Related provisions for SUP 9.4.3
241 - 260 of 347 items.
Under PRIN 3.3.1 R, the territorial application of a number of Principles to a UK MiFID investment firm is extended to the extent that another applicable rule which is relevant to an activity has a wider territorial scope. Under PRIN 3.1.1 R, the territorial application of a number of Principles to an EEAMiFID investment firm is narrowed to the extent that responsibility for the matter in question is reserved to the firm'sHome State regulator. These modifications are relevant
Additional guidance for a firm carrying on insurance business, accepting deposits, operating a dormant account fund8 or which holds client money or customer's assets is given in SUP 6 Annex 4. As noted in SUP 6.2.9 G, it will usually be appropriate for a firm to apply for variation of its Part IV permission while winding down (running off) its regulated activities and before applying to cancel its Part IV permission.
The cooperation that a firm is expected to procure from such suppliers is similar to that expected of the firm, in the light of the guidance in SUP 2.3.3 G to SUP 2.3.4 G, but does not extend to matters outside the scope of the FSA's functions in relation to the firm. SUP 2.3.5 R (2) also requires a firm to take reasonable steps regarding access to the premises of such suppliers.
(1) This guidance applies in relation to a financial promotion that makes pricing claims, including financial promotions that indicate or imply that a firm can reduce the premium, provide the cheapest premium or reduce a customer's costs.(2) Such a financial promotion should:(a) be consistent with the result reasonably expected to be achieved by the majority of customers who respond, unless the proportion of those customers who are likely to achieve the pricing claims is stated
(1) An application should be made by the proprietor of the relevant publication or service using the appropriate form, accessible from our website (see Forms/ Perimeter Guidance manual forms). The form asks for general information about the applicant and gives guidance notes on completion and other details of how the FSA can help.(2) An applicant will be asked to state his own view of the principal purpose of the publication or service. This should include an explanation why the
Under the investment condition, the reasonable investor is looking to satisfy two criteria. Both of these are fundamental to his decision to invest. But the thresholds referred to in PERG 9.6.1 G (1) and PERG 9.6.1 G (2) are different. In the FSA's view, a person expects something where he regards it as likely to happen or anticipates that events will turn out in a particular way. A person is satisfied of something where he has made up his mind or is persuaded that it is the case.
The rules and guidance relating to training and competence in SYSC 3 and SYSC 5 and 6 in TC for a firm carrying on retail business 6extend to any employee of the firm in respect of whom the relevant rules apply. For these purposes, an employee of a firm includes: (1) an individual who is an appointed representative of a firm; and(2) an individual who is employed or appointed by an appointed representative of a firm (whether under a contract of service or for services) in connection
1The purpose of the rules and guidance in this section is to ensure that, in addition to the notifications made under SUP 12.7 (Appointed representatives; notification requirements), the FSA receives regular and comprehensive information about the appointed representatives engaged by a firm, so that the FSA is in a better position to pursue the regulatory objective of the protection of consumers.3
In the FSA's view, it is the very existence of the body corporate that is the collective investment scheme. There are a number of statutory references that support this view. For example, it is clear that paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Collective Investment Schemes) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1062) (Arrangements not amounting to a collective investment scheme) is drafted on the basis that it is the body corporate itself that is (or would