of minimal significance.

(2)

A depositary may consider that the instance of incorrect pricing1is of minimal significance if:

(3)

In determining (2), if the instance of incorrect pricing1 is due to one or more factors or exists over a period of time, each price should be considered separately.

(4)

If a depositary deems it appropriate, it may, in spite of the circumstances outlined in (2), require a payment from the authorised fund manager or from the authorised fund to the unitholders, former unitholders, the authorised fund or the authorised fund manager (where appropriate).

(5)

The depositary should satisfy itself that any payments required following an instance of incorrect pricing1 are accurately and promptly calculated and paid.

(6)

If a depositary considers that reimbursement or payment is inappropriate, it should report the matter to the FSA, together with its recommendation and justification. The depositary should take into account the need to avoid prejudice to the rights of unitholders, or the rights of unitholders in a class of units.

(7)

It may not be practicable, or in some cases legally permissible, for the authorised fund manager to obtain reimbursement from unitholders, where the unitholders have benefited from the incorrect price.

(8)

In all cases where reimbursement or payment is required, amounts due to be reimbursed to unitholders for individual sums which are reasonably considered by the authorised fund manager and depositary to be immaterial, need not normally be paid.
COLL 6.3.12GRP
(1) In determining the appropriate manner of making prices public, the authorised fund manager should ensure that:(a) a unitholder or potential unitholder can obtain the prices at a reasonable cost;(b) prices are available at reasonable times;(c) publication is consistent with the manner and frequency at which the units are dealt in1;(d) the manner of publication is disclosed in the prospectus; and(e) prices are published in a consistent manner.(2) Examples of what might be deemed
COLL 4.2.6GRP
(1) In relation to COLL 4.2.5R (3)(b) the prospectus might include:(a) a description of the extent (if any) to which that policy does not envisage the authorised fund remaining fully invested at all times;(b) for a non-UCITS retail scheme which may invest in immovable property:(i) the maximum extent to which the scheme property may be invested in immovables; and(ii) a statement of the policy of the authorised fund manager in relation to insurance of3 immovables forming part of
BIPRU 7.2.26GRP
An example of BIPRU 7.2.24R is as follows. A firm enters into a five year swap which starts in two year's time. The firm has contracted to receive 6% and pay six month Libor on a principal amount of £1 million. This results in a long position in a 7 year debt security and a short position in a 2 year debt security. Both have a coupon of 6%. BIPRU 7.2.24R deals with the capital treatment of the delayed start date; once the swap has started, BIPRU 7.2.21R applies.
BIPRU 7.2.61GRP
This paragraph sets out an example of a calculation under the interest rate maturity method. In this example, a firm with a £ sterling base currency is processing its euro denominated positions.