Employment in Financial Services

Members of management should at all times be of good repute and possess sufficient knowledge, skills and experience to perform their duties (article 91, Directive 2013/36/EU; and article 9, Directive 2014/65/EU).

Anyone in an executive position (i.e. members of the legal administrative body, the effective management and independent controllers) at a financial institution must exclusively be natural persons and must at all times have the necessary professional standing and expertise to perform their duties (article 19, Act of 25 April 2014). Since 2023, it is specified that “in particular, these persons must demonstrate honesty, integrity and independence of mind which, in the case of members of the legal administrative body, enable them to effectively evaluate and, if necessary, question the decisions of the actual management and to ensure the effective supervision and monitoring of the management decisions taken” (Art. 19, Act of 25 April 2014).

In addition, they must not have been convicted of any of the offences listed in article 20 of the Act of 25 April 2014. This concerns convictions with a professional ban and violations of financial legislation, company codes and insurance law.

The NBB will verify that these persons meet the conditions listed above. Forms for a new appointment, additional elements during the employment, termination of an appointment or renewal of an appointment are available on the NBB website (www.nbb.be). These forms require information mainly regarding education, past financial services experience, training, any criminal or administrative or civil proceedings or investigations, disciplinary decisions, bankruptcy, insolvency, potential conflicts of interest, and time commitments for the new appointment.

The NBB will assess the ability of the person based on five criteria:

• expertise, covering knowledge, experience and skills;
• professional repute;
• independence of mind;
• time commitment; and
• collective suitability for the board (ie, to verify whether the expertise within the said body is sufficiently guaranteed, given the person’s knowledge, experience and skills (NBB Fit & Proper Handbook of 22 December 2022, 2:26, p. 16)).

Concerning "N-1" effective managers (managers who exercise direct and decisive influence over the management of the institution, but who are not members of the management committee) other than branch managers, the supervisory authority does not have to authorise them (NBB Fit & Proper Handbook of 22 December 2022, 2:9, p. 14). This does not mean that these persons must not have the required expertise and professional reputation, but only that the NBB will not conduct an assessment.

The law does not require specific procedures or measures before hiring. However, depending on the activities the employee performs, specific certification may be necessary.

In the financial services sector, candidates must comply with standard recruitment practices, but also with suitability, requirements and, for certain positions, with supervision by the ACPR or the European Central Bank (ECB).

Traditionally, employees in the financial services sector are required to provide the usual documents requested when applying for a job: a cover letter and a curriculum vitae. This is especially important because, as we will see, access to certain positions is conditional. For example, investment advisors must provide proof of either a national diploma attesting to three years of study, or training, or professional experience in the field.

Also, due to the very nature of the financial services business, employees of companies in the sector are required to be honourable.

The Monetary and Financial Code provides that certain operational activities in the financial services sector, such as being a managing director, are barred in the event of a felony conviction, a prison sentence of at least six months with a suspended sentence in connection with the financial world, or a management ban (article L. 500-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code). For this reason, the criminal record of a concerned candidate is generally requested at the time of hiring.

In addition, the appointment or renewal of a senior executive of a credit institution, a finance company, an investment firm other than a portfolio management company, a payment institution or an electronic money institution must be ratified by the ACPR, and by the ECB in the case of major credit institutions. Validation of the appointment or renewal is based on good reputation and competence, which is assessed based on five criteria: experience, reputation, absence of conflicts of interest and independence of mind, availability, and collective ability.

Different notification procedures exist before employees may take up their roles.

Investment firms may only entrust employees to provide investment advice if they are knowledgeable and have demonstrated the required reliability – as evidenced, inter alia, by not having a relevant and unspent prior criminal record. Furthermore, such employees’ identities must be disclosed to BaFin before they commence their activities. The active registration of employees is intended to impart upon employers the significance of employee selection and responsibility for their decisions.

Representatives of regulated entities of the financial services sector (typically, members of management) must be approved by BaFin before they can take up their role (colloquially known as BaFin’s “driver’s licence”). To obtain approval, a request must be filed with BaFin, showing the experience and suitability of the candidate for the role. Depending on the financial services delivered by the company, information that must be filed include the following:

• a CV (including information on professional training, career, and references);
• information on reliability (a form or summary to be completed by the manager, including, for example, mandatory declarations on prior criminal or administrative offences);
• a "certificate of good conduct for submission to an authority", a "European certificate of good conduct for submission to an authority", or "corresponding documents" from abroad (depending on the countries of residence in the last 10 years);
• an extract from the central commercial register;
• an overview of other mandates as a managing director or in administrative and supervisory bodies; and
• information about the manager’s ability to dedicate sufficient time to the role.

Non-management employees responsible for specific key functions at an insurance provider are subject to a similar notification process. Further, financial services employers must perform a risk analysis under the Anti-Money Laundering Act and take internal security measures, which also includes assessing the reliability of employees.

