Related provisions for SUP 9.2.4
201 - 220 of 668 items.
Individual guidance is guidance that is not given to persons or regulated persons generally or to a class of regulated person. It will normally be given to one particular person, which relates to its own particular circumstances or plans. It may be oral or written. Individual guidance will not be published but may at the FSA's discretion be converted to general guidance and published in the Handbook. Written individual guidance will often be labelled as such1
A person may need to ask the FSA for individual guidance on how the rules and general guidance in the Handbook, the Act or other regulatory requirements apply in their particular circumstances. This chapter describes how a person may do this. Section 157 of the Act gives the FSA the power to give guidance consisting of such information and advice as it considers appropriate.
The FSA may revoke a waiver at any time. In deciding whether to revoke a waiver, the FSA will consider whether the conditions in section 148(4) of the Act are no longer satisfied (see SUP 8.3.1 G), and whether the waiver is otherwise no longer appropriate. The FSA may revoke a waiver with immediate effect, if it considers that this is necessary, for example, in order to prevent undue risk to consumers.
If the FSA proposes to revoke a waiver, or revokes a waiver with immediate effect, it will:(1) give the firm written notice either of its proposal, or of its action, giving reasons;(2) state in the notice a reasonable period (usually 28 days) within which the firm can make representations about the proposal or action; if a firm wants to make oral representations, it should inform the FSA as quickly as possible , specify who will make the representations and which matters will
Where a listed company or applicant appoints more than one sponsor , the company must:(1) ensure that one of the sponsors that is appointed takes primaryresponsibility for contact with the FSA in respect of the entire application or transaction; and2(2) inform the FSA, in writing, of the name and contact details of the sponsor taking responsibility under LR 8.5.3R (1)22.
In the FSA's opinion, however, such information is likely to take on the nature of advice if the circumstances in which it is provided give it the force of a recommendation. Examples of situations where information provided by a person (P) might take the form of advice are given below.(1) P may provide information on a selected, rather than balanced and neutral, basis that would tend to influence the decision of a person. This may arise where P offers to provide information about
The potential for variation in the form, content and manner of pre-purchase questioning is considerable, but there are two broad types. The first type involves providing questions and answers which are confined to factual matters (for example, the amount of the cover). In the FSA's view, this does not itself amount to advising on contracts of insurance, if it involves the provision of information rather than advice. There are various possible scenarios, including the following:(1)
In the case of PERG 5.8.18G (2) and similar scenarios, the FSA considers that it is necessary to look at the process and outcome of pre-purchase questioning as a whole. It may be that the element of advice incorporated in the questioning can properly be viewed as generic advice if it were considered in isolation. But although the actual advice may be generic, the process has ended in identifying one or more particular contracts of insurance. The combination of the generic advice
This is explained in greater detail, together with the provisions on the granting of certificates by the FSA on the application of the proprietor of a periodical publication or news or information service or broadcast, in PERG 7 (Periodical publications, news services and broadcasts: applications for certification).
In
determining whether or not the conduct of an approved
person performing a significant
influence function under APER 4.6.5 E, APER 4.6.6 E and APER 4.6.8 E complies with Statement
of Principle 6 (see APER
2.1.2 P), the following are factors which, in
the opinion of the FSA, are to be taken into account:(1) the
competence, knowledge or seniority of the delegate; and (2) the
past performance and record of the delegate.
An approved person performing a significant influence function will not
always manage the business on a day-to-day basis himself. The extent to which
he does so will depend on a number of factors, including the nature, scale
and complexity of the business and his position within it. The larger and
more complex the business, the greater the need for clear and effective delegation
and reporting lines. The FSA will look to the approved person performing a significant
influence function
(1) An approved person performing a significant influence function may delegate
the investigation, resolution or management of an issue or authority for dealing
with a part of the business to individuals who report to him or to others.(2) The approved person performing a significant influence function should have
reasonable grounds for believing that the delegate has the competence, knowledge,
skill and time to deal with the issue. For instance, if the compliance department
only
This chapter applies principally to any person who needs to know whether he carries on insurance mediation activities and is thereby subject to FSA regulation. As such it will be of relevance among others to:(1) insurance brokers;(2) insurance advisers;(3) insurance undertakings; and(4) other persons involved in the sale and administration of contracts of insurance, even where these activities are secondary to their main business.
