Related provisions for COLL 6.9.5
1 - 19 of 19 items.
(1) The credit risk of an asset is the risk of loss if another party fails to perform its obligations or fails to perform them in a timely fashion.(2) Where, for example, the asset pool includes residential mortgages the relevant factors which the FSA may consider include: (a) whether the asset pool contains (or could contain) loans made to individuals who have been made bankrupt or have had court judgments made against them;(b) the extent to which the asset pool contains (or
The FSA expects the issuer to demonstrate, as part of showing that Regulations 17 (general requirements on issuer in relation to the asset pool) and 24 (requirements on owner relating to the asset pool) of the RCB Regulations will be complied with, that there are provisions in the covered bond or programme which enable the views and interests of investors in the regulated covered bond to be taken account of in an appropriate and timely way by a suitably qualified, adequately resourced,
(1) Regulation 15(8)(f) of the OEIC Regulations (Requirements for authorisation) requires independence between the depositary, the ICVC and the ICVC's directors, as does section 243(4) of the Act (Authorisation orders) for the trustee and manager of an AUT. COLL 6.9.3 G to COLL 6.9.5 G give FSA's view of the meaning of independence of these relationships. An ICVC, its directors and depositary or a manager and a trustee of an AUT are referred to as "relevant parties" in this guidance.(2)
(1) Independence is likely to be lost if, by means of executive power, either relevant party could control the action of the other.(2) The board of one relevant party should not be able to exercise effective control of the board of another relevant party. Arrangements which might indicate this situation include quorum provisions and reservations of decision-making capacity of certain directors.(3) For an AUT, the FSA would interpret the concept of directors in common to include
Independence is likely to be lost if either of the relevant parties could control the actions of the other by means of shareholders' votes. The FSA considers this would happen if any shareholding by one relevant party and their respective associates in the other exceeds 15% of the voting share capital, either in a single share class or several share classes. The FSA would be willing, however, to look at cross-shareholdings exceeding 15% on a case-by-case basis to consider if there
5A firm must:(1) appoint an individual as MLRO, with responsibility for oversight of its compliance with the FSA'srules on systems and controls against money laundering; and(2) ensure that its MLRO has a level of authority and independence within the firm and access to resources and information sufficient to enable him to carry out that responsibility.
(1) Depending on the nature, scale and complexity of its business, it may be appropriate for a firm to have a separate risk assessment function responsible for assessing the risks that the firm faces and advising the governing body and senior managers on them.(2) The organisation and responsibilities of a risk assessment function should be documented. The function should be adequately resourced and staffed by an appropriate number of competent staff who are sufficiently independent
9(1) Depending on the nature, scale and complexity of its business, it may be appropriate for a firm to delegate much of the task of monitoring the appropriateness and effectiveness of its systems and controls to an internal audit function. An internal audit function should have clear responsibilities and reporting lines to an audit committee or appropriate senior manager, be adequately resourced and staffed by competent individuals, be independent of the day-to-day activities
Members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, for example, are required to operate a complaints procedure that allows the complaint to be referred to an independent person whose decision binds the valuer and which, in the FSA's view, provides a customer with an appropriate remedy.
In determining whether a UK recognised body is a fit and proper person, the FSA may have regard to any relevant factor including, but not limited to:(1) the commitment shown by the UK recognised body'sgoverning body to satisfying the recognition requirements and to complying with other obligations in or under the Act;(2) its arrangements, policies and resources for fulfilling its obligations under the Act in relation to its activities as a UK recognised body;(3) the extent to
At least two independent minds should be applied to both the formulation and implementation of the policies of a common platform firm. Where a common platform firm 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 decision-making process on all significant decisions.