There are no particular pre-screening measures specified by the financial regulators in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, financial institutions would generally conduct background checks on prospective employees (especially those taking on senior positions) to ensure they comply with the “fit and proper” requirements of the financial regulators.

There is no particular form of regulator-specified reference to be provided by previous employers in the financial services industry. Nevertheless, the SFC has specified disclosure obligations for licensed corporations in respect of outgoing employees who were subject to internal investigations (see question 10).

The pre-screening measures, when employing a financial service employee, are carried out in compliance with the frameworks laid down by the respective industry regulators. For instance, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the central banking sector regulator in India, periodically issues certain guidelines for banking and non-banking employers to conduct mandatory employee background checks. These regulators also recognise certain “Self-Regulatory Organisations” (SROs), who then play the primary role in conducting grassroots verifications. SROs conduct character and antecedent verification of employees registered with them as per the standards set by the regulator. Strict police verification of at least the last two addresses is usually mandated and verifications are periodically updated and shared on a common database at an industry level. For instance, the Finance Industry Development Council is an SRO of Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFCs) and is registered with the RBI.

A financial services employer should be sensitive to the data being used for pre-screening measures as India protects individual privacy. Hence, both the employer and the service provider engaged by the employer should obtain prior consent from the prospective employee before pre-screening. If the pre-screening measures include the collection of “sensitive personal data information[1]”, then an employer must seek the individual’s consent, which would also help mitigate risks for any claims concerning the invasion of an employee’s privacy. Employers should ideally ensure that pre-screening is complete before the employee is hired. A comprehensive pre-screening will include verification of educational qualifications, checks with past employers, verification of residential addresses, police records, and passport status. Usually, with seniority of the role, checks with past employers happen more rigorously, while for entry-level employees, checks with academic institutions about educational qualifications may be done more rigorously. Similar standards must be met by contract employees empanelled by the service providers.

There is no regulator-specified reference that must be provided by previous employers in the financial services industry. However, in practice, most public sector banks (eg, Bank of India) and many central public sector undertakings in financial services (eg, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC)), as per their selection or onboarding protocols, require at least two “Character Certificates”, one of which should be from the head of the educational institution last attended or the present employer and the other should be from gazetted officers[2] or bank officers, without any familial ties to the employee.

RFSPs must satisfy themselves that all CF and PCF candidates or employees comply with the F&P Standards. Pre-employment due diligence must be performed, including asking the candidate to certify they will comply with the F&P Standards and notify the RFSP immediately of any change in circumstance that may mean they no longer comply. Employers must continue to ensure that in scope employees comply with the F&P Standards and must complete an annual declaration to this effect. This means that due diligence must continue throughout the employment relationship and not just at the recruitment stage.

Candidates for PCF roles must complete an online individual questionnaire, which is submitted to the CBI in advance of appointment to the role through the Central Bank portal. The CBI must grant its approval for the PCF appointment before a candidate can take up the role. Any PCF offer of employment must be conditional on that approval being obtained. The CBI may request applicants attend an interview as part of the approval process.

Employers should take all reasonable steps to secure references from previous employers in order to due diligence the candidate's compliance with the F&P Standards and their suitability for the role. However, an employer is not obliged to issue a reference in respect of a former employee which means that a prospective employer may not be able to secure a reference from a previous employer.  The CBI does not oblige employers to either issue or obtain a reference as part of screening checks, however employers must make good efforts to do so.

There are material obstacles from a data privacy and practical perspective to employers conducting criminal background checks in relation to prospective employees. Data relating to criminal convictions is special category data under the GDPR. Employers would need to satisfy both Article 6 and Article 9 requirements under the GDPR to justify the processing of this data. In terms of Article 9, this means employers would need to show reasons of substantial public interest or that they are carrying out their legal obligations in processing the data.  In terms of Article 6 the employer will need to show that the processing is necessary to comply with a legal obligation to which the employer is subject or the processing is necessary for the employer's legitimate interests for example to ensure the suitability and honesty of its employees and to protect its reputation. Employers are also prevented from asking candidates about "spent convictions" which are usually minor criminal offences dating back over seven years.

Pre-employment medical checks must also have a clear legal basis justifying the processing of an employee's medical and health information.

There is a general obligation on employers in the Isle of Man to undertake legal working checks to ensure that the prospective employee has the right to work lawfully in the Isle of Man.

In addition, financial institutions must take reasonable steps to ensure that individuals who perform any regulated activity in the course of their employment, or under any contract with the financial institution, are fit and proper for the tasks they perform, by providing adequate training and supervision and (where necessary) undertaking additional checks. Where the financial institution wishes to employ an individual in a Controlled Function, the financial institution must carry out sufficient due diligence to satisfy itself that the candidate is fit and proper to perform the proposed functions.

