Fit and Proper Principles
Fit and Proper Principles
Fit and Proper Principles
Objective
Background
3. The probity and competence of the top management of banks, securities firms and
insurance enterprises are critical to the achievement of the objectives of supervision. The
primary responsibility for ensuring that regulated entities are prudently and soundly
managed and directed rests with the regulated entities themselves. Supervisors’
expectations are that the entities will take the measures necessary to ensure that managers,
directors and shareholders whose holdings are above specified thresholds or who exercise a
material influence on their operations ("key shareholders") meet the fitness, propriety or
other qualification tests of their supervisors.
5. Solo supervisors are subject to statutory and other requirements in applying fitness,
propriety or other qualification tests to the entities under their jurisdiction. It is not
40
intended that such statutory and other requirements (as well as their procedures for the
application of those tests) will be superseded by the elements of this principle. In
exercising their statutory responsibilities, supervisors should consult, as applicable, the
supervisors of other regulated entities in the financial conglomerate in question.
7. Fitness tests usually seek to assess the competence of managers and directors and their
capacity to fulfil the responsibilities of their positions while propriety tests seek to assess
their integrity and suitability. To determine competence, formal qualifications, previous
experience and track record are some of the elements focused on by supervisors. To assess
integrity and suitability, elements considered include: criminal records, financial position,
civil actions against individuals to pursue personal debts, refusal of admission to, or
expulsion from, professional bodies, sanctions applied by regulators of other similar
industries, and previous questionable business practices.
8. Factors relative to the assessment of the fitness, propriety or other qualifications of key
shareholders include business repute and financial position, and whether such ownership
would adversely affect the regulated entity.
9. It is recognised that in addition to the factors identified in the previous paragraphs, the
assessment of fitness, propriety and other qualifications is a judgmental matter and that
supervisors may have additional information at their disposal that they can consider on a
case-by-case basis.
10. Managers and directors in unregulated entities, usually those upstream from the
regulated entities, in a financial conglomerate can exercise a material influence over many
aspects of the regulated entities’ business and can also play a key role in controlling risks in
the various entities in the whole group.
11. This element raises issues of supervisory jurisdiction as supervisors’ reach may not
extend beyond their geographical boundaries, i.e. to other regulated entities in the group
41
which are overseen by supervisors in other jurisdictions, and to unregulated entities in the
group. Furthermore, measures taken to apply fitness, propriety or other qualification tests
to unregulated entities in the group may create the false impression that supervision
generally extends to those unregulated entities.
12. This also raises the issue of sharing of information among supervisors with respect to
individuals and has implications with respect to the usual requirements of professional
secrecy on supervisors. Most countries have legislation in place protecting the privacy of
individuals and accordingly it is recognised that there may be limitations to a free
exchange of information between supervisors.
Guiding Principles
4. Supervisors’ expectations are that the entities will take the measures
necessary to ensure that fitness, propriety or other qualification tests are
met on a continuous basis.
13. The application of fitness, propriety or other qualification tests to managers, directors
and key shareholders may vary depending on the degree of their influence and on their
responsibilities in the affairs of regulated entities. It is recognised that an individual
considered fit for a particular position within an institution may not be considered fit for
another position with different responsibilities or for a similar position within another
institution, and conversely, an individual considered unfit for a particular position in a
particular institution may be considered fit in different circumstances.
42
14. There are significant differences in legislative and regulatory frameworks across
countries as regards the functions of the board of directors and senior management. In
some countries, there is a two tier board system consisting of a supervisory board which
has the main, if not exclusive, function of supervising the executive body (the management
board) to ensure that the latter fulfils its tasks. This means that the board has no executive
functions. In other countries, with a unitary board system, the board has a broader
competence in that it lays down the general framework for the management of the
institution. In this regard, fitness, propriety or other qualification tests should be applied to
directors in light of their role and responsibilities.
15. Such communications should take into account whether such disclosures could
interfere with supervisory action.
16. Generally, channels to permit the exchange of information within sectors, e.g. banking,
securities and insurance, have been established. Where there is no direct channel to a
regulator in another jurisdiction, it may be possible to route information to the relevant
domestic supervisor for onward transmission.
18. Mechanisms should be in place to ensure that supervisors are advised, at the
authorisation stage, of managers, directors and shareholders who can exert a material
influence, directly or indirectly, on the operations of regulated entities, and thereafter, are
notified of changes in such managers, directors and shareholders, on the occurrence of
specified events.