Related provisions for SYSC 3.2.6C

21 - 40 of 89 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).

REC 4.4.1GRP
Recognised bodies may receive complaints from time to time from their members and other people, both about the conduct of members and about the recognised body itself. A UK recognised body will need to have satisfactory arrangements to investigate these complaints in order to satisfy the relevant recognition requirements (see REC 2.15 and REC 2.16) or RAP recognition requirements (see REC 2A.3.2 G).1
REC 4.4.3GRP
Where the FSA receives a complaint about a recognised body, it will, in the first instance, seek to establish whether the complainant has approached the recognised body. Where this is not the case, the FSA will ask the complainant to complain to the recognised body. Where the complainant is dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint, but has not exhausted the recognised body's own internal complaints procedures (in the case of a complaint against a UK recognised body, including
DTR 7.2.5RRP
The corporate governance statement must contain a description of the main features of the issuer's internal control and risk management systems in relation to the financial reporting process.[Note: Article 46a(1)(c) of the Fourth Company Law Directive]
DTR 7.2.10RRP
Subject to DTR 7.2.11 R, an issuer which is required to prepare a group directors’ report within the meaning of section 415(2) of the Companies Act 2006 must include in that report a description of the main features of the group’s internal control and risk management systems in relation to the process for preparing consolidated accounts. In the event that the issuer presents its own annual report and its consolidated annual report as a single report, this information must be
SYSC 13.8.2GRP
A firm should establish and maintain appropriate systems and controls for the management of the risks involved in expected changes, such as by ensuring:(1) the adequacy of its organisation and reporting structure for managing the change (including the adequacy of senior management oversight);(2) the adequacy of the management processes and systems for managing the change (including planning, approval, implementation and review processes); and(3) the adequacy of its strategy
SYSC 13.8.4GRP
The high level requirement for appropriate systems and controls at SYSC 3.1.1 R applies at all times, including when a business continuity plan is invoked. However, the FSA recognises that, in an emergency, a firm may be unable to comply with a particular rule and the conditions for relief are outlined in GEN 1.3 (Emergency).
REC 2.2.6GRP
In determining whether the UK recognised body meets the recognition requirement in Regulation 6(3), the FSA may have regard to whether that body has ensured that the person who performs that function on its behalf:(1) has sufficient resources to be able to perform the function (after allowing for any other activities);(2) has adequate systems and controls to manage that function and to report on its performance to the UK recognised body;(3) is managed by persons of sufficient
REC 2.2.7GRP
In determining whether a UK recognised body continues to satisfy the recognition requirements where it has made arrangements for any function to be performed on its behalf by any person , the FSA may have regard, in addition to any of the matters described in the appropriate section of this chapter, to the arrangements made to exercise control over the performance of the function, including:(1) the contracts (and other relevant documents) between the UK recognised body and the
SYSC 13.9.4GRP
Before entering into, or significantly changing, an outsourcing arrangement, a firm should:(1) analyse how the arrangement will fit with its organisation and reporting structure; business strategy; overall risk profile; and ability to meet its regulatory obligations;(2) consider whether the agreements establishing the arrangement will allow it to monitor and control its operational risk exposure relating to the outsourcing;(3) conduct appropriate due diligence of the service
SYSC 13.9.7GRP
In some circumstances, a firm may find it beneficial to use externally validated reports commissioned by the service provider, to seek comfort as to the adequacy and effectiveness of its systems and controls. The use of such reports does not absolve the firm of responsibility to maintain other oversight. In addition, the firm should not normally have to forfeit its right to access, for itself or its agents, to the service provider's premises.
BIPRU 7.9.11GRP
The model review process may be conducted through a series of visits covering various aspects of the firm's control and IT environment. Before these visits the FSA may ask the firm to provide some information relating to its waiver request accompanied by some specified background material. The model review visits are organised on a timetable that allows a firm being visited sufficient time to arrange the visit and provide the appropriate pre-visit information.
BIPRU 7.9.12GRP
As part of the model review process, the following may be reviewed: organisational structure and personnel; details of the firm's market position in the relevant products; profit and risk information; valuation and reserving policies; operational controls; IT systems; model release and control procedures; risk management and control framework; risk appetite and limit structure and future developments relevant to model recognition.
BIPRU 7.9.21GRP
(1) A firm should have a conceptually sound risk management system which is implemented with integrity and should meet the minimum standards set out in this paragraph.(2) A firm should have a risk control unit that is independent of business trading units and reports directly to senior management. The unit should be responsible for designing and implementing the firm's risk management system. It should produce and analyse daily reports on the risks run by the business and on the
ICOBS 8.4.4ARRP
2The information referred to in ICOBS 8.4.4R (1)(b)(ii) is:(1) a description of the ways in which the firm, in its production of the register, is not materially compliant;(2) the number of policies, in relation to which, either:(a) the firm is not able to include any information in the register; and/or(b) information is included in the register but information may be incorrect or incomplete;in each case as a proportion of the total number of policies required to be included in
ICOBS 8.4.4BGRP
2In relation to the written statement referred to in ICOBS 8.4.4R (1)(b):(1) ICOBS 8.4.4R (1)(b) does not preclude the relevant director from, in addition, including in the director's statement any of the following as relevant:(a) if a firm's employers’ liability register is more than materially compliant, a statement to this effect, and/or a statement of the extent to which the director considers, to the best of his knowledge, the firm to be compliant in its production of the