There are two types of Controlled Functions, those that require notification to, and acceptance by, the IoM FSA and those that require notification only. In either case, the financial institution is required to notify the IoM FSA of the appointment or intended appointment of certain key roles at least 20 business days before the appointment takes effect. Where the Controlled Function also requires acceptance, the financial institution will require the IoM FSA’s consent to the appointment of a prospective candidate to a particular role. It is recommended that job offers in such circumstances are made subject to the written acceptance of the IoM FSA.

While the IoM FSA does not specify any particular pre-screening measures, it provides guidance on the nature of the expected due diligence that it would expect a financial institution to carry out, particularly where the individual will be undertaking a key role. Such due diligence includes carrying out a professional body check (ie, any memberships held and if disciplinary action has been taken), capacity check[1], criminal record check, credit check and website checks. The financial institution should also consider the individual’s qualifications, training and competency.

The IoM FSA may ask for evidence of the due diligence carried out by the financial institution at any time, either remotely or during a supervisory visit.

The IoM FSA recommends financial institutions request a reference from the prospective candidate’s current employer and previous employers covering, as a minimum, the past ten years of employment.

For employees with general positions, there are no pre-screening measures. Under article 1 of the Constitution and article 21 of the FLL, discrimination is prohibited. Furthermore, article 21 of the FLL establishes that distinctions will not be deemed discriminatory if certain qualifications are required for certain work. Specifically, if there is no legal ground or work-related justification to request criminal records for a determined position, conditioning the position on that information may be deemed discriminatory.

For example, financial entities must include a list of the expected members of the board of directors, general manager, and main officers, including their respective professional and academic backgrounds, in the filing to obtain authorisation of the CNBV (except insurance and bond institutions) to start operations. These positions require certain special requirements, and thus financial entities must verify – by prior appointment and thereafter, at least every year – that general managers and officers:

• have a standing reputation;
• have expertise in legal, financial and management matters;
• have a satisfactory credit record and credit eligibility;
• are residents in Mexico (for credit entities); and
• have no other legal impediment (see below).

All financial entities must guarantee that high-level employees are capable, experienced and not subject to any procedure involving conduct contrary to financial stability or compliance with business or financial business standards. General managers and officers in controlling entities and auxiliary credit organisations, and in exchange bureaus and brokerage houses, and general managers in insurance and bonding institutions must have at least five years’ experience at a high decision-making level that required financial and management expertise.

Also, these individuals must not have any of the following legal impediments:

• a pending dispute with the financial entity or any other financial entities in the group;
• a conviction for a wilful economic crime;
• a disqualification from owning a business, public service positions or the Mexican financial system;
• declared bankruptcy or insolvency;
• carried out regulation, inspection, and monitoring of the financial entity or any other financial entities in the group; or
• participated in the board of directors of the financial entities.

Additionally, for exchange bureaus and brokerage houses, such individuals must not have been an external auditor of the exchange bureau or related entity in the 12 months before their appointment.

Specifically, in credit organisations, general managers and officers must not:

• be a partner or have a position within entities or associations that render services to the entity or its related entities;
• be a client, provider, debtor, creditor, partner, member of the board of directors or employee of an entity that is a client or provider (whose services or sales represent more than 10% of the client’s services or sales), or a debtor or creditor (of which the debt is higher than 15% of the assets);
• be an employee of a foundation, association or civil society that receive important contributions from the entity (which represent more than 15% of the total contributions received by such entities in a fiscal year).
• be a general manager, officer, or employee of another entity that is part of the financial group;
• be a spouse or domestic partner of any individual mentioned above, or be in a cohabiting relationship with them; or
• carry out regulation duties of credit organisations and exchange bureaus.

Financial entities must inform the CNBV, CNSF, or CONSAR, as applicable, of general managers’ and officers’ appointments, resignations or removals, within five business days of such events. Meanwhile, controlling entities, brokerage houses, surety deposit institutions and compensation chambers must inform the CNBV, CNSF, or CONSAR within 10 days of the same.

There are also limits to employees participating in the board of directors of these companies. Only the general manager and officers two levels below may be members, and no other employees may occupy these positions.

According to the Insurance and Bonds Regulations, officers and employees of credit institutions, insurance institutions, bond institutions, brokerage houses, stock market specialists, auxiliary credit organisations, investment companies, operating companies of investment companies, exchange houses, financial commissioners, retirement fund managers, specialised investment companies of retirement funds, and controlling companies with 10% or more of representative shares of such companies will not be authorised to act as insurance or bond agents.

Under Dutch law, all financial services sector companies must make substantiated assessments on the reliability and integrity of candidates to be appointed in integrity-sensitive positions. However, in practice, almost all financial services sector companies have made a pre-employment screening mandatory for all candidates (for any position).

