Related provisions for INSPRU 3.2.28

121 - 140 of 203 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).

BIPRU 3.6.4RRP
A firm may nominate one or more eligible ECAIs to be used for the determination of risk weights to be assigned to asset and off-balance sheet items.[Note: BCD Annex VI Part 3 point 1]
BIPRU 12.1.4RRP
(1) An exempt full scope BIPRU investment firm is a full scope BIPRU investment firm that at all times has total net assets which are less than or equal to £50 million.(2) In this rule, total net assets are the sum of a firm's total trading book assets and its total non-trading book assets, less the sum of its called up share capital, reserves and minority interests.(3) For the purpose of (2), the value attributed to each of the specified balance sheet items must be that which
BIPRU 13.3.14RRP
When a firm purchases credit derivative protection against a non-trading book ,exposure or against a CCRexposure, it must compute its capital requirement for the hedged asset in accordance with:(1) BIPRU 5.7.16 R to BIPRU 5.7.25 R and BIPRU 4.10.49 R (4) to (6) (Unfunded credit protection: Valuation and calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts); or1(2) 1where a firm calculates risk weighted exposure amounts in accordance with the IRB approach:1(a)
COLL 8.1.4GRP
(1) Qualified investor schemes are authorised funds which may only be sold to sophisticated investors. Therefore, the authorised fund manager must take reasonable care to ensure that subscription in relation to the units of this type of scheme should only be in relation to the client types set out in COLL 8 Annex 1R1.111(2) Accordingly, qualified investor schemes have a more relaxed set of rules governing their operation and in particular their investment powers than for retail
BIPRU 9.3.14GRP
1An originator should clearly state the scope of the waiver of the requirements in BIPRU 9.3.7R and BIPRU 9.3.8R it is seeking in its application. For example, residential mortgage backed securities may be subdivided into prime and sub-prime with only one sub-category within the scope of the waiver. Relevant asset classes may therefore be defined according to a firm's internal usage of terms.
DTR 2.2.6GRP
It is not possible to prescribe how the reasonable investor test will apply in all possible situations. Any assessment should take into consideration the anticipated impact of the information in light of the totality of the issuer's activities, the reliability of the source of the information and other market variables likely to affect the relevant financial instrument in the given circumstances. However, information which is likely to be considered relevant to a reasonable investor's
SUP 10A.17.2GRP
If the firm or its advisers have further questions, they should contact the FCA's Contact Centre (see SUP 10A.12.6 G).
MIPRU 3.1.1RRP
2This chapter applies to a firm with Part 4A permission to carry on any of the activities:(1) insurance mediation activity;(2) home finance mediation activity;1unless any of the following exemptions apply:1(3) in relation to insurance mediation activity, this chapter does not apply to a firm if another authorised person which has net tangible assets of more than £10 million provides a comparable guarantee; for this purpose:(a) if the firm is a member of a group in which there
LR 4.2.1GRP
Section 80 (1) of the Act (general duty of disclosure in listing particulars) requires listing particulars submitted to the FCA to contain all such information as investors and their professional advisers would reasonably require, and reasonably expect to find there, for the purpose of making an informed assessment of:(1) the assets and liabilities, financial position, profits and losses, and prospects of the issuer of the securities; and(2) the rights attaching to the securi
BIPRU 2.1.25GRP
The following are the criteria that the appropriate regulator will take into account when considering whether the condition in BIPRU 2.1.24 R is going to be met:(1) the speed with which funds can be transferred or liabilities repaid to the firm and the simplicity of the method for the transfer or repayment;(2) whether there are any interests other than those of the firm in the subsidiary undertaking and what impact those other interests may have on the firm's control over the
BIPRU 12.9.4GRP
As part of the SLRP, the appropriate regulator will give a standard ILAS BIPRU firmindividual liquidity guidance advising it of the amount and quality of liquidity resources which the appropriate regulator considers are appropriate, having regard to the liquidity risk profile of that firm. In giving individual liquidity guidance, the appropriate regulator will also advise the firm of what it considers to be a prudent funding profile for the firm. In giving the firmindividual liquidity
PERG 9.7.2GRP
The characteristics that a reasonable investor can be expected to have will inform the use of judgment required by the 'expectation test' and the 'satisfaction test'. These tests relate to the investor's ability to realise an investment within a reasonable period and to do so on the basis of the net value of its assets. In the FCA's view, the characteristics of the reasonable investor include:(1) sound judgment based on good sense;(2) some knowledge of, and possibly experience
BIPRU 9.4.18GRP
2An originator should clearly state the scope of the waiver of the requirements in BIPRU 9.4.11R and BIPRU 9.4.12R it is seeking in its application. For example, residential mortgage backed securities may be subdivided into prime and sub-prime with only one sub-category within the scope of the waiver. Relevant asset classes may therefore be defined according to a firm's internal usage of terms.
RCB 3.2.2DRP
Before providing the confirmation required by this section, the issuer must obtain and consider written advice or reports from suitable independent third parties1 such as the asset pool monitor1 and, where appropriate, lawyers.11
PERG 9.11.1GRP

Table There are some frequently asked questions about the application of the definition of an open-ended investment company in the following table. This table belongs to PERG 9.2.4 G (Introduction).

Question

Answer

1

Can a body corporate be both open-ended and closed-ended at the same time?

In the FCA's view, the answer to this question is 'no'. The fact that the investment condition is applied to BC (rather than to particular shares in, or securities of, BC) means that a body corporate is either an open-ended investment company as defined in section 236 of the Act or it is not. Where BC is an open-ended investment company, all of its securities would be treated as units of a collective investment scheme for the purpose of the Act. A body corporate formed in another jurisdiction may, however, be regarded as open-ended under the laws of that jurisdiction but not come within the definition of an open-ended investment company in section 236 (and vice versa).

