Employment in Financial Services

Contributing Editor

In a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, employers in the financial services sector must ensure they are fully compliant with local employment rules and procedures. Helping to mitigate risk, IEL’s guide provides clear answers to the key issues facing employers in the sector

Choose countries

 

Choose questions

Choose the questions you would like answering, or choose all for the full picture.

01. What is the primary regulatory regime applicable to financial services employees in your jurisdiction?

01. What is the primary regulatory regime applicable to financial services employees in your jurisdiction?

Flag / Icon

Hong Kong

  • at Morgan Lewis & Bockius
  • at Morgan Lewis & Bockius

The primary regulatory regime applicable to financial services employees in Hong Kong are as follows:

  • Under the Banking Ordinance (BO), the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) is responsible for regulating all authorised institutions (banks, restricted-licence banks and deposit-taking companies). In particular, the HKMA needs to ensure that the chief executive, directors, controllers and executive officers of the authorised institutions are “fit and proper”.
  • Under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) is responsible for regulating the securities and futures markets. Employees performing any regulated functions under the SFO must obtain the requisite licence from the SFC. Relevant individuals engaged by the authorised institutions who perform regulated functions (eg, bank staff working in the securities dealing department) are not required to be licensed or registered with the SFC but their names have to be entered in the register maintained by the HKMA.
  • Under the Insurance Ordinance (IO), the Insurance Authority (IA) is responsible for regulating the insurance industry. Employees carrying on a regulated activity under the IO must obtain the requisite licence from the IA.
Last updated on 22/01/2023

Flag / Icon

UAE

  • at Morgan Lewis & Bockius

The UAE has four different regulators responsible for the authorisation and supervision of banks, insurers, and other financial institutions.

There are two regulators "on-shore" in the UAE, namely, (i) the UAE Central Bank, which is the state institution responsible for banking and insurance regulation, as well as monetary policy, and has authority over all licensed financial institutions in the UAE, including those in the financial free zones; and (ii) the Emirates Securities and Commodities Authorities (ESCA)  that regulates markets, listed companies, and securities brokers.

There are two financial free zones in the UAE, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), who were established as special economic zones with independent jurisdictions through amendment to the UAE Constitution.  Within the free zones, the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) is the regulator of the DIFC and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) is the regulator of the ADGM.

As the DIFC and ADGM free zones have been established as special economic zones in which financial services are conducted, most of the applicable legislation in the UAE which governs financial services is found in the two free zones.  Therefore, unless expressly referenced, the responses for the UAE in this guide consider the position in the DIFC and ADGM only.

The Dubai Financial Services Authority is the financial regulatory body of financial services conducted in or from the DIFC.  The key legislation is the Regulatory Law of 2004, as amended, which is administered by the DFSA and is described as the cornerstone legislation of the regulatory regime.

The ADGM Financial Services Regulatory Authority is the financial regulatory body of financial services conducted in or from the ADGM.  The key legislation is the Financial Services and Markets Regulations (FSMR), which sets out the legislative and regulatory framework for financial services in the ADGM.  The FSMR was modelled on the UK’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and other related legislation.

Finally, all employees in the private sector (excluding the two financial free zones) are subject to Federal Decree-law No. 33 of 2021, as amended (the Labour Law).  In the DIFC, employees are subject to DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019, as amended (the DIFC Employment Law) and in the ADGM, employees are subject to the ADGM Employment Regulations 2019 (the ADGM Employment Regulations).  In addition to the employment legislation described above, a number of other laws will be applicable to employees in the UAE, including Federal Decree-law No. 30 of 2021 containing the Penal Code.

Last updated on 24/04/2024

07. Are there any specific rules relating to compensation payable to financial services employees in your jurisdiction, including, for example, limits on variable compensation, or provisions for deferral, malus and/or clawback of monies paid to employees?
 

07. Are there any specific rules relating to compensation payable to financial services employees in your jurisdiction, including, for example, limits on variable compensation, or provisions for deferral, malus and/or clawback of monies paid to employees?
 

Flag / Icon

Hong Kong

  • at Morgan Lewis & Bockius
  • at Morgan Lewis & Bockius

There are no specific mandatory rules relating to compensation payable to financial services employees in Hong Kong.

The HKMA has issued a Supervisory Policy Manual CG-5 “Guideline on a Sound Remuneration System”. This focuses on providing a broad idea and introducing basic principles of how remuneration policies should be designed and implemented in the authorised institution, to encourage employee behaviour that supports the risk management framework, corporate values and long-term financial soundness of the authorised institution.

Under the Guideline, the elements of a sound remuneration system are as follows:

Governance

  • Remuneration policy should be in line with objectives, business strategies and the long-term goals of the authorised institution.
  • The remuneration arrangement for employees whose activities could have a material impact on the authorised institution’s risk profile and financial soundness should support, but not undermine, the overall risk management approach.
  • The Board of an authorised institution is ultimately responsible for overseeing the formulation and implementation of the remuneration policy.
  • The establishment of a Board remuneration committee would assist the Board in discharging its responsibility for the design and operation of the authorised institution’s remuneration system.
  • Risk control personnel should have appropriate authority and involvement in the process of design and implementation of the authorised institution’s remuneration policy.

Structure of remuneration

  • Balance of fixed and variable remuneration should be determined with regard to the seniority, role, responsibilities and activities of their employees and the need to promote behaviour among employees that support the authorised institution’s risk-management framework and long-term financial soundness.
  • Variable remuneration should be paid in such a manner as to align an employee’s incentive awards with long-term value creation and the time horizons of risk.
  • Guaranteed minimum bonus to senior management or key personnel should be subject to the approval of the Board (or the Board’s remuneration committee with the necessary delegated authority).

Measurement of performance for variable remuneration

  • The award of variable remuneration should depend on the fulfilment of certain pre-determined and assessable performance criteria, which include both financial and non-financial factors.
  • Size and allocation of variable remuneration should take into account the current and potential risks associated with the activities of employees, as well as the performance (overall performance of the relevant business units and the authorised institution as a whole as well as the contribution of individual employees to such performance).
  • Judgement and common sense may be required during the process to arrive at a fair and appropriate remuneration decision. The rationale for the exercise of judgment and the outcomes should be recorded in writing.

Alignment of remuneration pay-outs to the time horizon of risks

  • Deferment of variable remuneration is appropriate when the risks taken by the employee in question are harder to measure or will be realised over a longer timeframe.
  • The award of deferred remuneration should be subject to a minimum vesting period and pre-defined vesting conditions in respect of future performance.
  • Authorised institutions should seek undertakings from employees not to engage in personal hedging strategies or remuneration and liability-related insurance to hedge their exposures in respect of the unvested portion of their deferred remuneration.

Remuneration disclosure

  • Authorised institutions should make remuneration disclosures at least annually. The disclosure should include the qualitative and quantitative information that the HKMA has set out in its annual remuneration disclosure.
Last updated on 22/01/2023

Flag / Icon

UAE

  • at Morgan Lewis & Bockius

Both the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook contain Best Practice Guidance for remuneration structure and strategies of authorised entities. In particular, the guidance identifies that the governing body of an authorised entity ought to consider the risk to which the firm could be exposed to as a result of the conduct or behaviour of its employees, and to consider the ratio and balance between fixed and variable remuneration components, the nature of the duties and functions performed by the relevant employees, the assessment criteria against which performance based components of remuneration are to be awarded, and the integrity and objectivity of any performance assessment against that criteria.

Last updated on 24/04/2024