The exact pre-screening process differs per financial service industry and company. In general, the following components are part of the pre-screening process: proof of identity; insolvency check; highest level of education; work experience (reference check); certificate of conduct (VOG, see question 3); and an integrity questionnaire.

Reference checks that go back five years are common in the financial services sector.

Pre-screening measures are only required if the FI employee is going to be involved in the provision of financial services (or other MAS-regulated activities).

Such employees need to pass a fit-and-proper assessment, referring to the MAS Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria. Criteria to be considered include the employee’s honesty, integrity and reputation; competence and capability; and financial soundness.

In considering the employee’s honesty, integrity and reputation, relevant factors include whether the employee has been the subject of proceedings or investigations (whether criminal or disciplinary) or has been dismissed or asked to resign. MAS’ Circular CMI 01/2011 also sets out MAS’ expectations on due diligence checks, declarations and documentation concerning employees who are expected to be representatives of specific FIs. Among other things, this entails conducting reference checks with the previous employers of the FI’s proposed employees.

In December 2023, MAS issued its response to a May 2021 consultation paper which sought to address issues arising from the recycling of “bad apples” through FIs. In doing so, the MAS noted it will proceed with its proposal to impose mandatory requirements to conduct and respond to reference checks. The anticipated reference check regime will apply to specific groups of employees, with the information to be addressed in reference checks standarised. The MAS will look to consult on the relevant draft notices in this respect in due course, and this will bear watching.

For more senior roles (eg, senior managers, material risk personnel, directors, committee members, chairpersons and key executives), FIs are expected to ensure that they are fit and proper for their roles. MAS’ prior approval may also have to be obtained or notices may have to be made, depending on the licence, registration and role sought. FIs in these sectors are expected to conduct more rigorous checks before seeking MAS’ approval or submitting a notice, with a greater emphasis on considering circumstances that may give rise to a conflict of interest.

Under Swiss civil law, there is no requirement to apply pre-screening measures. However, while not a statutory requirement under Swiss financial market laws per se, companies subject to these laws apply pre-screening measures to ensure that a prospective financial services employee meets the requirements set forth by these laws. In particular, regulated companies such as banks, securities firms, insurance companies, fund management companies, managers of collective investment schemes and asset managers are required to obtain authorisation from the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) relating to strategic and executive management and each change thereto.

As a general rule, the higher the responsibility or position of a person, the more requirements financial services employees may need to fulfil. Persons holding executive or overall management functions (eg, a member of the board or members of the senior management) are required to fulfil certain requirements set forth by the applicable Swiss financial market regulations. Such requirements may include providing current CVs showing relevant work experience and education as well as excerpts from the debt and criminal register. It may also include providing various declarations (eg, concerning pending and concluded proceedings, qualified participations and other mandates). Furthermore, financial services employees holding certain control functions (eg, compliance officer, risk officer and their deputies) may also be required to prove that they are suitable for the position by providing, for example, a current CV showing relevant work experience and education.

In the DIFC, an individual who performs a “licensed function” must be approved in advance by the DFSA.   The roles which fall within the meaning of an authorised person for the DFSA includes someone appointed as:

• the Senior Executive Officer, who has ultimate responsibility for the day-to- day management, supervision and control of one or more (or all) of an authorised firm’s financial services carried on, in or from the DIFC;
• the Finance Officer;
• Compliance Officer;, and
• Money Laundering Reporting Officer. 

Where a firm proposes to appoint an authorised individual, an application to the DFSA must be made in advance; the DFSA will make an assessment of the  individual in order to satisfy itself that they are fit and proper to be an authorised individual. The Regulator will consider the individual’s integrity, competence and capability, financial soundness, their proposed role, and any other relevant matters.  That individual may not be considered as fit and proper where they have been declared bankrupt, convicted for a serious criminal offence, or incapable - through mental or physical incapacity - of managing their affairs.

In the ADGM, an individual who performs a “controlled function” must be approved in advance by the ADGM.  A controlled function includes someone appointed as the Senior Executive Officer, Finance Officer, Compliance Officer, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer.

Where a firm proposes to appoint someone in a controlled function, an application to the ADGM must be made in advance, The ADGM will make an assessment of  that individual in order to satisfy itself that they are fit and proper to be an approved individual.  The Regulator will consider the individual’s integrity, competence and capability, financial soundness, their proposed role and any other relevant matters.  That individual may not be considered as fit and proper where they have been declared bankrupt, convicted for a serious criminal offence, or incapable - through mental or physical incapacity - of managing their affairs.