ICOBS 8.4.9ARRP
2The requirement referred to in ICOBS 8.4.9R (7)(b) is that the report must include an opinion from the auditor confirming whether, in all material respects, the tracing office maintains a database which accurately and reliably stores information submitted to it by firms for the purpose of complying with relevant requirements in ICOBS 8.4 and that it has systems which can adequately keep it up to date in the light of new information provided by firms.
LR 8.7.8RRP
A sponsor must notify the FSA in writing as soon as possible if:(1) the sponsor ceases to satisfy the criteria for approval as a sponsor set out in LR 8.6.5 R; or8(2) the sponsor, or any of its employees who provide sponsor services,5 are:5(a) convicted of any offence involving fraud, theft or other dishonesty; or(b) the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding, a receiving order or an administration order; or(3) any of its employees who providesponsor services5are disqualified by a
COND 2.4.2GRP
(1) Threshold condition 4 (Adequate resources), requires the FSA to ensure that a firm has adequate resources in relation to the specific regulated activity or regulated activities which it seeks to carry on, or carries on.(2) In this context, the FSA will interpret the term 'adequate' as meaning sufficient in terms of quantity, quality and availability, and 'resources' as including all financial resources, non-financial resources and means of managing its resources; for example,
COND 2.4.4GRP
(1) When assessing whether a firm will satisfy and continue to satisfy threshold condition 4, the FSA will have regard to all relevant matters, whether arising in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.(2) Relevant matters may include but are not limited to:(a) whether there are any indications that the firm may have difficulties if the application is granted (see COND 2.4.6 G), at the time of the grant or in the future, in complying with any of the FSA'sprudential rules (see the relevant
SYSC 6.2.1RRP
A common platform firm and a management company5 must, where appropriate and proportionate in view of the nature, scale and complexity of its business and the nature and range of its financial services and activities,5 undertaken in the course of that business, establish and maintain an internal audit function which is separate and independent from the other functions and activities of the firm and which has the following responsibilities:5(1) to establish, implement and maintain
SYSC 6.2.2GRP
1The term 'internal audit function' in SYSC 6.2.1 R (and SYSC 4.1.11 G) refers to the generally understood concept of internal audit within a firm, that is, the function of assessing adherence to and the effectiveness of internal systems and controls, procedures and policies.The internal audit function is not a controlled function itself, but is part of the systems and controls function (CF28).42
CASS 5.4.1GRP
(1) CASS 5.4 permits a firm, which has adequate resources, systems and controls, to declare a trust on terms which expressly authorise it, in its capacity as trustee, to make advances of credit to the firm'sclients. The client money trust required by CASS 5.4 extends to such debt obligations which will arise if the firm, as trustee, makes credit advances, to enable a client's3premium obligations to be met before the premium is remitted to the firm and similarly if it allows claims
CASS 5.4.4RRP
A firm may not handle client money in accordance with the rules in this section unless each of the following conditions is satisfied:(1) the firm must have and maintain systems and controls which are adequate to ensure that the firm is able to monitor and manage its client money transactions and any credit risk arising from the operation of the trust arrangement and, if in accordance with CASS 5.4.2 R a firm complies with both the rules in CASS 5.3 and CASS 5.4, such systems and
BIPRU 7.10.8GRP
BIPRU 7.10 sets out the minimum standards that the FSA expects firms to meet before granting a VaR model permission. The FSA will not grant a VaR model permission unless it is satisfied that the requirements of BIPRU 7.10 are met and it is satisfied about the procedures in place at a firm to calculate the model PRR. In particular the FSA will not normally grant a VaR model permission unless it is satisfied about the quality of:(1) the internal controls and risk management relating
BIPRU 7.10.13GRP
As part of the process for dealing with an application for a VaR model permission the following may be reviewed: organisational structure and personnel; details of the firm's market position in the relevant products; revenue and risk information; valuation and reserving policies; operational controls; information technology systems; model release and control procedures; risk management and control framework; risk appetite and limit structure; future developments relevant to model
BIPRU 7.10.81GRP
In assessing whether the VaR model is implemented with integrity as described in BIPRU 7.10.58R (Stress testing), the FSA will consider in particular the information technology systems used to run the model and associated calculations. The assessment may include:(1) feeder systems; risk aggregation systems; time series databases; the VaR model system; stress testing system; the backtesting system including profit and loss cleaning systems where appropriate; data quality; reconciliations
SYSC 13.10.1GRP
Whilst a firm may take out insurance with the aim of reducing the monetary impact of operational risk events, non-monetary impacts may remain (including impact on the firm's reputation). A firm should not assume that insurance alone can replace robust systems and controls.
SUP 3.7.2GRP
A firm should consider whether it should notify the FSA under Principle 11 if:(1) the firm expects or knows its auditor will qualify his report on the audited annual financial statements or add an explanatory paragraph; or (2) the firm receives a written communication from its auditor commenting on internal controls (see also SUP 15.3).
MAR 5.6.1RRP
1A firm operating an MTF must:(1) report to the FSA:(a) significant breaches of the firm's rules;(b) disorderly trading conditions; and(c) conduct that may involve market abuse; (2) supply the information required under this rule without delay to the FSA and any other authority competent for the investigation and prosecution of market abuse; and (3) provide full assistance to the FSA, and any other authority competent for the investigation and prosecution of market abuse, in
SYSC 13.4.1GRP
Under Principle 11 and SUP 15.3.1 R, a firm must notify the FSA immediately of any operational risk matter of which the FSA would reasonably expect notice. SUP 15.3.8 G provides guidance on the occurrences that this requirement covers, which include a significant failure in systems and controls and a significant operational loss.
SYSC 4.4.5RRP

