The Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) proposals to revise best execution obligations will involve an extensive departure from existing practices. In particular, achieving the ‘best price’ will no longer be paramount. Firms will have to factor into the best execution equation other direct and indirect costs of trading which are relevant to achieving ‘the best outcome’ or ‘quality of execution’ for the consumer. This will make the assessment far more complex. The existing timely execution rule, making immediacy of execution the benchmark, is likely to be scrapped, to be replaced by an obligation to deal at a time best calculated to deliver the desired result for the customer. The existing SETS ‘safe harbour’ may also be removed and there will be extensive new customer disclosure obligations in relation to firms’ execution policies and procedures, including information as to deal flow through potential individual execution venues, and execution specific disclosures of conflicts of interest. Firms will also be obliged to review at least annually their execution arrangements and make changes if in the interests of their customers, and the FSA proposes rigorous transaction monitoring obligations to ensure that the revised best execution requirements are being met in practice.
Article navigation
1 March 2003
Viewpoint|
March 01 2003
Better than best execution? The Financial Services Authority’s new proposals to reform UK best execution requirements Available to Purchase
David Capps
David Capps
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 4 Carlton Gardens, London, SW1Y 5AA, UK;tel: +44 (0)207 872 1036; fax: +44 (0)207 839 3537; e‐mail: david.capps@wilmer.com
Search for other works by this author on:
Publisher: Emerald Publishing
Online ISSN: 1740-0279
Print ISSN: 1358-1988
© MCB UP Limited
2003
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance (2003) 11 (1): 37–44.
Citation
Capps D (2003), "Better than best execution? The Financial Services Authority’s new proposals to reform UK best execution requirements". Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Vol. 11 No. 1 pp. 37–44, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/13581980310810390
Download citation file:
Suggested Reading
FSA Consultation Paper 121 and the move to depolarisation ‐ A critical analysis
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance (September,2002)
Supporting a risk‐based anti‐money laundering approach through enforcement action
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance (March,2005)
Risk‐based regulation in the Financial Services Authority
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance (December,2002)
Incentive compatibility and the optimal design of deposit protection schemes: An assessment of UK arrangements
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance (June,2002)
To polarise or not to polarise
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance (June,2002)
Recommended for you
These recommendations are informed by your reading behaviors and indicated interests.