For employees subject to the SMR, anyone performing an SMF must be pre-approved by the relevant regulator before they can start their role. Generally, firms that wish to employ a senior manager must first carry out sufficient due diligence to satisfy themselves that the candidate is a fit and proper person to perform their proposed functions. In this regard, firms must consider the individual’s qualifications, training, competency and personal characteristics. The firm must also carry out a criminal records check. They may then apply to the relevant regulator for that candidate’s pre-approval. In the firm’s application, all matters relating to the candidate’s fitness and propriety must be disclosed. The firm must also enclose a statement of that individual’s proposed responsibilities and (depending on the firm) the latest version of the firm’s management responsibilities map.

For employees subject to the CR, before the appointment and annually thereafter, these employees must be certified by the employing SM&CR firm as being fit and proper. Certification does not involve pre-approval by the FCA or PRA.

Additionally, firms must comply with the regulatory reference rules for all candidates subject to either the SMR or CR before their employment. These rules require employing firms to request a regulatory reference from all previous employers covering the past six years of employment. Information must be shared between regulated firms using a particular template, which includes information relevant to assessing whether a candidate is fit and proper. Firms are also expected to retain records of disciplinary and fit and proper findings going back six years for their employees (or longer for findings of gross misconduct), and they must update regulatory references that they have previously given where new significant information comes to light that would impact the content of a previously given regulatory reference.

In addition to the standard hiring measures that must be taken when engaging an employee, several additional steps must be taken when engaging financial services employees in the United States. Generally, financial services employees must pass certain screening and disclosure steps, including:

• background checks;
• criminal background disclosures; and
• fingerprinting.

Broker-dealers and investment advisors must register with FINRA (see below).

Background checks

FINRA-regulated entities must investigate each person they plan to register with FINRA to ensure that they meet FINRA Form U4 requirements regarding that person’s history of formal charges and indictments.

If the applicant has previously registered with FINRA, broker-dealers must also review an applicant’s most recent Form U5 or be able to demonstrate to FINRA that it has made reasonable efforts to review Form U5 but has been unable to do so. If the applicant has previously registered with a CFTC-registered firm, the broker-dealer must review CFTC Form 8-T.

Bank employees must undergo a background check. Certain criminal conduct may statutorily disqualify an applicant from employment. For example, federal law prohibits any person convicted of a criminal offence involving dishonesty or breach of trust (or who has entered into a pre-trial diversion or similar programme regarding such an offence) from serving as a director, officer, or employee of an FDIC-insured bank without the FDIC's consent. Banks must conduct reasonable inquiries into an applicant’s background to avoid hiring persons barred from employment by this law. Banks may be protected from claims of disparate impact (under state “ban-the-box” laws) when terminating or withdrawing offers from disqualified employees under this law. Both California and New York explicitly provide such carve-outs. However, these are position-specific rather than employer-specific, and employees with positions not subject to FINRA or other statutorily required background checks or disqualifiers based on criminal history may still be subject to state or local “fair chance” or ban-the-box laws. Therefore, as a best practice, non-bank financial services employers should avoid relying on these exceptions for all of their employees. Relatedly, the FDIC does not consider “de minimus” criminal violations disqualifying, including minor offences by young adults, bad cheques for less than $1,000 and simple theft of less than $500.

Fingerprinting

Entities covered by the SEC are also subject to fingerprinting requirements. Every member of a national securities exchange, broker, dealer, registered transfer agent, registered clearing agency, registered securities information processor, national securities exchange, and national securities association must ensure that each of its partners, directors, officers, and employees are fingerprinted and must submit such fingerprints, or cause the same to be submitted, to the Attorney General of the United States for identification and appropriate processing. Employees who will not be selling, keeping, or handling securities or supervising those who do are exempt from this requirement.

While New York generally prohibits fingerprinting, there is an exception where, as here, fingerprinting is statutorily required.

California Financing Law requires fingerprinting for certain individuals seeking to license in California.

Please note, during the COVID-19 epidemic, the SEC temporarily paused the fingerprinting requirements. This pause was lifted in September 2022.

Specific rules apply to personnel whose professional activities have a significant impact on the company's risk profile (article 92, 2. Directive 2013/36/EU; article 67, Act of 25 April 2014), including:

• all members of the legal administrative body and senior management;
• staff members with supervisory responsibility for control functions or business units;
• employees who received significant remuneration during the previous year (ie, 500,000 EUR or more and equal to or greater than the average remuneration of members of the legal administrative body and senior management) and the employee performs the professional activity in a critical business unit and the nature of the activity is such that it has a significant impact on the risk profile of the business unit concerned.

Variable remuneration is capped at 50% of the fixed remuneration or 50,000 EUR, without exceeding the fixed remuneration, whichever is higher (article 1, Annex II, Act of 25 April 2014). Moreover, it is forbidden to have a guaranteed variable remuneration (article 5). 40% of variable remuneration is delayed for four to five years, with a minimum of five years for members of the legal administrative body and senior management. When the variable remuneration is very high, the percentage of the delayed variable remuneration is 60% (article 7).