This guidance is issued under section 157of the Act (Guidance). It is designed to throw light on particular aspects of regulatory requirements, not to be an exhaustive description of a person's obligations. If a person acts in line with the guidance and the circumstances contemplated by it, then the FSA will proceed on the footing that the person has complied with aspects of the requirement to which the guidance relates.
Rights conferred on third parties cannot be affected by guidance given by the FSA. This guidance represents the FSA's view, and does not bind the courts, for example, in relation to the enforceability of a contract where there has been a breach of the general prohibition on carrying on a regulated activity in the United Kingdom without authorisation (see sections 26 to 29 of the Act (Enforceability of Agreements)).
2The FSA will seek to deprive an individual of the financial benefit derived directly from the breach (which may include the profit made or loss avoided) where it is practicable to quantify this. The FSA will ordinarily also charge interest on the benefit. Where the success of a firm’s entire business model is dependent on breaching FSArules or other requirements of the regulatory system and the individual’s breach is at the core of the firm’s regulated activities, the FSA will
(1) The FSA will determine a figure which will be based on a percentage of an individual’s “relevant income”. “Relevant income” will be the gross amount of all benefits received by the individual from the employment in connection with which the breach occurred (the “relevant employment”), and for the period of the breach. In determining an individual’s relevant income, “benefits” includes, but is not limited to, salary, bonus, pension contributions, share options and share schemes;
(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 individual in bringing (or
(1) If the FSA considers the figure arrived at after Step 3 is insufficient to deter the individual 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
The FSA and the individual on whom a penalty is to be imposed may seek to agree the amount of any financial penalty and other terms. In recognition of the benefits of such agreements, DEPP 6.7 provides that the amount of the financial penalty which might otherwise have been payable will be reduced to reflect the stage at which the FSA and the individual concerned reached an agreement. The settlement discount does not apply to the disgorgement of any benefit calculated at Step
The deterrent effect and impact
on a person of a suspension
or restriction, by itself or in combination with a financial penalty, may
be greater than where only a financial penalty is imposed. The FSA will consider the overall impact and deterrent effect of the
sanctions it imposes when determining the level of penalty and the length
of suspension or restriction.
The FSA expects usually to take the following approach in respect of
the interaction between a suspension or restriction and a financial penalty
or public censure:(1) The FSA will determine which sanction, or combination of sanctions, is
appropriate for the breach.(2) If the FSA, following the approach set out in DEPP 6.2, considers it appropriate
to impose a financial penalty, it will calculate the appropriate level of
the financial penalty, following the approach set out in
The FSA may depart from the approach set out in DEPP 6A.4.2 G.
