Related provisions for APER 4.6.3

21 - 40 of 43 items.

SUP App 3.6.15G01/04/2013

The FCA and PRA consider6 that, in order to comply with Principle 3:Management and control (see PRIN 2.1.1 R), a firm should have appropriate procedures to monitor the nature of the services provided to its customers. Where a UK firm has non-resident customers but has not notified the EEA State in which the customers are resident that it wishes to exercise its freedom to provide services, the FCA and PRA6 would expect the firm's systems to include appropriate controls. Such controls

PRIN 3.1.1R01/10/2015

PRIN applies to every firm, except that:(1) for an incoming EEA firm or an incoming Treaty firm, the Principles apply only in so far as responsibility for the matter in question is not reserved by an EU4 instrument to the firm's Home State regulator;4(2) for an incoming EEA firm which is a CRDcredit institution8 without a top-up permission, Principle 4 does not apply;12812(3) for an incoming EEA firm which has permission only for cross border services and which does not carry

SYSC 3.2.4G01/12/2001

(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 4.4.6G23/10/2015

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 10A.7.1 R17) and an application must be made under section 59 of the Act for approval of the individual before the function is performed. There are exceptions from this in SUP 10A.117 (Approved persons - Application). 17 17
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 appropriate regulator 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's chief 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 may nevertheless require approval under section 59 (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's UK 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 appropriate regulator, 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's group 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 appropriate regulator 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 Code 5 recommends that the board of a listed company should establish an audit committee of independent,9 non-executive directors to be responsible (among other things) for overseeing the effectiveness9 of the audit process and the objectivity and independence of the external auditor9. 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 under section 59 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.

EG 8.3.401/03/2016

1The FCA will consider the full circumstances of each case when it decides whether an urgent variation of Part 4A permission or an imposition of a requirement is appropriate. The following is a non-exhaustive list of factors the FCA may consider. (1) The extent of any loss, or risk of loss, or other adverse effect on consumers. The more serious the loss or potential loss or other adverse effect, the more likely it is that the FCA’s urgent exercise of own-initiative powers will

MIPRU 2.3.5G01/04/2009

Firms are reminded that Principle 3 requires firms to take reasonable care to organise and control their affairs responsibly and effectively. Principle 3 is amplified by the rule which requires firms to take reasonable care to establish and maintain such systems and controls as are appropriate to its business (SYSC 3.1.1 R and SYSC 4.1.1 R).5 A firm's systems and controls should enable it to satisfy itself of the suitability of anyone who acts for it (SYSC 3.2.13 G and SYSC 5.1.2

SYSC 2.1.6G23/10/2015

Frequently asked questions about allocation of functions in SYSC 2.1.3 R

This table belongs to SYSC 2.1.5 G

	Question	Answer
1	Does an individual to whom a function is allocated under SYSC 2.1.3 R need to be an approved person?	An individual to whom a function is allocated under SYSC 2.1.3 R will be performing the apportionment and oversight function (CF 8, see SUP 10A.7.1 R15) and an application must be made under section 59 of the Act for approval of the individual before the function is performed. There are exceptions from this inSUP 10A.115 (Approved persons - Application). 15 15 5
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 2.1.4 R, column 2, they are expected to act jointly. If the functions are allocated to an individual under SYSC 2.1.4 R, column 2, in addition to individuals under SYSC 2.1.4 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 2.1.1 R and SYSC 3.1.1 R. The appropriate regulator 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 2.1.4 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 firm 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 2.1.4 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 2.1.4 R, column 2. But if the firm is a body corporate and a member of a group, the functions may, instead of to the firm's chief 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 may nevertheless require approval under section 59 (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 appropriate regulator 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 2.1.4 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 2.1.4 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 2.1.4 R, column 2.2
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 2.1.4 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 2.1.3R 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 2.1.4 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 1.1.7 R)6. Note that SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.10 R6 does not extend the territorial scope of SYSC 2 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's UK 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). 6 6
12	How does the requirement to allocate the functions in SYSC 2.1.3R apply to an incoming EEA firm or incoming Treaty firm?	SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.1R6and SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.8 R6restrict the application of SYSC 2.1.3 R for such a firm. Accordingly: (1) Such a firm is not required to allocate the function of dealing with apportionment in SYSC 2.1.3 R (1). (2) Such a firm is required to allocate the function of oversight in SYSC 2.1.3 R (2). However, the systems and controls that must be overseen are those relating to matters which the appropriate regulator, as Host State regulator, is entitled to regulate (there is guidance on this in SUP 13A Annex 2 G3). 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's group under SYSC 2.1.4 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 15.1 6 6 3
13	What about a firm that is a partnership or a limited liability partnership?	The appropriate regulator 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 2.1.4 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 2.1.4 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 Code 7 recommends that the board of a listed company should establish an audit committee of independent,10 non-executive directors to be responsible responsible (among other things) for overseeing the effectiveness10 of the audit process and the objectivity and independence of the external auditor.10 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 under section 59 in relation to that function (see Question 1). 7
15	What about electronic commerce activities carried on from an establishment in another EEA State with or for a person in the United Kingdom?4 4	SYSC does not apply to an incoming ECA provider acting as such.1 4

