vērtējums viedoklis Apsvērumi par piemītošo risku un kontroles atbilstību

Competent authorities should assess Risk-to-Client arising from all types of exposures, including off-balance sheet exposures: assets under management, client money held, assets safeguarded and administered, and client orders handled. They should also consider the national laws governing segregation applicable to client money, and the availability for the investment firm of a professional indemnity insurance as an effective tool in the management of risks, in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive (EU) 2019/2034.

In assessing Risk-to-Client, competent authorities should take into account the different types of clients, and the nature and complexity of the investment firm’s activities regarding these clients.

6.3.2 Assessment of inherent Risk-to-Client

Through the assessment of inherent Risk-to-Client, competent authorities should determine the main drivers of the investment firm’s Risk-to-Client K-factor amounts and evaluate the significance of the prudential impact of this risk for the investment firm. The assessment of inherent Risk-to-Client should therefore be structured around the following main steps:

• a. preliminary assessment;
• b. assessment of the nature and scale of services and activities for managing client assets, holding client money, safeguarding client assets and handling client orders; and
• c. assessment of the systems and processes regarding these activities.

Competent authorities should assess Risk-to-Client in both current and prospective terms.

Where relevant, competent authorities should also conduct a more granular assessment, potentially at the level of single clients.

Preliminary assessment

To determine the scope of the assessment of Risk-to-Client, competent authorities should first identify the sources of Risk-to-Client to which the investment firm is or may be exposed.

As a minimum, competent authorities should consider the following:

• a. the risk appetite with regard to Risk-to-Client, considering the business model of the investment firm;
• b. the weight of the K-factor amount for Risk-to-Client compared to the total K-factor amount;
• c. forecasts of the K-factor amount for Risk-to-Client, if available;
• d. the nature, size and composition of the investment firm’s on- and off-balance sheet client-related items;
• e. if available, the cost of operational losses on the client accounts versus fees.

Competent authorities should perform the preliminary analysis considering the change in the above indicators over time to form an informed view of the main drivers of the investment firm’s Risk-to-Client.

Assets under management (AUM)

Competent authorities should assess the risk of incurring a loss for clients due to the mismanagement of client assets under management. Assets under management include both assets under discretionary portfolio management and nondiscretionary advisory arrangements of an ongoing nature. This risk may arise, among other sources, from breach of the mandate’s terms, excessive leverage, excessive concentration, assets subject to liquidity squeezes, or inadequate product complexity relative to the mandate.

Competent authorities should focus on these sources of inherent risk, where relevant:

• a. complexity of mandates, Investment Policy Statement (IPS) or strategies implemented;
• b. client profiles (sovereign funds, institutional investors, corporate or retail) and risk tolerance;
• c. asset classes of underlying portfolio;
• d. amount of assets under management.

Client money held (CMH)

Competent authorities should assess the risk of losing client money and having to compensate clients due to the mismanagement of client accounts by the investment firm.

Competent authorities should assess whether client money is held according to national law regarding client money protection and can be clearly distinguished from the investment firm’s own cash.

Competent authorities should focus on these sources of inherent risk, where relevant:

• a. account type (commercial bank deposit);
• b. agreement on investment firm access to client money;
• c. authorised investments policy for client money;
• d. omnibus or individual segregated accounts;
• e. client money traceability;
• f. amount of client money held and number of clients;
• g. currencies used to denominate client accounts.

Assets safeguarded and administered (ASA)

Competent authorities should assess the risk of incurring a loss for clients and having to compensate them due to the mismanagement of assets safeguarded and administered by the investment firm.

Competent authorities should focus on these sources of inherent risk where relevant:

• a. reuse of collateral held;
• b. liquidation rights on assets;
• c. collateral depreciation;
• d. delegations incoming from and out-coming to other financial entities;
• e. types of assets;
• f. operations or failure to perform operations on events linked to assets (vote for general assembly, coupon payment, rights issues). Client orders handled (COH)

Competent authorities should assess the risk of operational loss while handling client orders. This risk may arise from system or human errors due to the complexity of processes, procedures, and IT systems (including the use of new technologies), to the extent that they might lead to errors, including delays, misspecification or security breaches.

Competent authorities should focus on these sources of inherent risk, where relevant:

• a. quantity and amount of client orders handled;
• b. nature of underlying assets (OTC, more or less liquid…);
• c. order types and characteristics (by blocks, fixed price…);
• d. transmission or execution characteristics (electronic trading or by voice…);
• e. transmission or execution processes and organisation (dedicated desks by asset class, sales-traders, trading on own account, market access…).

6.3.3 Assessment of Risk-to-Client management and controls

To achieve a comprehensive understanding of the investment firm’s Risk-to-Client profile, competent authorities should also review the risk management framework underlying its activities. To this end, competent authorities should assess the following elements, where relevant:

• a. the investment firm has a sound, clearly formulated and documented risk strategy that is duly validated by the management board and covers asset management, cash flow management within the firm and management of assets safeguarded and administered;
• b. the investment firm has an appropriate organisational framework to ensure effective providing of services to clients, with sufficient (both qualitative and quantitative) human and technical resources (front and back offices, information systems);
• c. the investment firm has a strong and comprehensive control framework (effectiveness and independence of control functions) and sound safeguards to mitigate its risks to clients in line with the management strategy and risk appetite;
• d. the investment firm has clearly defined policies and procedures for the identification, management, measurement and control of operational risks to clients;
• e. access rights of the firm to client accounts are compliant with applicable regulations.

6.3.4 Summary of findings and scoring

Following the above assessment, competent authorities should form a view on the investment firm’s Risk-to-Client. This view should be reflected in a summary of findings, accompanied by a risk score based on the considerations specified in Table 5. If, based on the materiality of certain risk factors, competent authorities decide to assess and score them individually, the guidance provided in this table should be applied, as far as possible, by analogy.

Table 5. Supervisory considerations for assigning a risk score for Risk-to-Client