Client’s best interest rule: Difference between revisions

There is much general lofty aspiration here, but not much by way of flesh on the bones. This, generally, is how the [[JC]] likes regulations — self explanatory, and demanding the application of common sense — but it does lead nervous compliance officers, who, having been beaten and bloodied in the foregoing decade don’t always have much of a conceptualisation of common sense — to adopt a bunker mentality. So a few remarks about what the fairness requirement should not mean. You know how we like disclaimers, folks, and this being turf into which the better angels of [[Magic circle law firm|the professional advisorate]] tend not to rush — consider our disclaimer absolute. Take the following as youj find it, and don’t blame me if you wind up in jail.

:''If we offer this groundbreaking product — ''tranched synthetic collateralised emissions credit derivatives, denominated in [[bitcoin]]''<ref>Laugh, but this once happened. Expecting it to be a jaunty icebreaker, the JC once suggested this to a commodity structurer in London — I mean a ''leveraged exposure to hot air'', right? hahaha!!! — But he looked sadly and said, “we tried that but we couldn’t get the rating agencies over the line. Pity; the P&L projections were awesome.”</ref> to one special client, then we will have to offer it to ''everyone''.