IPRU-INV 13.1.2G30/12/2015

This chapter amplifies threshold condition 4 (Adequate resources) by providing that a firm must meet, on a continuing basis, a basic solvency requirement and a minimum capital resources requirement. This chapter also amplifies Principles 3 and 4 which require a firm to take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively with adequate risk management systems and to maintain adequate financial resources by setting out capital resources for a firm

DISP App 3.4.1G01/12/2010

DISP 1.3.3 R requires the firm to put in place appropriate management controls and take reasonable steps to ensure that in handling complaints it identifies and remedies any recurring or systemic problems. If a firm receives complaints about its sales of payment protection contracts it should analyse the root causes of those complaints including, but not limited to, the consideration of:(1) the concerns raised by complainants (both at the time of the sale and subsequently);(2)

SYSC 19B.1.10R22/07/2013

An AIFM must ensure that employees engaged in control functions are compensated according to the achievement of the objectives linked to their functions, independent of the performance of the business areas they control.[Note: paragraph 1(e) of Annex II of AIFMD]

SUP 4.3.10G31/12/2004

To comply with SUP 4.3.9 R and Principle 3, before an actuary1 takes up his appointment the firm should ensure that the actuary: 1(1) has skills and experience appropriate to the nature, scale and complexity of the firm's business and the requirements and standards under the regulatory system to which it is subject; and(2) has adequate qualifications and experience, which includes holding an appropriate practising certificate1 under the rules of the Institute of Actuaries or the

ICOBS 2.5.3G06/01/2008

(1) Where it is compatible with the nature of the obligation imposed by a particular rule and with the Principles, in particular Principles 1 (Integrity), 2 (Skill, care and diligence) and 3 (Management and control), firms may rely on third parties in order to comply with the rules in this sourcebook.(2) For example, where a rule requires a firm to take reasonable steps to achieve an outcome, it will generally be reasonable for a firm to rely on information provided to it in writing

CREDS 7.2.10G03/02/2016

A credit union should have a clear, robust and effective approach to handling arrears and be able to satisfy the FCA2 on a continuing basis that it has adequate management and control systems in place to monitor arrears.

BIPRU 7.9.23G01/01/2007

A firm should take appropriate steps to ensure that it has adequate controls relating to:(1) the derivation of the PRR from the CAD 1 model output;(2) CAD 1 model development, including independent validation;(3) reserving;(4) valuation (see GENPRU 1.3 (Valuation)), including independent validation; and(5) the adequacy of the IT infrastructure.

SYSC 20.1.2G19/06/2014

This chapter amplifies Principle 2, under which a firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence, and Principle 3, under which a firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.

BIPRU 3.2.30G01/01/2014

For the purpose of BIPRU 3.2.25R (1)(e) (Prompt transfer of capital resources): 22(1) 2in the case of an undertaking that is a firm the requirement in BIPRU 3.2.25R (1)(e) for the prompt transfer of capital resources refers to capital resources in excess of the capital and financial resources requirements to which it is subject under the regulatory system; and2(2) 44[deleted](3) 4the FCA will consider the following criteria:(a) the speed with which funds can be transferred or

PRIN 3.2.3R01/04/2013

Principles 3, 4 and (in so far as it relates to disclosing to the appropriate regulator) 11 (and this chapter) also:(1) apply with respect to the carrying on of unregulated activities (for Principle 3 this is only in a prudential context); and(2) take into account any activity of other members of a group of which the firm is a member.

APER 2.1A.3P01/04/2013

Statements of Principle issued under section 64 of the Act

Statement of Principle 1

An approved person must act with integrity in carrying out his accountable functions.

Statement of Principle 2

An approved person must act with due skill, care and diligence in carrying out his accountable functions.

Statement of Principle 3

An approved person must observe proper standards of market conduct in carrying out his accountable functions.

Statement of Principle 4

An approved person must deal with the FCA, the PRA and other regulators in an open and cooperative way and must disclose appropriately any information of which the FCA or the PRA would reasonably expect notice.

Statement of Principle 5

An approved person performing an accountable significant-influence function must take reasonable steps to ensure that the business of the

firm

for which he is responsible in his accountable function is organised so that it can be controlled effectively.

Statement of Principle 6

An approved person performing an accountable significant-influence function must exercise due skill, care and diligence in managing the business of the

firm

for which he is responsible in his accountable function.

Statement of Principle 7

An approved person performing an accountable significant-influence function must take reasonable steps to ensure that the business of the

firm

for which he is responsible in his accountable function complies with the relevant requirements and standards of the regulatory system.

MIPRU 3.1.5G19/06/2014

Under Principles 3 and 4 a firm is required to take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively with adequate risk management systems and to maintain adequate financial resources. Under Principle 9 a firm is obliged to take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice on investments and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgement.

Related provisions for APER 4.6.3

Search Term(s)

Filter by Topics

Filter by Modules

Filter by Documents

Filter by Keywords

Effective Period

Similar To

Frequently asked questions about allocation of functions in SYSC 2.1.3 R