Alert:
For more information on the cybersecurity incident, please visit the cybersecurity incident page.
7.1 Trading Supervision Obligations
This Guidance, which is effective on March 27, 2018, clarifies certain requirements under UMIR 7.1 and Policy 7.1. This Guidance repeals and replaces prior guidance listed in section 3 of this Notice.
In order to meet the requirements in UMIR 7.1 Participants must develop, implement and maintain appropriate policies and procedures to prevent and detect violation of Requirements, taking into account the size, business model and affairs of the Participant.
The Guidance clarifies various requirements in UMIR 7.1 and Policy 7.1 and provides further detail as to how Participants can comply with these requirements.
This Notice clarifies IIROC’s expectations on the application of UMIR 7.1 and Policy 7.1. Participants are reminded that failure to develop, implement and maintain written policies and procedures in accordance with UMIR 7.1 and Policy 7.1 may result in disciplinary action against the firm, its management, employees, and board of directors.
As part of each review by Trading Conduct Compliance, IIROC will review the policies and procedures developed by the Participant to determine if they are reasonably designed to:
IIROC will determine the reasonability of the policies and procedures by taking into account the size, nature of the business and the experience and training of the employees of the Participant. However, we note that Trading Conduct Compliance reviews do not constitute an approval of the policies and procedures or supervision system by IIROC.
On an ongoing basis, the Participant’s board of directors must ensure that the principal risks for non-compliance with the Requirements have been identified, and that appropriate supervision and compliance procedures and systems to manage those risks have been implemented. Management of the Participant is responsible for ensuring that the supervision system is appropriately designed and effectively carried out.
Each Participant must ensure that its supervisory functions and compliance department are adequately funded, staffed and empowered to fulfill its responsibilities. Inadequate funding of the compliance department or supervisory functions may be taken into account in the context of any disciplinary action.
Part 1 of Policy 7.1 requires a Participant “to develop and implement a clearly defined set of policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent and detect violations of Requirements”. Participants are reminded that the term “Requirements”, as defined in UMIR 1.1, includes more than just UMIR and its Policies. Specifically, “Requirements” includes:
Policy 7.1 sets out requirements for both supervisors and compliance departments and requires that a supervision system include both supervision policies and procedures and compliance policies and procedures. Policy 7.1 uses a number of terms regarding supervision systems that are not specifically defined in UMIR or the Policy. The following are IIROC’s administrative interpretations for these various terms:
Elements of a Supervision System
A supervision system must include both compliance procedures aimed at detecting violations and supervision procedures aimed at preventing violations. The ten elements of a supervision system listed in Part 2 of Policy 7.1 are primarily conceptual in nature and must be reflected in the overall structure of a Participant’s policies and procedures. A Participant cannot simply list each of these elements in its policies and procedures or affirm that each is being done. When evaluating a Participant’s policies and procedures, IIROC determines whether these elements have been appropriately considered and addressed. The following provides specific guidance on each element.
Element 1 – Identification of Relevant Requirements
A Participant’s policies and procedures must address all of the Requirements that apply to its business and trading. We remind Participants that the Requirements include not only UMIR but also the Trading Rules, Marketplace Rules, Decisions and securities legislation.
IIROC provides guidance to clarify the requirements of the rules and suggests acceptable methods that can be used to comply with specific IIROC requirements. Unless otherwise required by the rules, Participants may use alternative methods, provided that those methods demonstrably achieve the overall objective of Rule 7.1 and Policy 7.1.
Element 2 – Documentation of the Supervision System
A Participant’s written policies and procedures for both supervision and compliance must be sufficiently detailed such that a reasonably knowledgeable person can understand both when and how to comply with the policy or procedure. Testing methodologies must be described in a manner such that a reasonably knowledgeable person would be able to complete the test.
We expect the policies and procedures to:
These policies and procedures must specifically address all Requirements that apply to the Participant’s type of business or trading. We do not expect a Participant to maintain policies and procedures for Requirements that do not apply to its business activities. Using a copy or a slightly augmented version of Policy 7.1 would not satisfy the requirement to develop, implement and maintain compliance or supervisory procedures. The procedures adopted by a Participant must be designed to address higher-risk areas and be appropriate for the size and type of business and trading conducted by the Participant. A Participant must update its policies and procedures when its activities change in order to address risks of non-compliance with the Requirements introduced by the new activities.
Element 3 – Training and Proficiency
Supervisors must have policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure employees are educated and trained on:
Supervisors must also ensure that there is adequate employee education and training to address:
Multiple or inconsistent procedures may indicate that a firm has not adequately trained its employees or that the supervision system has not been adequately reviewed. Each Participant must document the education and training that it provides to employees.