The total variable remuneration will be significantly reduced if the company generates a reduced or negative financial return. This applies to variable remuneration not yet earned, variable remuneration earned but not yet paid, and variable remuneration that has already been paid. It occurs through malus or clawback schemes, in particular when the person has participated in practices that have resulted in significant losses, has not respected the “fit and proper” duties or has set up a specific mechanism for tax fraud (article 8).

A termination indemnity is considered a variable remuneration, except for a legal indemnity in lieu of notice or a non-compete indemnity (based on the calculation provided by the Employment Contracts Act). Furthermore, a termination indemnity higher than 12 months, or 18 months for a motivated decision from the remuneration committee, can only be granted subject to the approval of the first ordinary general meeting following the termination (articles 12 and 12/1).

For companies that benefit from government intervention, there is in principle no variable remuneration, except for the person recruited after the public intervention to carry on the restructuring. Moreover, the termination indemnity is capped at nine months, unless the legal indemnity in lieu of notice (based on seniority) is higher (articles 16 and 17).

The Collective Labour Agreement establishes several rules for employees in the sector.

There is a determination, through collective negotiation, of:

• percentage of salary increase;
• minimum wage for employees who begin their activities in the sector;
• minimum wage for employees after 90 days’ tenure;
• additional pay for length of service;
• additional overtime;
• night additional pay;
• additional pay for unhealthy or dangerous work;
• function bonus;
• cash bonus;
• gratuity for check clearing;
• meal assistance;
• food assistance;
• daycare and nanny assistance;
• funeral assistance;
• transportation vouchers; and
• assistance with night-time travel.

Under French law, several mechanisms regulate the compensation of employees in the financial services sector to limit risk-taking.

Concerning guaranteed variable remuneration (welcome bonus, recruitment bonus, etc) for new staff, establishments are not allowed to guarantee this beyond the first year of employment; it is said to be "exceptional" and can only be granted if the financial base is sufficiently sound and solid.

In addition, European Directive 2013/36 EU, UCITS V, of 26 June 2013 introduced a "clawback" mechanism that the legislature has transposed into French law. Thus, article L.511-84 of the Monetary and Financial Code provides that "the total amount of variable remuneration may, in whole or in part, be reduced or give rise to restitution when the person concerned has failed to comply with the rules laid down by the institution with regard to risk-taking, in particular because of his responsibility for actions that have led to significant losses for the institution or in the event of failure to comply with the obligations of good repute and competence".

In addition and following the above-mentioned Directive 2013/36/EU (article 94) concerning the deferral of remuneration, the payment of variable remuneration should be made in part immediately and in part on a deferred basis.

Institutions are encouraged to implement a deferral schedule, that properly aligns staff compensation with the institution's business, economic cycle, and risk profile, so that a sufficient portion of variable compensation can be adjusted to results through ex-post risk adjustments.

This schedule consists of the portion of variable compensation deferred, the length of the deferral period and the speed ofvesting of the deferred compensation.

In the event of poor or negative performance by the institutions, leading to a reduction in the total amount of variable compensation, the payment of variable compensation may be subject to specific arrangements implemented by the institutions, as referred to in Directive 2013/36/EU.

In addition, article L.511-84-1 of the French Monetary and Financial Code specifies that the variable portion that may be reduced or even recovered as a penalty is excluded from the calculation of several indemnities in the event of dismissal, including the legal indemnity for dismissal.

Finally, following Law No. 2013-672 of 26 July 2013 on the separation and regulation of banking activities, the variable remuneration of managers and traders is capped, and cannot exceed the fixed part. In addition, a "say on pay" mechanism has been implemented (ie, the general meeting of shareholders must be consulted on the remuneration paid to executives and traders).

Yes, there are specific sets of rules on remuneration in the financial services sector, varying in detail per sub-sector. Rules are particularly strict for material risk-takers of significant institutions in light of the increased risk profile of their activities for the entire organisation.

Variable and fixed remuneration must have an appropriate ratio to each other. For financial institutions, the ratio is appropriate if the variable remuneration both complies with an upper limit of 100% of the fixed remuneration (up to 200% maximum based on a shareholders’ resolution) and provides an effective behavioural incentive. Further, variable remuneration may need to be spread over deferral periods. Depending on the sector, remuneration may have to be made subject to malus, holdback or clawback provisions in case specific risks materialise or the employee is found guilty of misconduct. Further, certain remuneration elements must be granted in instruments instead of cash payments, with restrictions around this element again varying by sub-sector.

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.

There are certain rules relating to compensation payable to financial services employees, such as those in the banking, mutual fund or asset management, and insurance industries.