A firm must appropriately allocate to one or more individuals, in accordance with the following table, the functions of:

  1. (1)

    dealing with the apportionment of responsibilities under SYSC 4.4.3 R; and

  2. (2)

    overseeing the establishment and maintenance of systems and controls under SYSC 4.1.1 R.

    3. 1: Firm type

    2: Allocation of both functions must be to the following individual, if any (see Note):

    3: Allocation to one or more individuals selected from this column is compulsory if there is no allocation to an individual in column 2, but is otherwise optional and additional:

    (1) A firm which is a body corporate and is a member of a group, other than a firm in row (2)

    (1) the firm'schief executive (and all of them jointly, if more than one); or

    the firm's and its group's:

    (1) directors; and

    (2) senior managers

    (2) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of:

    (a) the group; or

    (b) a group division within which some or all of the firm'sregulated activities fall

    (2) An incoming EEA firm or incoming Treaty firm (note: only the functions in SYSC 4.4.5R (2) must be allocated)

    (not applicable)

    the firm's and its group's:

    (1) directors; and

    (2) senior managers

    (3) Any other firm

    the firm'schief executive (and all of them jointly, if more than one)

    the firm's and its group's:

    (1) directors; and

    (2) senior managers

    Note: Column 2 does not require the involvement of the chief executive or other executive director or senior manager in an aspect of corporate governance if that would be contrary to generally accepted principles of good corporate governance.
SYSC 4.4.6GRP

Frequently asked questions about allocation of functions in SYSC 4.4.5 R

Question

Answer

1

Does an individual to whom a function is allocated under SYSC 4.4.5 R need to be an approved person?

An individual to whom a function is allocated under SYSC 4.4.5 R will be performing the apportionment and oversight function (CF 8, see SUP 10.7.1 R) and an application must be made to the FSA for approval of the individual before the function is performed under section 59 of the Act (Approval for particular arrangements). There are exceptions from this in SUP 10.1 (Approved persons - Application).