Element 4 – Delegation of Supervisory and Compliance Personnel
Firms may delegate compliance or supervisory tasks to other staff of the Participant as long as it does not create a conflict of interest. For example, it would be inappropriate for a supervisor to review the activities of a proprietary account where the supervisor has a direct or indirect interest in the performance of that proprietary account. However, it may be appropriate to delegate the identification and reporting of extended failed trades to an operation group where the required information may be more readily available.
Supervisors and compliance staff retain the responsibility for their respective obligations, even where the tasks have been delegated to others.
Element 5 – Tailor Procedures to Fit the Participant’s Business
Policy 7.1 applies to all trading conducted by a Participant. This Policy is not limited to head office or institutional trading. A Participant’s supervision procedures must encompass all employees involved in the trading process and may include investment advisors and operations staff, as well as other staff that may be delegated tasks under Element 4. Compliance monitoring must take into account all lines of business and locations.
Element 6 – Procedures for Dealing with Violations
Policies and procedures must include a process for handling potential violations of the Requirements including:
The compliance department must report problems to trading supervisors or their delegates. A Participant does not meet the requirements under Policy 7.1 solely by monitoring trading. A Participant must also take appropriate steps to correct any problems that it has detected. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that adequate steps are taken to address any problems identified. If supervisors do not adequately address identified problems, then compliance departments must ensure that the problems are escalated within the Participant to a higher management level or even the board of directors. These steps and corrective actions must be documented and maintained in an easily retrievable format.
If compliance testing results indicate that the same or similar problems recur over an extended period of time, this may indicate that supervisors have not taken adequate steps to
The continuation of a problem over an extended period may also indicate that the compliance department has not escalated the deficiencies to the appropriate management level.
Element 7 – Reviewing Supervision Systems
A Participant must ensure that its supervision system, including both supervision and compliance policies and procedures, remains effective and relevant by reviewing it at least annually.
Management must ensure that the supervision system is updated to reflect new Requirements, procedures, systems, business lines, offices and employees and that compliance testing continues to be effective.
Element 8 – Documenting Results of Compliance Reviews
Compliance reviews determine a Participant’s level of compliance generally and identify any areas where compliance with the Requirements requires improvement. IIROC expects compliance reviews to indicate
For these reasons, tracking trends and patterns over several compliance reviews can be very useful.
Element 9 – Retaining Results of Reviews
IIROC requires that Participants summarize and retain the results of the supervision system review under Element 7 (including the compliance reviews under Element 8) in an easily retrievable format. Compliance review results must be verifiable. When undertaking a Trading Conduct Compliance review, IIROC will evaluate documentation of the required testing and may request the underlying sources for review.
Element 10 – Reports to Board of Directors2
Participants must provide a summary of the results of the supervision system review, under Element 7 (including the compliance review under Element 8), at least annually to its Board of Directors. However, any significant issue regarding the supervision system must be immediately reported to the Board of Directors.
As part of its review of the Participant, IIROC will request copies of the section of the minutes of the Board meeting where the results of these reviews were discussed, together with copies of the material provided to the board for its consideration. This documentation must include details of any corrective actions recommended and/or taken by the board of directors.
IIROC recognizes that the corporate structure of Participants may vary depending on the setup and business of the firm. The purpose in designating different roles for supervision and compliance in Element 4 of Part 2 in Policy 7.1 is to reinforce the following principles:
In certain instances, there may be some overlap between the roles of compliance and supervision. To avoid confusion, Participants should create job descriptions with clearly established reporting lines so that compliance officers understand when they may be expected to act in a supervisory capacity, or vice versa.
While duties can be delegated and individuals may have dual functions in certain circumstances, delegation must avoid putting individuals in a potential conflict of interest. For example, it would not be appropriate to delegate a compliance function to an employee that reports to a trading supervisor where that delegation creates a conflict of interest. This may hamper the independence needed in carrying out the compliance function.
In a disciplinary hearing, the conduct of individuals will be measured against that of a reasonably proficient and diligent individual in that position. This is an objective standard that looks at what the individual ought to have known or done. It is always open to the individual to demonstrate that he or she exercised due diligence to prevent the harm that occurred.
A compliance officer may be subject to enforcement action if she or he:
If IIROC is satisfied that the compliance officer has met these regulatory expectations, he or she will not be subject to an enforcement action.
Under the Requirements, the audit trail of an order should represent the complete life of the order, including a record of all client instructions.7 While not an exhaustive list, the following are examples of information that may be required to be included in the audit trail of an order under Part 10 of Policy 7.1:
Participants may need to include additional designations that are required under Marketplace Rules, which are part of the Requirements. For example, where a Participant purchases securities on behalf of an issuer pursuant to a normal course issuer bid (NCIB), the order must include the “NCIB” marker where applicable.
