83,223
edits
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''? |