2

If the allocation is to more than one individual, can they perform the functions, or aspects of the functions, separately?

If the functions are allocated to joint chief executives under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2, they are expected to act jointly. If the functions are allocated to an individual under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2, in addition to individuals under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 3, the former may normally be expected to perform a leading role in relation to the functions that reflects his position. Otherwise, yes.

3

What is meant by "appropriately allocate" in this context?

The allocation of functions should be compatible with delivering compliance with Principle 3, SYSC 4.4.3 R and SYSC 4.1.1 R. The FSA considers that allocation to one or two individuals is likely to be appropriate for most firms.

4

If a committee of management governs a firm or group, can the functions be allocated to every member of that committee?

Yes, as long as the allocation remains appropriate (see Question 3). If the firm also has an individual as chief executive, then the functions must be allocated to that individual as well under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2 (see Question 7).

5

Does the definition of chief executive include the possessor of equivalent responsibilities with another title, such as a managing director or managing partner?

Yes.

6

Is it possible for a firm to have more than one individual as its chief executive?

Although unusual, some firms may wish the responsibility of a chief executive to be held jointly by more than one individual. In that case, each of them will be a chief executive and the functions must be allocated to all of them under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2 (see also Questions 2 and 7).

7

If a firm has an individual as chief executive, must the functions be allocated to that individual?

Normally, yes, under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2.

But if the firm is a body corporate and a member of a group, the functions may, instead of being allocated to the firm'schief executive, be allocated to a director or senior manager from the group responsible for the overall management of the group or of a relevant group division, so long as this is appropriate (see Question 3). Such individuals will nevertheless require approval by the FSA (see Question 1).

If the firm chooses to allocate the functions to a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of a relevant group division, the FSA would expect that individual to be of a seniority equivalent to or greater than a chief executive of the firm for the allocation to be appropriate.

See also Question 14.

8

If a firm has a chief executive, can the functions be allocated to other individuals in addition to the chief executive?

Yes. SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 3, permits a firm to allocate the functions, additionally, to the firm's (or where applicable the group's) directors and senior managers as long as this is appropriate (see Question 3).

9

What if a firm does not have a chief executive?

Normally, the functions must be allocated to one or more individuals selected from the firm's (or where applicable the group's) directors and senior managers under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 3.

But if the firm:

(1) is a body corporate and a member of a group; and

(2) the group has a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of the group or of a relevant group division;

then the functions must be allocated to that individual (together, optionally, with individuals from column 3 if appropriate) under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2.

10

What do you mean by "group division within which some or all of the firm's regulated activities fall"?

A "division" in this context should be interpreted by reference to geographical operations, product lines or any other method by which the group's business is divided.

If the firm's regulated activities fall within more than one division and the firm does not wish to allocate the functions to its chief executive, the allocation must, under SYSC 4.4.5 R, be to:

(1) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of the group; or (2) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of one of those divisions;

together, optionally, with individuals from column 3 if appropriate. (See also Questions 7 and 9.)

11

How does the requirement to allocate the functions in SYSC 4.4.5 R apply to an overseas firm which is not an incoming EEA firm, incoming Treaty firm or UCITS qualifier?

The firm must appropriately allocate those functions to one or more individuals, in accordance with SYSC 4.4.5 R, but:

(1) The responsibilities that must be apportioned and the systems and controls that must be overseen are those relating to activities carried on from a UK establishment with certain exceptions (see

SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.8R). Note that SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.10R does not extend the territorial scope of SYSC 4.4 for an overseas firm.

(2) The chief executive of an overseas firm is the person responsible for the conduct of the firm's business within the United Kingdom (see the definition of "chief executive"). This might, for example, be the manager of the firm'sUK establishment, or it might be the chief executive of the firm as a whole, if he has that responsibility.

The apportionment and oversight function applies to such a firm, unless it falls within a particular exception from the approved persons regime (see Question 1).

12

How does the requirement to allocate the functions in SYSC 4.4.5 R apply to an incoming EEA firm or incoming Treaty firm?

SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.1R(2) and SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.8R restrict the application of SYSC 4.4.5 R for such a firm. Accordingly:

(1) Such a firm is not required to allocate the function of dealing with apportionment in SYSC 4.4.5R (1).

