Authorised signatory lists: Difference between revisions

Authorised signatory lists (view source)

Revision as of 10:55, 5 November 2019

34 bytes added , 5 November 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 As such, [[broker]]s routinely refuse to be bound by these lists. If you’re confronted with one, here's a ready made explanation of why it won't do:
-*While we understand your need to ensure that your personnel comply with those of your internal policies, mandates and regulations which apply to them, ultimately it is your responsibility, and not ours, to make sure they do.
+:''While we understand each client’s wish to ensure its personnel comply with its own internal policies, mandates and regulations, ultimately it is that client’s primary responsibility, and not ours, to make sure they do.
-*Given the nature of our business and the way we price our offering, it is not practicable to verify on a trade-by-trade basis whether your employees have specific internal authorisation to commit your organisation to transactions with us.
+:''Given the nature and large volume of business we handle for so many different clients, it is not practicable to verify on a trade-by-trade basis whether a given client employee has specific internal authorisation to transact with us on that client’s behalf.''
-*While we are a professional organisation and we do impose systems and controls to ensure that instructions are properly authorised and provided by persons generally empowered to issue them, we cannot police your policies on your behalf, much less underwrite your employees’ compliance with them, and we therefore do not accept any purported restriction on your liability to perform transactions instructed by your personnel purely because they happen to be in breach of your internal mandates or authorisations.
+:''While we have systems and controls to ensure that client instructions are properly authorised and provided by persons generally empowered to issue them, we cannot police client authorisation policies on a client’s behalf or take responsibility for client employees’ compliance with them, and we therefore cannot accept any purported restriction on a client’s liability to perform transactions instructed by your personnel purely because they happen to be in breach of your internal mandates or authorisations.''
-*As between us, therefore, the presumption must be that losses (or gains) that arising from any such unauthorised orders originating within your organisation will be for your account.
+:''As between us, therefore, the presumption must be that losses (or gains) that arising from any such unauthorised orders originating within your organisation will be for your account.''
 {{C|sticking it to the man}}