Hospitality, an unpublished rating and a partner's trade
Priya is a senior investment administrator at a UK wealth manager authorised by the FCA. Barlow Hale, a broker seeking order flow, invites her to a Champions League fixture with hospitality she estimates at £450, and separately offers 'the whole desk' two days at a golf resort. The firm's gifts and hospitality register sets a £100 threshold, above which line-manager approval is needed before acceptance; personal account dealing requires pre-clearance. On Tuesday Priya attends an internal meeting where the equity research team presents an unpublished initiation note on Fenwick Engineering, rated Buy and due for release on Friday; the meeting is not recorded as a wall-crossed event and Priya is not added to any restricted list. At dinner that evening she mentions the rating to her partner. On Wednesday morning, before publication, he buys £12,000 of Fenwick shares in his own account. Priya says she never called the note confidential and that she did not deal herself.
1. Assess whether Priya may accept the match hospitality and the golf invitation, and what she must do before responding.
Read the worked answer
Two different questions, and they have different answers.
Regulatory basis. COBS 2.3.1R prohibits accepting a non-monetary benefit unless it is designed to enhance the quality of the service to the client, does not impair the firm's duty to act in the client's best interests, and is disclosed. COBS 2.3.4 deals with minor non-monetary benefits, which must be reasonable, proportionate, of a scale unlikely to influence behaviour, and not cash or cash-equivalent. Separately, APER/COCON require integrity, due skill and care, and compliance with the firm's systems and controls.
The match ticket. £450 is more than four times the firm's own £100 register threshold and comes from a counterparty explicitly seeking order flow. It is not automatically prohibited, but it cannot be accepted quietly: Priya needs prior line-manager approval, the offer must be recorded on the register whether or not it is accepted, and she should consider declining.
The golf weekend. This is harder to defend. It is offered to the whole desk, is not linked to any service improvement to clients, and is plainly a reward for directing business. It fails the inducement test on quality-enhancement and on impairment of the duty to allocate orders in clients' best interests, whatever the value. It should be declined and referred to compliance for the conflicts register.
Practical steps. Reply in writing, log the offer even though declined, tell her line manager, and consider whether the firm's client disclosure covers hospitality received from executing brokers.
2. Assess Priya's and her partner's position over the Fenwick trade.
Read the worked answer
Her explanation does not rescue the position.
Is it inside information? Under MAR Article 7, information is inside information if it is of a precise nature, has not been made public, relates directly or indirectly to financial instruments or issuers, and if made public would likely have a significant effect on price. An unpublished initiation note with a stated Buy rating, released on a known date, meets that test: the recommendation is precise and the market reaction to a published rating is foreseeable. Nothing turns on whether Priya used the word 'confidential' - the status attaches to the information, not to a label.
Her conduct. Disclosing it to her partner is unlawful disclosure under MAR Article 10 and, in a criminal sense, a tip under section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Her partner's purchase is insider dealing under MAR Article 8/14 and the 1993 Act. Her own view that she 'did not deal' is irrelevant to both.
Aggravating factors. No pre-clearance, no wall-crossing, no restricted list, and a research meeting that was minuted as ordinary business. The Chinese wall failed.
What must happen now. Escalate to compliance and the MLRO immediately; do not contact her partner to warn or advise him, since that risks a further unlawful disclosure and possible tipping off. Preserve the meeting papers, the dinner conversation record and the dealing records. Compliance should consider an internal suspicious transaction and order report to the FCA and a SAR to the NCA, suspend personal account dealing privileges pending investigation, and assess whether the firm breached MAR Article 18 insider list obligations.
3. What control failures does this case expose, and what should the firm change?
Read the worked answer
The case is not really about one employee's judgement; it is about three controls that did not operate.
1. Information barriers. The research meeting was not treated as a wall-crossed event, no restricted list was created, and no insider list was maintained. Research in production should sit behind a documented wall with a named list of those who know, and the desk should be prevented from dealing in the stock until publication.
2. Personal account dealing. Pre-clearance is only useful if it happens before the trade and if the compliance team can see connected persons' accounts. The firm should extend pre-clearance to spouses and partners, require an annual attestation of accounts held, and impose a holding period and a ban around unpublished research.
3. Gifts and hospitality. A £100 threshold with no register entry for declined offers gives no visibility. Offer-level logging, a pre-approval workflow, and a conflicts register that captures broker hospitality would have surfaced the Barlow Hale approach before it became a conduct question.
The through-line for a candidate is that good conduct outcomes depend on documented systems and controls; an individual acting 'honestly' inside a broken process still produces market abuse, and the firm as well as the individual can be liable. Senior managers under SM&CR would also need to consider whether the failure sits within their prescribed responsibilities.