2

Can an open-ended investment company become closed-ended (or a closed-ended body become open-ended)?

In the FCA's view, the answer to this question is 'yes'. A body corporate may change from open-ended to closed-ended (and vice versa) if, taking an overall view, circumstances change so that a hypothetical reasonable investor would consider that the investment condition is no longer met (or vice versa). This might happen where, for example, an open-ended investment company stops its policy of redeeming shares or securities at regular intervals (so removing the expectation that a reasonable investor would be able to realise his investment within a period appearing to him to be reasonable). See also PERG 9.7.5 G.

3

Does the liquidation of a body corporate affect the assessment of whether or not the body is an open-ended investment company?

The FCA considers that the possibility that a body corporate that would otherwise be regarded as closed-ended may be wound up has no effect at all on the nature of the body corporate before the winding up. The fact that, on a winding up, the shares or securities of any investor in the body corporate may be converted into cash or money on the winding up (and so 'realised') would not, in the FCA's view, affect the outcome of applying the expectation test to the body corporate when looked at as a whole. The answer to Question 4 explains that investment in a closed-ended fixed term company shortly before its winding up does not, in the FCA view, change the closed-ended nature of the company. For companies with no fixed term, the theoretical possibility of a winding up at some uncertain future point is not, in the FCA's view, a matter that would generally carry weight with a reasonable investor in assessing whether he could expect to be able to realise his investment within a reasonable period.

4

Does a fixed term closed-ended investment company become an open-ended investment company simply because the fixed term will expire?

In the FCA's view, the answer to this is 'no'. The termination of the body corporate is an event that has always been contemplated (and it will appear in the company's constitution). Even as the date of the expiry of the fixed term approaches, there is nothing about the body corporate itself that changes so as to cause a fundamental reassessment of its nature as something other than closed-ended. Addressing this very point in parliamentary debate, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stated that the "aim and effect [of the definition] is to cover companies that look, to a reasonable investor, like open-ended investment companies". The Minister added that "A reasonable investor's overall expectations of potential investment in a company when its status with respect to the definition is being judged will determine whether it meets the definition. The matter is therefore, definitional rather than one of proximity to liquidation". (Hansard HC, 5 June 2000 col 124).

5

In what circumstances will a body corporate that issues a mixture of redeemable and non-redeemable shares or securities be an open-ended investment company?

In the FCA's view, the existence of non-redeemable shares or securities will not, of itself, rule out the possibility of a body corporate falling within the definition of an open-ended investment company. All the relevant circumstances will need to be considered (see PERG 9.6.4 G, PERG 9.2.8.8G and PERG 9.8.9 G). So the following points need to be taken into account.

  • The precise terms of the issue of all the shares or securities will be relevant to the question whether the investment condition is met, as will any arrangements that may exist to allow the investor to realise his investment by other means.
  • The proportions of the different share classes will be relevant to the impression the reasonable investor forms of the body corporate. A body corporate that issues only a minimal amount of redeemable shares or securities will not, in theFCA's view, be an open-ended investment company. A body corporate that issues a minimal amount of non-redeemable shares or securities will be likely to be an open-ended investment company. A body corporate that falls within the definition of an open-ended investment company is likely to have (and to be marketed as having) mainly redeemable shares or securities. However, whether or not the body corporate does fall within the definition in any particular case will be subject to any contrary indications there may be in its constitutional documents or otherwise.
  • Where shares or securities are only redeemable after the end of a stated period, this factor will make it more likely that the body corporate is open-ended than if the shares or securities are never redeemable.

6

Does "realised on a basis calculated wholly or mainly by reference to..." in section 236(3)(b) apply to an investor buying investment trust company shares traded on a recognised investment exchange because of usual market practice that the shares trade at a discount to asset value?

In the FCA's view, the answer is 'no' (for the reasons set out in PERG 9.9.4 G to PERG 9.9.6 G).

7

Does the practice of UK investment trust companies buying back shares result in them becoming open-ended investment companies?

In the FCA's view, it does not, because its actions will comply with company law: see section 236(4) of the Act and PERG 9.6.5 G.

8

Would a body corporate holding out redemption or repurchase of its shares or securities every six months be an open-ended investment company?

In the FCA's view a period of six months would generally be too long to be a reasonable period for a liquid securities fund. A shorter period affording more scope for an investor to take advantage of any profits caused by fluctuations in the market would be more likely to be a reasonable period for the purpose of the realisation of the investment (in the context of the 'expectation' test, see PERG 9.8 and, in particular, PERG 9.8.9 G which sets out the kind of factors that may need to be considered in applying the test).

9

Would an initial period during which it is not possible to realise investment in a body corporate mean that the body corporate could not satisfy the investment condition?

In the FCA's view, the answer to that question is 'no'. In applying the investment condition, the body corporate must be considered as a whole (see PERG 9.6.3 G). At the time that the shares or securities in a body corporate are issued, a reasonable investor may expect that he will be able to realise his investment within a reasonable period notwithstanding that there will first be a short-term delay before he can do so. Whether or not the 'expectation test' is satisfied will depend on all the circumstances (see PERG 9.8.9 G).
COLL 5.8.5RRP
An authorised fund manager must ensure that, to the extent that the feeder UCITS invests in assets other than units of a master UCITS, the feeder UCITS complies with COLL 5.2.3 R (1) (Prudent spread of risk).
DEPP 6.5B.4GRP
(1) If the FCA3 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 FCA3 may increase the penalty. Circumstances where the FCA3 may do this include:333(a) where the FCA3 considers the absolute value of the penalty too small in relation to the breach to meet its objective of credible deterrence;3(b) where previous FCA3 action in respect of similar breaches