With respect to the short-marking exempt designation required by UMIR 6.2, we remind Participants to review whether an account should be marked as “short marking exempt” in accordance with IIROC Notice 12-0300.9 Participants must record the results of this review as part of the documentation required under Policy 7.1.
If a Participant enters an order on a marketplace without the appropriate order designation(s) as required under UMIR 6.2, and the order has been executed in whole or in part, the Participant must submit a regulatory marker correction report (RMCS Report) to IIROC.10
Participants should submit these reports immediately upon becoming aware that an order has been “mismarked” on its entry on any marketplace, regardless of how the Participant became aware of the error.11
A Participant must retain evidence of its review under Part 10 of Policy 7.1 for a period of five years pursuant to Element 9 of Part 2 of Policy 7.1.
Participants should review whether certain order types are used as part of a manipulative or deceptive strategy. For example, order types similar to the post-only order may be used for the purpose of “pinging”12 or testing for dark liquidity as part of a strategy that involves quote manipulation. A complete audit trail of the order would facilitate effective testing under other parts of UMIR 7.1.
Participants must have policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that their trading does not violate UMIR 4.1 and Policy 4.1. Where a Participant has knowledge of a client order that on entry, could reasonably be expected to affect the market price of that security, policies and procedures must include a process to review for whether the Participant has:
A Participant’s reviews may focus on the order and trade activity of proprietary and employee accounts trading ahead of client orders, especially client transactions that could reasonably be expected to impact the market. A representative sample of accounts should include:
Examples of copies of information sources that a Participant may need to retain pursuant to Part 2 of Policy 7.1 include:
If a Participant believes there may be a violation of UMIR 4.1 or Policy 4.1, the Participant must file a gatekeeper report within the applicable timeframe under UMIR 10.16.
Participants must have policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that their trading does not violate UMIR 2.1(2)(c), 5.3, 6.3 and 8.1. Policies and procedures should also include a step-by-step process to review for certain elements. The table below outlines these elements for the following situations:
|
Situation |
Review Criteria |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Client orders of 50 standard trading units and $100,000 or less |
Whether the client order was immediately entered for display on a marketplace (UMIR 6.3(1)) |
If withheld from the marketplace:
|
|
Intentional cross against inventory account (that is not a facilitation account) or non-client account |
Whether a specific client consent was obtained in advance of the trade? (Part 2 of Policy 8.1) |
|
|
Whether the client received a better price, provided the Participant took reasonable steps to ensure it was the best available price under prevailing market conditions (UMIR 8.1(1) and Policy 8.1) If the client did not receive a better price, whether an exemption under UMIR 8.1(2) or (3) was available? |
||
Potential Problem Situations
Participants must also consider addressing potential problem situations when trading opportunities may be taken away from clients. Below are some examples of potential problem situations with respect to client priority that a Participant may consider including in its policies and procedures:
With respect to client priority, written policies and procedures pertaining to employee education and post-trade monitoring may consider including the following points:
A Participant may conduct a manual review and/or rely on automated exception reports to review trading. The procedures should specify the criteria for manual reviews and the specifications and parameters of any automated exception reports. A Participant should use a risk-based approach and take the following into account when selecting a sample for review:
Under Part 2 of Policy 7.1, a Participant may need to retain copies of information sources such as:
Participants, as gatekeepers, must develop, implement and maintain policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to detect, prevent, investigate and report potential manipulative activity under UMIR 2.1, UMIR 2.2, Policy 2.2, Policy 7.1 and UMIR 10.16. A Participant’s policies and procedures must include steps to test for each of the following:
Orders or trades that create an artificial price or misleading appearance of trading activity, such as potential high or low closing trades, ramping near the close, and artificial closing bids and offers are contrary to UMIR 2.2(2) and Policy 2.2.
A price is artificial where it is not justified by real demand or supply. One of the relevant considerations in determining whether a price is artificial is if the Participant or account involved in the order is motivated to establish an artificial price, which may include an attempt to affect the market value of a security.
Procedures should also consider whether the person entering an order is:
A wash trade is a trade that involves no change in beneficial or economic ownership. It is contrary to Policy 2.2 to engage in wash trades (Policy 2.2, Part 1(b)).
Participants should regularly monitor for wash trades and consider instances where the same beneficial or economic owner has an interest in, or controls, more than one account or related account that may be held on the same or different platforms at the Participant.
To prevent an inflation of trading volume during the day, a Participant should take reasonable measures to prevent wash trades from occurring. The Participant should document the methods used to prevent wash trades under Part 2 of Policy 7.1.
