Client’s best interest rule: Difference between revisions

Client’s best interest rule (view source)

Revision as of 08:55, 10 September 2020

335 bytes added , 10 September 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,892

edits

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ====It isn’t some kind of dealer-based [[doctrine of precedent]].====
-The same goes for close-outs and disputes. when confronted with any practial means of sorting out a specific dispute on a settlement failure with a client,. [[compliance]] will be sore pressed not to caution ''against'' this, on grounds of treating customers fairly - the equity in question being the resolution of this specific issue, and any other settlement or trading issue that might arise in any market, with any client at any time, if putatively analogous. Again, this ought not be the purpose of the [[TCF]] rule, if for no other reason it will “chilling” effect on a [[dealer]]’s appetite for settling any dispute with any client in any circumstances short of a final judgment of a competent court. [[TCF]] does not introduce the obligation to operate some kind of internal [[stare decisis]] policy, obliging a [[dealer]] to apply a [[doctrine of precedent]] binding it for all times to any practical accommodation it might make with any of its clients at any time for any reason. The intention is surely more limited: if ''two'' clients grumble about the ''same'' valuation the dealer makes on the ''same'' product at the ''same'' time, then TCF obliges the dealer who fixes the problem for one client to offer corresponding resolution to the other. Be even handed. That is all.
+The same goes for close-outs and disputes. When presented with any practical means of sorting out a specific dispute on a settlement failure with a client, [[Compliance]] will be sore pressed not to caution ''against'' doing so, again, on grounds it might not be [[treating customers fairly]]: the inequity in question being the resolution of this specific issue to the benefit of one client in a way you might not later offer to another client on another  settlement or trading issue arising in a different market, with a different client at any time, if putatively analogous.
+Again, this ought not be the purpose of the [[TCF]] rule, if for no other reason it will have a “chilling” effect on a [[dealer]]’s appetite for settling any dispute with any client in any circumstances short of a final judgment of a competent court. Clearly that is not the regulator’s intention — to the contrary, the [[FCA]] has stiffened its expectations on the brisk and handling and resolution of complaints in recent times. [[TCF]] does not introduce the obligation to operate some kind of internal [[stare decisis]] policy, obliging a [[dealer]] to apply a [[doctrine of precedent]], binding it for all times to any practical accommodation it might make with any of its clients at any time for any reason.
+The intention is surely more limited: if ''two'' clients grumble about the ''same'' valuation the dealer makes on the ''same'' product at the ''same'' time, then a [[dealer]] who fixes the problem for one client should offer a corresponding resolution to the other. Be even handed. Treat your customers fairly. That is all.
 ====And “client” means?====