The central bank of India, the RBI, deals with the compensation policy for all private-sector banks and foreign banks operating in India by requiring them to formulate their own compensation policy and annually reviewing it. Banks are not allowed to employ or continue the employment of any person whose remuneration is excessive in the RBI’s opinion. For instance, the RBI lays down guidelines on the compensation of “Whole Time Directors (“WTD”) / Chief Executive Officers / Material Risk Takers and Control Function Staff”[1], elaborate guidelines encompassing the governance of compensation and its alignment with prudent risk-taking, policies for risk control and compliance staff, the identification of “material risk takers”, and disclosure and engagement by stakeholders. It even envisages deferred payments being subjected to malus or clawback arrangements if there was negative performance. For variable pay, it mandates banks to incorporate malus or clawback mechanisms and suggests they specify periods of malus or clawback application to cover at least deferral and retention periods.[2] It is pertinent to highlight that private sector and foreign banks in India must obtain regulatory approval[3] for the grant of remuneration to WTDs or CEOs.

The RBI also prescribes guidelines around compensation for key managerial personnel (KMP) and senior management in non-banking financial companies (NBFCs)[4]:

• NBFCs are mandated to form “Nomination and Remuneration Committees” (NRCs) as per Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013, which will then be entrusted with framing, reviewing and implementing the compensation policy to be approved by the board of the company.
• The compensation must align with the risk related to the decision-making process. The compensation package can comprise both fixed and variable pay and may also be a mix of cash, equity or other forms, in line with projected risk factors.
• A bonus has no bearing on the performance of the individual. The bonus is guaranteed based on the fulfilment of certain criteria as may be specified in the compensation policy. A guaranteed bonus should neither be considered part of fixed pay nor variable pay and the same is not payable to KMP and senior management. However, a guaranteed bonus can be paid to new employees as part of a sign-on bonus whereby potential employees can be incentivised to join NBFCs.
• "Deferred compensation may be subject to malus/clawback arrangements."  The compensation policy concerning malus or clawback must mandatorily apply for the period equal to at least the deferred retention period. 

Despite the aforementioned guidelines being applicable from 1 April 2023, NBFCs must immediately begin aligning their internal procedures to comply with the mandatory guidelines above to assist the transition. Existing remuneration policies being followed by the NBFCs should be reviewed to make the necessary changes to be compliant with the above-mentioned policies.

When it comes to regulations on an “employee stock option plan” (ESOP) for financial services employees, regulators may impose industry-specific guidelines. For instance, as per the SEBI (Share Based Employee Benefits and Sweat Equity) Regulations, 2021[5], the employee stock option scheme should be drafted in a manner that no such employee violates SEBI (Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 and SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 1995. ESOPs issued to managerial staff and for non-cash consideration shall be treated as part of managerial remuneration. In another development, the RBI has directed that ESOPs should be at a fair value, shooting up costs and creating the cascading effect of replacing ESOPs with deferred bonus payments for senior managerial personnel.

There are prescriptive, sector-specific requirements, which apply to the remuneration of specified categories of employees or directors, and which apply in the asset management, investment services, banking, and insurance sectors.

Employers in these sectors are tasked with ensuring that the remuneration paid to material risk takers (individuals whose professional activities have a material impact on an RFSP's risk profile) or identified staff align with the RFSP risk profile.

There are detailed rules with technical guidance (emanating from EU law) specific to each sector, but at a high level they (to differing degrees) set out rules on; variable remuneration composition, ratios or other metrics to compare variable to fixed remuneration to ensure it is appropriate; malus requirements, which would allow the RFSP to cancel or reduce the employee's variable remuneration before it is paid out; and clawback provisions which allow RFSPs to recover variable remuneration after it has been awarded. It is important to ensure that employees' contracts of employment acknowledge that any variable remuneration will be subject to all regulatory restrictions and rules and may be clawed back in certain circumstances.

The CBI's 2014 Guidelines on Variable Remuneration Arrangements for Sales Staff also emphasise the importance of remuneration structures to have sufficient deterrents built into them (such as malus and clawback mechanisms) to avoid incentivising undesirable/risky behaviours from sales staff in the banking, insurance and investment services sectors.

There are no prescribed rules relating to compensation payable to financial services employees and any remuneration, bonuses or clawback will be a matter of contract between the financial services employee and the financial institution. Inevitably, this will reflect what is typical in the market for experienced, qualified, financial services personnel performing the role for which they are applying or are currently carrying out.

Brokerage houses must implement a compensation system under the general provisions set forth by the CNBV. This system must include all compensation provided and must contain the responsibilities of the boards that implement the compensation schemes, ordinary and extraordinary compensation policies, and periodic reviews of payment policies. The board of directors must incorporate a special committee for compensation.

Under article 9 of the general provisions applicable to brokerage houses, account management fees may be paid to stock proxies provided that they comply entirely with the applicable laws in the exercise of their duties. Stock operators must not execute operations with the public or receive any remuneration or account management fees, except if, with the proxy’s authorisation, they execute orders of institutional investors in the brokerage house’s reception and allocation system.

