IMA has responded to FSA's consultation on client assets. It wonders whether it would be mandatory to have multiple client money sub-pools. It sees certain advantages with the flexibility sub-pools would provide but is also concerned about the complexity of the arrangements. IMA also believes the proposals focus too much on retail investors, and comments on the need for firms to explain the rationale and costs of setting up sub-pools which might be of benefit to only some of their investors. It agrees that assets should be returned to investors as quickly as possible following the insolvency of a firm, but wants FSA to give further thought to its proposal to dislocate the primary pooling events from a firm's failure which would allow an insolvency practitioner to sell as a going concern. Overall, IMA urges FSA to consider the proposals from a Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) perspective and to consider how it would implement the rules should they become mandatory. (Source: IMA Responds on Client Assets)
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
Questions? Please contact email@example.comRegister
IMA responds on client assets
Popular articles from this firm
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Related topic hubs
“I enjoy the CLANZ newsstand and find it highly relevant to my job. I definitely have forwarded various articles to my colleagues on occasion where there is a point of general interest, particularly employment or IT law. I really appreciate the service, it's a quick way for me to keep up to date in a way I wouldn't otherwise have time to.”