For example, the FSA may
at the outset consider that a financial penalty is the only appropriate sanction
for a breach but, having determined
the appropriate level of financial penalty, may consider it appropriate to
reduce the amount of the financial penalty for serious financial hardship
reasons. In such a situation, the FSA may consider it appropriate to impose a suspension or restriction
even if the FSA at
the
(1) A Chief Risk Officer should:(a) be accountable to the firm'sgoverning body for oversight of firm-wide risk management;(b) be fully independent of a firm's individual business units;(c) have sufficient authority, stature and resources for the effective execution of his responsibilities; (d) have unfettered access to any parts of the firm's business capable of having an impact on the firm's risk profile; (e) ensure that the data used by the firm to assess its risks are fit for
(1) The Chief Risk Officer should be accountable to a firm'sgoverning body.(2) The FSA recognises that in addition to the Chief Risk Officers primary accountability to the governing body, an executive reporting line will be necessary for operational purposes. Accordingly, to the extent necessary for effective operational management, the Chief Risk Officer should report into a very senior executive level in the firm. In practice, the FSA expects this will be to the chief executive,
(1) The FSA considers that, while the firm'sgoverning body is ultimately responsible for risk governance throughout the business, firms should consider establishing a governing body risk committee to provide focused support and advice on risk governance.(2) Where a firm has established a governing body risk committee, its responsibilities will typically include:(a) providing advice to the firm'sgoverning body on risk strategy, including the oversight of current risk exposures
The FSA, (for periodic fees, FOS and FSCS levies and CFEB levies), expect to issue invoices at least 30 days before the date on which the relevant amounts fall due. Accordingly it will generally be the case that a person will have at least 30 days from the issue of the invoice before an administrative fee becomes payable.67237232
Paragraph 17(4) and paragraph 19B6 of Schedule 1 to6 and section 99(5) of6 the Act permit the FSA to recover fees (including fees relating to payment services,5 the issuance of electronic money8 and, where relevant, FOS levies and CFEB levies6), and section 213(6) permits the FSCS to recover shares of the FSCS levy payable, as a debt owed to the FSA and FSCS respectively, and the FSA and the6FSCS, as relevant, will consider taking action for recovery (including interest) through
In addition, the FSA may be entitled to take regulatory action in relation to the non-payment of fees,6FOS levies and CFEB levies. The FSA6 may also take regulatory action in relation to the non-payment of FOS case fees or 723 a723 share of the FSCS levy, after reference of the matter to the6FSA by the6FSCS. What action (if any) that is taken by the FSA will be decided upon in the light of the particular circumstances of the case.666723723
1A common
platform firm must:(1) when relying on a third party for
the performance of operational functions which are critical for the performance
of regulated activities, listed activities or ancillary
services (in this chapter "relevant services and activities")
on a continuous and satisfactory basis, ensure that it takes reasonable steps
to avoid undue additional operational risk; (2) not undertake the outsourcing of important operational functions
in such a way as to impair
A common platform firm must in particular
take the necessary steps to ensure that the following conditions are satisfied:(1) the service provider must have
the ability, capacity, and any authorisation required
by law to perform the outsourced functions,
services or activities reliably and professionally;(2) the service provider must carry
out the outsourced services
effectively, and to this end the firm must
establish methods for assessing the standard of performance of the service
provider;(3)
A common platform firm must make available
on request to the FSA and
any other relevant competent authority all
information necessary to enable the FSA and
any other relevant competent authority to
supervise the compliance of the performance of the outsourced activities
with the requirements of the regulatory system.[Note: article
14(5) of the MiFID implementing Directive]
As SUP
15.3.8 G explains,
a firm should notify the FSA when
it intends to rely on a third party for the performance of operational functions
which are critical or important for the performance of relevant services and
activities on a continuous and satisfactory basis.[Note: recital 20 of theMiFID implementing Directive]2
A parent undertaking which wishes to make use of the exemption in relation to issuers subject to this chapter whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market must without delay, notify the following to the FSA:1(1) a list of the names of those management companies, investment firms or other entities, indicating the competent authorities that supervise them, but with no reference to the issuers concerned; and(2) a statement that, in the case of each such management company
