The Error Account That Became a Proprietary Trade
At a JSE equities member, a client's R12.4 million buy order for 80,000 shares in a mid-cap is rejected by the automated credit check because the client's cash collateral is R400,000 short. The dealer, under pressure to protect the relationship, executes the order on the firm's error account at R155.00 and later sells the shares at R157.20, booking a R176,000 profit to the proprietary desk. The client had given a signed order before the credit check and believed the trade would be executed. Compliance learns from the settlement team that the trade was never allocated to the client; the desk head says 'no harm, the firm carried the risk.' No contract note was issued to the client and the order was not confirmed. The member's error-account policy says the account is only for genuine execution errors and must be cleared same day. The client now asks for the shares.
1. Identify the principal JSE rule and conduct failures in this sequence, and explain why the desk head's 'no harm' argument does not cure them.
Read the worked answer
The core failure is not the credit rejection; it is what the firm did after it. A client order may be rejected for legitimate risk reasons, but the member must tell the client promptly and obtain fresh instructions. Instead the dealer executed the client's order on the error account and later sold it for the proprietary book. That converts an agency order into a proprietary position without consent. It breaches the JSE principle that members act honestly and fairly and execute client orders on the terms agreed, and it misuses an error account designed for genuine execution mistakes. The conflict between the client's interest and the desk's profit was not disclosed or managed. The absence of a contract note and order confirmation also breaches record-keeping and confirmation expectations. The 'no harm' argument fails because harm is not only realised loss: the client lost the benefit of the bargain and the firm gained R176,000 from information and an order that belonged to the client. The firm also created a misleading appearance that the order had been handled. Compliance should treat this as a reportable rule breach and a conduct risk event, not a technical error.
2. What immediate remediation and escalation should compliance undertake, including client communication and any regulatory notification?
Read the worked answer
Compliance should freeze and preserve all records: order ticket, credit-check log, error-account entries, dealer chats, contract-note queue, and the proprietary sale. It should escalate immediately to the JSE market regulation function under the member's breach-reporting obligation and consider whether the FSCA or FAIS conduct obligations require notification. The client must be contacted honestly: explain the order was not executed as instructed, do not conceal the proprietary sale, and ask whether the client still wants the shares or a cash equivalent. The firm should calculate remediation on the client's preferred outcome, not the firm's profit. An independent review should test whether other orders have been warehoused in the error account. The desk head and dealer should be removed from client-order handling pending investigation. Root-cause fixes include a hard block on using the error account for client orders, a credit-check exception workflow with client notification, same-day error-account clearance with dual sign-off, and surveillance for orders that are later sold proprietary. The firm should also review its TCF outcomes and complaints handling. A written remediation plan and timeline should go to the governing body.
3. How should the R176,000 profit and the client's request for the shares be resolved under the mandate?
Read the worked answer
The R176,000 should not simply be retained. Under an agency mandate, the dealer had no authority to buy for the firm shares that the client had ordered. The profit is an unauthorised proprietary gain derived from the client's order. The default remedy is to account to the client for the profit or to transfer the shares at the original price if the client elects, subject to the mandate and applicable law. The firm should not use the client's failure to fund as a justification for keeping the gain; the correct response to insufficient collateral was to reject and notify, not to take the position. If the client no longer wants the shares, the firm should offer the difference between the client's intended price and the proprietary sale proceeds, less any legitimate costs the client would have incurred, and document the calculation. Any disciplinary or contractual recovery from the dealer is separate. The compliance file should record why the chosen remedy is fair, how the client consented, and that the JSE was informed. If the mandate contains a set-off or error-account clause, it should be reviewed for fairness and cannot authorise undisclosed proprietary trading.