Payment for Order Flow: Difference between revisions
From ACT Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
imported>Doug Williamson (Update.) |
imported>Doug Williamson (Add links.) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
More generally in the European Union, such payments may fall foul of the EU's [[MiFID]] rules on "inducements" reflected in the FCA's Handbook ([[http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/COBS/2/3]] at 2.3.1). | More generally in the European Union, such payments may fall foul of the EU's [[MiFID]] rules on "inducements" reflected in the FCA's Handbook ([[http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/COBS/2/3]] at 2.3.1). | ||
==See also== | |||
*[[Best execution]] | |||
*[[Best execution rule]] | |||
[[Category:Compliance_and_audit]] | [[Category:Compliance_and_audit]] | ||
Revision as of 13:50, 13 December 2016
(PFOF).
Payment for order flow is defined by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in FG12/13 [1], originally issued by the former FSA, as an arrangement whereby a broker receives payment from market makers, in exchange for sending order flow to them.
The FCA sees such arrangements (whatever called) as creating potential conflict of interest and pressing against best execution of orders for clients and, accordingly, compromising observation of its best execution rule.
More generally in the European Union, such payments may fall foul of the EU's MiFID rules on "inducements" reflected in the FCA's Handbook ([[2]] at 2.3.1).