(2) Such a firm is required to allocate the function of oversight in SYSC 4.4.5R (2). However, the systems and controls that must be overseen are those relating to matters which the FSA, as Host State regulator, is entitled to regulate (there is guidance on this in SUP 13A Annex 2). Those are primarily, but not exclusively, the systems and controls relating to the conduct of the firm's activities carried on from its UK branch.

(3) Such a firm need not allocate the function of oversight to its chief executive; it must allocate it to one or more directors and senior managers of the firm or the firm'sgroup under SYSC 4.4.5 R, row (2).

(4) An incoming EEA firm which has provision only for cross border services is not required to allocate either function if it does not carry on regulated activities in the United Kingdom; for example if they fall within the overseas persons exclusions in article 72 of the Regulated Activities Order.

See also Questions 1 and 15.

13

What about a firm that is a partnership or a limited liability partnership?

The FSA envisages that most if not all partners or members will be either directors or senior managers, but this will depend on the constitution of the partnership (particularly in the case of a limited partnership) or limited liability partnership. A partnership or limited liability partnership may also have a chief executive (see Question 5). A limited liability partnership is a body corporate and, if a member of a group, will fall within SYSC 4.4.5 R, row (1) or (2).

14

What if generally accepted principles of good corporate governance recommend that the chief executive should not be involved in an aspect of corporate governance?

The Note to SYSC 4.4.5 R provides that the chief executive or other executive director or senior manager need not be involved in such circumstances. For example, the UK Corporate Governance Code5 recommends that the board of a listed company should establish an audit committee of non-executive directors to be responsible for oversight of the audit. That aspect of the oversight function may therefore be allocated to the members of such a committee without involving the chief executive. Such individuals may require approval by the FSA in relation to that function (see Question 1).

5

15

What about incoming electronic commerce activities carried on from an establishment in another EEA State with or for a person in the United Kingdom?

SYSC does not apply to an incoming ECA provider acting as such.
COLL 6.2.9GRP
(1) As the authorised fund manager normally controls the issue, cancellation, sale and redemption of an authorised fund'sunits, it occupies a position that could, without appropriate systems and controls, involve a conflict of interest between itself and its clients.(2) SYSC 3.1.1 R (Systems and controls) requires that a firm take reasonable care to establish and maintain such systems and controls as are appropriate to its business and Principle 8 requires a firm to manage conflicts
COLL 6.2.12GRP

Explanatory table: This table belongs to COLL 6.2.2 G (4) (Purpose).

Correction of box management errors

1

Controls by authorised fund managers

An authorised fund manager needs to be able to demonstrate that it has effective controls over:

(1)

its calculations of what units are owned by it (its 'box'); and

(2)

compliance with COLL 6.2.8 R which is intended to prevent a negative box.

2

Controls by depositaries

(1)

Under COLL 6.6.4 (General duties of the depositary), a depositary should take reasonable care to ensure that a scheme2 is managed in accordance with COLL 6.2 (Dealing) and COLL 6.3 (Pricing and valuation).

(2)

A depositary should therefore make a regular assessment of the authorised fund manager's box management procedures (including supporting systems) and controls. This should include reviewing the authorised fund manager's controls and procedures when the depositary assumes office, on any significant change and on a regular basis, to ensure that a series of otherwise minor changes do not have a cumulative and a significant effect on the accuracy of the controls and procedures.

3

Recording and reporting of box management errors

(1)

An authorised fund manager should record all errors which result in a breach of COLL 6.2.8 R (Controls over the issue and cancellation of units) and as soon as an error is discovered, the authorised fund manager should report the fact to the depositary, together with details of the action taken, or to be taken, to avoid repetition of the error.

(2)

A depositary should report material box management errors to the FSA immediately. Materiality should be determined by taking into account a number of factors including:

  • the implications of the error for the sufficiency of controls put into place by the authorised fund manager;
  • the significance of any breakdown in the authorised fund manager's management controls or other checking procedures;
  • the significance of any failure of systems or back-up arrangements;
  • the duration of an error; and
  • the level of compensation due to the scheme, and an authorised fund manager's ability (or otherwise) to meet claims for compensation in full.

(3)

A depositary should also make a return to the FSA (in the manner prescribed by SUP 16.6.8 R) on a quarterly basis.