Related provisions for BIPRU 7.4.9
161 - 180 of 412 items.
Where a customer is unable to:(1) enter into a new regulated mortgage contract or home purchase plan or vary the terms of an existing regulated mortgage contract or home purchase plan with the existing mortgage lender or home purchase provider; or(2) enter into a new regulated mortgage contract or home purchase plan with a new mortgage lender or home purchase provider;the existing mortgage lender or home purchase provider should not (for example, by offering less favourable interest
[Editor’s note: The text of this provision has been moved to SYSC 25 Annex 1G]4
1Enforcement cases often involve multiple parties, for example a firm and individuals in the firm. Enforcement action may be appropriate against just the firm, just the individuals or both. In some cases, it will not be possible to reach an acceptable settlement unless all parties are able to reach agreement.
Examples of when the FCA may require the suspension of trading of a financial instrument include:(1) if an issuer fails to make an2 announcement as required by the Market Abuse Regulation2 within the applicable time-limits which the FCA considers could affect the interests of investors or affect the smooth operation of the market; or(2) if there is or there may be a leak of inside information and the issuer is unwilling or unable to issue an appropriate2 announcement required
1A disapplication order in relation to exempt regulated activities made against a member will be relevant should that member subsequently apply for authorisation under the Act. Whether or not such an application for authorisation is successful will depend on many factors, including the FCA's grounds for making the disapplication order. For example, if the order for disapplication of the exemption was made on the grounds of a breach of rules made under section 332(1) of the Act,
1Examples of situations where the FCA may use the own-initiative variation of approval power include where:(1) it has concerns about an SMF manager’s fitness to remain approved in relation to the performance of a designated senior management function but, in all the circumstances, it considers it appropriate to vary their approval by imposing one or more conditions or a time limitation, rather than making a prohibition order or withdrawing approval;(2) the nature or scope of the
The RAP
regulations apply modified provisions of the Act to
an RAP. For example, an RAP is an exempt
person in respect of its business as an auction
platform due to the application of section 285 of the Act as modified by the the RAP
regulations. Similarly, section 293 of the Act is
applied and modified by the RAP regulations to
provide for notification rules and
notification requirements in relation to RAPs.
1In considering whether an applicant has satisfied LR 6.13.1R, the FCA will consider, among other things, whether the board of the applicant consists solely of non-executive directors and whether significant elements of the strategic decision-making of or planning for the applicant take place outside the applicant’s group, for example with an external management company.
The operation of BIPRU 14.2.8 R can be illustrated by an example as follows: where the credit derivative is a first to default transaction, the appropriate percentage for the potential future credit exposure will be determined by the lowest credit quality of the underlying obligations in the basket. If there are non-qualifying items in the basket, the percentage applicable to the non-qualifying reference obligation should be used. For second and subsequent to default transactions,
The table in BIPRU 7.8.30G gives an example of the reduced net underwriting position calculation. The example is based on the firm starting with a commitment to underwrite £100 million of a new equity issue. Firms are reminded that in the case of an equity, the reduced net underwriting position should be treated under the simplified equity method (see BIPRU 7.8.27R (Simplified and standard equity methods) and BIPRU 7.8.27R).