While a Participant may make use of marketplace tools, it is still responsible for monitoring and preventing wash trades. All wash trades that have not been cancelled, including wash trades that were generated by automated program trading systems, must be reported to IIROC under UMIR 10.16, which can be done on a monthly basis or more frequently if desired.13
Double printing refers to two trades printed on a marketplace when only one trade was required to execute the order. This activity is prohibited under UMIR 2.2(2)(a). Double printing creates artificial volume and results in inflated trading volume figures for both the firm and the marketplace.14
It is contrary to UMIR 2.1(1)(b) to split a larger order into two or more orders on a particular trading day in order to intentionally impose an obligation on the person with a Marketplace Trading Obligation to:
Participants must ensure that they submit the proper notice to IIROC for trades that fail to settle within ten trading days following the settlement date pursuant to UMIR 7.10 (extended failed trade).
It is contrary to UMIR 2.1(1)(a) if a person enters into a transaction for the purpose of rectifying a failed trade prior to the time that a report must be filed under UMIR 7.10 and the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the transaction will result in “re-aging” for the purpose of avoiding reporting obligations.
Where the extended failed trade is the result of:
Trading strategies known as spoofing, layering, abusive liquidity detection, quote manipulation, and quote stuffing, are examples of activity that would be considered manipulative and deceptive under UMIR 2.2 and Policy 2.2.17 These strategies are prohibited whether they are conducted manually or electronically.
Supervisory functions or the compliance department may rely on automated alerts for the detection of potential manipulative or deceptive activity. However, Participants should conduct further post-order or post-trade reviews in order to determine whether potential manipulative activity may have occurred. Access to historical market data may assist in reviewing whether triggered alerts constitute potential violations of the Requirements.
Participants should regularly review alert parameters to ensure they capture all appropriate activity. In addition, Participants should retain documentation of these reviews for at least five years as part of the requirements under Element 9 of Part 2 of Policy 7.1.
While IIROC does not expect Participants to review every triggered alert, pursuant to Element 8 of Part 2 of Policy 7.1, the policies and procedures must set out the criteria on which a review will be undertaken. If samples are used, the procedures must state how to select a sample, including the sample size. Sample sizes should cover all types of accounts across all lines of the business. We expect Participants to use a risk-based approach when selecting samples and the period of activity to be reviewed. This risk-based approach should take into account factors such as the size of the accounts, nature of trading, volume of activity, commissions generated and any pertinent information about account holders. Other considerations include:
The above list is not exhaustive and may not include all forms of potentially manipulative and deceptive activity. IIROC recognizes that, due to changes in market structure and technology, trading strategies and forms of potential manipulative and deceptive activity will continue to evolve. As part of the annual review of the supervisory system under Element 7 of Part 2 of Policy 7.1, Participants should ensure that their policies and procedures continue to be effective and are reasonably designed to prevent and detect new types of manipulative or deceptive behaviour.
If a Participant believes there may be a violation of UMIR 2.1, UMIR 2.2 or Policy 2.2, the Participant must file a gatekeeper report within the applicable timeframe under UMIR 10.16
A grey or watch list contains the names of issuers of whom the Participant may have inside information.20
Trading these securities by proprietary, employee or related accounts may not be subject to trading restrictions, but should be subject to scrutiny.
Trading on inside information is contrary to the Requirements. As part of complying with UMIR 7.1, a Participant should monitor the trading of proprietary and employee accounts, whether held internally or outside the firm.
Enhanced supervision may be appropriate for accounts:
Trading reviews may consider any or all of the following:
Pre-approval of trading helps monitor activity on a pre-trade basis in employee accounts, whether held at the Participant or externally at another firm. Participants should retain evidence of trading pre-approval under Element 9 of Part 2 of Policy 7.1.
A Participant violates UMIR 2.3 if it enters an order on a marketplace that it knows or reasonably ought to know would result in a violation of the Requirements. If the Participant believes there may be a violation of UMIR 2.3, the Participant must file a gatekeeper report within the applicable timeframe under UMIR 10.16.
UMIR 7.7(1) and (2) prohibit certain activity in a restricted security during the restricted period.
Participants must have policies and procedures to look for:
orders for a restricted security during the restricted period from a dealer-restricted person when acting for an issuer-restricted person, for the account of the issuer-restricted person or an account over which the issuer-restricted person exercises direction or control, that are not permitted under an exemption in UMIR 7.7(5)
If the Participant believes there may be a violation of UMIR 7.7, the Participant may report the potential violation to IIROC.
This Guidance repeals and replaces the following Guidance as shown:
7.1 Trading Supervision Obligations
Welcome to CIRO.ca!
You can find the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) at CIRO.ca with our fresh look and feel.