Where the parent undertaking intends to benefit from the exemptions only in relation to the financial instruments referred to in Article 13 of the TD, it shall (in relation to financial instruments giving an entitlement to acquire shares which are admitted to trading on a regulated market) notify to the FSA only the list referred to in paragraph (1) of DTR 5.4.4 R.[Note: article 10(3) of the TD implementing Directive]
A parent undertaking of a management company or of an investment firm must in relation to issuers subject to this chapter whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market be able to demonstrate to the FSA on request that:1(1) the organisational structures of the parent undertaking and the management company or investment firm are such that the voting rights are exercised independently of the parent undertaking;(2) the persons who decide how the voting rights are exercised
A parent undertaking of a third country undertaking must comply with the notification requirements in DTR 5.4.4 R (1) and DTR 5.4.5 R and in addition: (1) must make a statement that in respect of each management company or investment firm concerned, the parent undertaking complies with the conditions of independence set down in DTR 5.4.10 R; and (2) must1 be able to demonstrate to the FSA on request that the requirements of DTR 5.4.6 R are respected.[Note: article 23 of the TD
3(1) A firm must have robust governance arrangements, which include a clear organisational structure with well defined, transparent and consistent lines of responsibility, effective processes to identify, manage, monitor and report the risks it is or might be exposed to, and internal control mechanisms, including sound administrative and accounting procedures and effective control and safeguard arrangements for information processing systems.8(2) 8A BIPRU firm and a third country
The matters dealt with in a business continuity policy should include:(1) resource requirements such as people, systems and other assets, and arrangements for obtaining these resources;(2) the recovery priorities for the firm's operations; (3) communication arrangements for internal and external concerned parties (including the FSA, clients and the press);(4) escalation and invocation plans that outline the processes for implementing the business continuity plans, together with
A common platform firm and a management company10 must establish, implement and maintain accounting policies and procedures that enable it, at the request of the FSA, to deliver in a timely manner to the FSA financial reports which reflect a true and fair view of its financial position and which comply with all applicable accounting standards and rules.[Note: article 5(4) of the MiFID implementing Directive and article 4(4) of the UCITS implementing Directive]10
In the FSA's view, for a person to be carrying on the business of advising on investments or advising on a home finance transaction1 he will usually need to be doing so with a degree of regularity and for commercial purposes – that is to say, he will normally be expecting to gain some kind of a direct or indirect financial benefit. But, in the FSA's view it is not necessarily the case that advice provided free of charge will not amount to a business. Advice is often given 'free'
In other circumstances, advice issued remotely may still be given in the United Kingdom. For example, the FSA considers that advice is given in the United Kingdom if:(1) it is contained in a non-UK periodical that is posted in hard copy to persons in the United Kingdom;(2) it is contained in a non-UK periodical (or given in or by way of a service) which is made available electronically to such persons.
Many people may be involved in the production of a periodical publication, news service or broadcast. But if the regulated activity of advising on investments or advising on a home finance transaction1 is being carried on so that authorisation is required, the FSA's view is that the person carrying on the activity (and who will require authorisation) is the person whose business it is to have the editorial control over the content. In the case of a periodical publication, this
A firm does not have to give notice to the FSA under SUP 15.9.1 R if it or another member of the consolidation group has already given notice of the relevant fact to:(1) the FSA; or(2) (if another competent authority is co-ordinator of the financial conglomerate ) that competent authority; or(3) (in the case of a financial conglomerate that does not yet have a co-ordinator ) the competent authority who would be co-ordinator under Article 10(2) of the Financial Groups Directive
A domestic UCITS merger between two or more UCITS schemes, or a cross-border UCITS merger between one or more UCITS schemes which is or are the merging UCITS and one or more EEA UCITS schemes, is permissible provided:(1) it is effected in accordance with the requirements of:(a) the UCITS Regulations 2011, which include the need for the FSA to have made a prior order approving the proposed merger (which may be made subject to (2)); and(b) this chapter; and (2) in the case of a