Table: Example of the reduced net underwriting position calculation
This table belongs to BIPRU 7.8.29G
Time |
Percentage reduction (see BIPRU 7.8.28R) |
||||
At initial commitment 9.00am Monday |
£100m gross amount is reduced by £20m due to sales/sub-underwriting commitments confirmed in writing at the time of initial commitment (see BIPRU 7.8.17R (1)) and (4)). |
= |
£80m |
90% |
£8m |
Post initial commitment 9.02am Monday |
Remaining £80m is reduced by £40m due to further sales, sub-underwriting commitments obtained and allocations granted (see BIPRU 7.8.17R (2) - (5)). |
= |
£40m |
90% |
£4m |
At the end of working day 1 |
Remaining £40m is reduced to £20m due to further sales. |
= |
£20m |
90% |
£2m |
End of working day 3 |
Remaining £20m is reduced to £5m due to further sales. |
= |
£5m |
75% |
£1.25 m |
End of working day 4 |
Remaining £5m is reduced to £2m due to further sales. |
= |
£2m |
50% |
£1m |
End of working day 5 |
Remaining £2m is reduced to £1m due to further sales. |
= |
£1m |
25% |
£0.75 m |
Start of working day 6 |
£1m remaining |
= |
£1m |
0% |
£1m |
In determining whether a UK recognised body has financial resources sufficient for the proper performance of its relevant functions, the FCA5 may have regard to:5(1) the operational and other risks to which the UK recognised body is exposed;(2) if the UK recognised body guarantees the performance of transactions in specified investments, the counterparty and market risks to which it is exposed in that capacity; 5(3) the amount and composition of the UK recognised body's capital;(4)
4The financial risk assessment should be based on a methodology which provides a reasonable estimate of the potential business losses which a UK RIE might incur in stressed but plausible market conditions. The FCA5 would expect a UK RIE to carry out a financial risk assessment at least once in every twelve-month period, or more frequently if there are material changes in the nature, scale or complexity of the UK RIE's operations or its business plans that suggest such financial
(1) For the purposes of ICOBS 8.4.4R (2)(c) and ICOBS 8.4.4R (2)(d), a firm may put in place appropriate screening on its employers’ liability register to monitor:(a) requests for information and searches to ensure that they are being made for a legitimate purpose by persons falling into one of the categories in ICOBS 8.4.4R (2)(c); and(b) requests from tracing offices to ensure that the information is necessary, and will only be used by the tracing office, for the purposes of
(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.
Where it is made possible and appropriate by the nature, scale and complexity of its business, a firm should segregate the duties of individuals and departments in such a way as to reduce opportunities for financial crime or contravention of requirements and standards under the regulatory system. For example, the duties of front-office and back-office staff should be segregated so as to prevent a single individual initiating, processing and controlling transactions.
(1) The FCA2 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(2) The following list of factors may have the effect of aggravating or mitigating the breach:(a) the conduct of the firm in bringing (or failing
(1) If the FCA2 considers the figure arrived at after Step 3 is insufficient to deter the firm who committed the breach, or others, from committing further or similar breaches then the FCA2 may increase the penalty. Circumstances where the FCA2 may do this include:222(a) where the FCA2 considers the absolute value of the penalty too small in relation to the breach to meet its objective of credible deterrence;2(b) where previous FCA2 action in respect of similar breaches has failed
127In determining whether an enterprise19 meets the tests for being a micro-enterprise or a small business19, account should be taken of the enterprise’s 'partner enterprises' or 'linked enterprises' (as those terms are defined in the Micro-enterprise Recommendation). For example, where a parent company holds a majority shareholding in a complainant, if the parent company does not meet the tests for being a micro-enterprise or a small business19 then neither will the complainant.
127(1) 12718DISP 2.7.6R (5)and DISP 2.7.6R (6) include, for example, employees covered by a group permanent health policy taken out by an employer, which provides in the insurance contract that the policy was taken out for the benefit of the employee.(2) DISP 2.7.6R(2B) includes any complaint that the respondent did not do enough to prevent, or respond to, an alleged authorised push payment fraud. 18
(1) In order for a loan to fall within the definition of a regulated mortgage contract, at least 40% of the total of the land to be given as security must be used as or in connection with a dwelling. Therefore, the variation in approach provided for in MCOB 1.2.3 R(2) can only apply where the loan being used for a business purpose is secured against a property at least 40 per cent of which is used as a dwelling. It cannot apply to a loan secured on property that is used solely
(1) Firms are reminded of the requirement in MCOB 3A.2.1R8 that any communication should be fair, clear8 and not misleading when substituting an alternative for the term 'mortgage' in accordance with MCOB 1.2.7 R(1).88(2) Possible alternatives to the term 'mortgage' include, for example, 'secured overdraft', 'secured loan' or 'secured business credit'.7
713If a complaint relates to the sale of a payment protection contract, knowledge by the complainant that there was a problem with the sale of the payment protection contract generally (for example where there has been a rejection of a claim on the grounds of ineligibility or exclusion, or the complainant has received a customer contact letter explaining that they may have been mis-sold) would not in itself ordinarily be sufficient to establish for the purposes of the three-year