Eligible counterparty - FCA Rulebook Term: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|ukregulation|{{subtable|{{small|80}}{{COBS Section 3.6.2}}</div>}}}}Either a {{cobsprov|per se eligible counterparty}}, or an {{cobsprov|elective eligible counterparty}}. | |||
====Per se ECP==== | |||
To be compared and contrasted with {{cobsprov|elective eligible counterparty}}. These matter greatly when categorising clients for [[MiFID]] purposes, particularly in the context of [[best execution]]. | |||
====Elective ECP==== | |||
====Elective ECP=== | |||
The famous “{{cobsprov|elective ECP}}” categorisation: | The famous “{{cobsprov|elective ECP}}” categorisation: | ||
*Many {{cobsprov|per se professional client}}s are also {{cobsprov|per se eligible counterparties}} — but not all. | *Many {{cobsprov|per se professional client}}s are also {{cobsprov|per se eligible counterparties}} — but not all. | ||
*Those {{cobsprov|per se professional client}}s that are not {{cobsprov|per se eligible counterparties}} — i.e., that are {{cobsprov|elective ECP}}s — can only be treated as {{cobsprov|ECP}}s if ''they'' have requested this categorisation. Now one might, of course, gently put that idea in such a client’s head: nothing wrong with that. Politely suggesting an elective ECP might wish to think about requesting an upgrade is one thing — but one cannot unilaterally categorise an elective ECP as an ECP without them first requesting it. | *Those {{cobsprov|per se professional client}}s that are not {{cobsprov|per se eligible counterparties}} — i.e., that are {{cobsprov|elective ECP}}s — can only be treated as {{cobsprov|ECP}}s if ''they'' have requested this categorisation. Now one might, of course, gently put that idea in such a client’s head: nothing wrong with that. Politely suggesting an elective ECP might wish to think about requesting an upgrade is one thing — but one cannot unilaterally categorise an elective ECP as an ECP without them first requesting it. | ||
*an “{{cobsprov|elective professional client}}” (ie one is able to be upgraded from retail to professional) cannot further request to be treated as an {{cobsprov|ECP}}. | *an “{{cobsprov|elective professional client}}” (ie one is able to be upgraded from retail to professional) cannot further request to be treated as an {{cobsprov|ECP}}. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:47, 3 December 2024
|
The JC’s Reg and Leg resource™
UK Edition
|
Either a per se eligible counterparty, or an elective eligible counterparty.
Per se ECP
To be compared and contrasted with elective eligible counterparty. These matter greatly when categorising clients for MiFID purposes, particularly in the context of best execution.
Elective ECP
The famous “elective ECP” categorisation:
- Many per se professional clients are also per se eligible counterparties — but not all.
- Those per se professional clients that are not per se eligible counterparties — i.e., that are elective ECPs — can only be treated as ECPs if they have requested this categorisation. Now one might, of course, gently put that idea in such a client’s head: nothing wrong with that. Politely suggesting an elective ECP might wish to think about requesting an upgrade is one thing — but one cannot unilaterally categorise an elective ECP as an ECP without them first requesting it.
- an “elective professional client” (ie one is able to be upgraded from retail to professional) cannot further request to be treated as an ECP.