Template:Inducements under cobs and perg: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===“Inducements” under [[COBS]] vs “inducements” under [[PERG]]=== | ===“Inducements” under [[COBS]] vs “inducements” under [[PERG]]=== | ||
The [[FCA]] seems to use the word inducement in quite different ways, depending on which bit of the handbook it is thinking about. Under the COBS “[[Rule on Inducements - COBS Provision|Rule on Inducements]]”, an inducement clearly involves some sort of [[consideration]]: a benefit, concession, retrocession, or advantage that a customer (or investment manager) gets in return for it (or its clients’) business. By contrast, in the [[PERG]] rules about (especially as regards “inducements to enter into [[financial promotion]]s” the regulator seems to be regarded much more loosely as not much more than a synonym for | The [[FCA]] seems to use the word inducement in quite different ways, depending on which bit of the handbook it is thinking about. Under the COBS “[[Rule on Inducements - COBS Provision|Rule on Inducements]]”, an inducement clearly involves some sort of [[consideration]]: a benefit, concession, retrocession, or advantage that a customer (or investment manager) gets in return for it (or its clients’) business. By contrast, in the [[PERG]] rules about (especially as regards “inducements to enter into [[financial promotion]]s” the regulator seems to be regarded much more loosely as not much more than a synonym for “strong invitation” or “incitement” (in our view an equally unhelpful use of a legal word with a clear meaning in an another context (being criminal law)) — but no ''quid pro quo'', [[consideration]] or (cough) ''inducement'' seems to be needed — which is odd, because it is used together with the actual word “invitation”. | ||
All a bit odd. Do you really “incite, counsel or procure” entry into a ''contract''? | |||
Latest revision as of 11:33, 22 February 2023
“Inducements” under COBS vs “inducements” under PERG
The FCA seems to use the word inducement in quite different ways, depending on which bit of the handbook it is thinking about. Under the COBS “Rule on Inducements”, an inducement clearly involves some sort of consideration: a benefit, concession, retrocession, or advantage that a customer (or investment manager) gets in return for it (or its clients’) business. By contrast, in the PERG rules about (especially as regards “inducements to enter into financial promotions” the regulator seems to be regarded much more loosely as not much more than a synonym for “strong invitation” or “incitement” (in our view an equally unhelpful use of a legal word with a clear meaning in an another context (being criminal law)) — but no quid pro quo, consideration or (cough) inducement seems to be needed — which is odd, because it is used together with the actual word “invitation”.
All a bit odd. Do you really “incite, counsel or procure” entry into a contract?