(1) The requirements and the process which must be followed to give effect to a proposal for a UCITS merger as specified by Chapter VI of the UCITS Directive (see articles 37 to 48) have been implemented in the United Kingdom by the provisions of Part 4 of the UCITS Regulations 2011. The main features of the regime as set out in those provisions include:(a) the different types of merger operation that will be recognised for a UCITS merger;(b) the need for the FSA to give prior
(1) The authorised fund manager of a UCITS scheme that is a merging UCITS or a receiving UCITS in a proposed UCITS merger must ensure that a document containing appropriate and accurate information on the merger is provided to the unitholders of that scheme so as to enable them to:(a) make an informed judgment about the impact of the proposal on their investment;(b) exercise their rights under regulation 12 (Right of redemption) of the UCITS Regulations 2011; and(c) where applicable,
(1) In a domestic UCITS merger, the effective date of the merger will be the date specified by the FSA in its order authorising the proposed merger in accordance with regulation 9 of the UCITS Regulations 2011.(2) For a UCITS scheme which is the receiving UCITS in a cross-border UCITS merger, the effective date of the merger will be the date agreed by the FSA and the merging UCITS'Home State regulator.(3) For a UCITS scheme which is the receiving UCITS in a domestic UCITS merger
(1) This section deals with the circumstances and manner in which an AUT is to be wound up or a sub-fund of an AUT is to be terminated. Under section 256 of the Act (Requests for revocation of authorisation order), the manager or trustee of an AUT may request the FSA to revoke the authorisation order in respect of that AUT. Section 257 of the Act (Directions) gives the FSA the power to make certain directions.(2) The termination of a sub-fund under this section will be subject
1This table belongs to COLL 7.4.1 G (4) (Explanation of COLL 7.4)
Summary of the main steps in winding up an AUT or terminating a sub-fund under FSArules Notes: N = Notice to be given to the FSA under section 251 of the Act. E = commencement of winding up or termination W/U = winding up FAP = final accounting period (COLL 7.4.5 R (4)) |
|||
Step number |
Explanation |
When |
|
1 |
Receive FSA approval |
N + one month On receipt of notice from the FSA |
Section 251 of the Act |
2 |
Normal business ceases; notify unitholders |
E |
7.4.3R |
3 |
Trustee to realise and distribute proceeds |
ASAP after E |
7.4.4R(1) to (5) |
4 |
Within 4 months of FAP |
7.4.5R(5) |
|
5 |
Request FSA to revoke relevant authorisation order |
On completion of W/U |
7.4.4R(6) |
(1) Where COLL 7.4.3 R (2) (f) applies, the trustee must cancel all units in issue and1 wind up the AUT or terminate the sub-fund in accordance with the approved scheme of arrangement.(2) In any other case falling within COLL 7.4.3 R:(a) once the AUT falls to be wound up or sub-fund terminated, the trustee must realise the scheme property;(b) after paying out or retaining adequate provision for all liabilities payable and for the costs of the winding up or termination, the trustee
(1) For any annual or half-yearly accounting period which begins1 after commencement of the winding up or termination, the manager is not required to prepare a short report (COLL 4.5.13 R (Provision of short report)), provided that it has reasonably determined1 that the report is not required in the interests of the unitholders.11(1A) The manager must consult the trustee before determining that a short report is not required in the interests of unitholders.1(2) Where (1) applies,
(1) The report from a trustee of an AUT to the FSA must state, in relation to the manager of each AUT for which it is a trustee, the number of times during the quarter in which facts came to the firm's knowledge from which it appeared, or might have appeared, that the manager had failed (materially or otherwise) to: (a) give correct instructions to the trustee to create or cancel units in the AUT when the manager should have done so, and the error: (i) resulted in the creation
At least two independent minds should be applied to both the formulation and implementation of the policies of a common platform firm, a management company3 and the UK branch of a non-EEA bank1. Where such1 a firm1 nominates just two individuals to direct its business, the FSA will not regard them as both effectively directing the business where one of them makes some, albeit significant, decisions relating to only a few aspects of the business. Each should play a part in the
Where there are more than two individuals directing the business of a common platform firm, a management company3 or the UK branch of a non-EEA bank,1 the FSA does not regard it as necessary for all of these individuals to be involved in all decisions relating to the determination of strategy and general direction. However, at least two individuals should be involved in all such decisions. Both individuals' judgement should be engaged so that major errors leading to difficulties