Brokerage houses must not pay fees, commissions, and other remuneration of third parties that act as promoters, sellers, associates, independent commissioners, investment advisors or any similar roles. This also applies to proxies of the investor client without being proxies of the brokerage house, or those who have a conflict of interest to receive fees, commissions, or any other remuneration from the investor client.

If there is a critical event, such as a control measure, the CNBV may order the brokerage house to suspend the payment of extraordinary compensation and bonuses to the general manager and senior officers. This includes preventing the granting of new compensation until the matter is properly resolved. This should be included in employment contracts, to avoid labour-related disputes should the extraordinary measure of the CNBV is enacted.

Remuneration policy

Under Dutch law, financial services companies must implement an internal remuneration policy. Financial services companies must explain in the management report the relationship between the remuneration policy and the social function of the company.

Variable remuneration

The variable remuneration that a financial services company awards to an employee amounts to a maximum of 20% of that person's fixed annual remuneration. There are a (very) limited number of exceptions to this maximum.

Five-year statutory retention period for shares and other financial instruments

Financial services employees whose fixed remuneration consists of shares or related instruments may only sell them after five years.

Adjustment or recovery of bonuses (claw-back)

Adjustment or recovery of bonuses is mandatory if a financial services employee has failed to meet appropriate standards of competence and proper conduct or has been responsible for conduct that led to a significant deterioration in the company's position.

Severance payments

Paying out severance payments by financial services companies is not allowed if the employee leaves voluntarily or if there are seriously culpable acts or omissions in the performance of the function. Severance payments for directors (or other policymakers) may not exceed more than 100 per cent of their fixed annual salary.

Disclosure requirements may apply depending on the employee’s role. For example, with some exemptions, financial advisors are required to disclose to the client the remuneration that they receive or will receive for making any recommendations in respect of a particular investment product, or executing a purchase or sale contract relating to a designated investment product on their clients’ behalf.

MAS’ Guidelines on Corporate Governance (applicable to designated financial holding companies, banks, and some insurers) also requires the FI’s board of directors to have a formal and transparent procedure for developing policies on and fixing the remuneration of directors, executives, and key management personnel. A separate remuneration committee made up of non-executive directors must be established to make the relevant recommendations. MAS expects compliance with these guidelines in a manner commensurate with the size, nature of activities and risk profile of the FI. Diverging from the guidelines is acceptable to the extent that FIs explicitly state and explain how their practices are consistent with the policy intent of the relevant principle.

Companies listed on the Singapore stock exchange have similar requirements under MAS’ Code of Corporate Governance, and these also exist in subsidiary legislation applicable to the FI. As for all other non-exempt companies, director and employee remuneration will ordinarily have to be disclosed through publicly available financial statements, under applicable accounting standards.

Apart from the above, there are no strict limits on compensation or requirements to impose deferral, malus or clawback provisions. Employers may include such provisions in their contracts, but should be aware that the enforcement of such provisions may be subject to challenge.

Swiss civil law provides for special rules that govern the compensation of current and former members of inter alia the board and executive committee (Ordinance against Excessive Compensation) of Swiss companies limited by shares that are listed on a Swiss or foreign stock exchange. In addition, there are disclosure provisions listed companies need to follow concerning remuneration under stock exchange regulations.

In addition to the above, FINMA has formulated ten principles regarding remuneration that banks, securities firms, financial groups and conglomerates, insurance companies, insurance groups and conglomerates are required to implement. The principles serve as minimum standards for the design, implementation and disclosure of remuneration schemes.

These schemes should not incentivise to take inappropriate risks and thereby potentially damage the stability of financial institutions.

One of the focal points of the principles is variable remuneration that depends on business performance and risk. In particular, all variable remuneration must have been earned by the company over the long term. Consequently, remuneration is dependent on performance, taking into account the sustainability of such performance as well as the risks. That said, FINMA’s principles do not limit the amount of variable remuneration. However, FINMA aims to prevent the granting of high remuneration based on large risks and the generation of short-term, unsustainable earnings. Furthermore, persons who have significant responsibility relating to the risk or receive a high total remuneration, must receive a significant part of the variable remuneration on a deferred basis and consequently, in a way that is linked to the current risk. Under the FINMA principles, "clawback" and "malus" arrangements are permitted.

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.

The remuneration of financial services employees working at certain firms (such as banks, building societies, asset managers and investment firms) is heavily regulated. The relevant rules can be found in various FCA “Remuneration Codes” (each Code tailored to different firms) and also (for dual-regulated firms) in specific remuneration parts of the PRA Rulebook and directly applicable retained EU law.

The remuneration rules are complex and their application is dependent on each firm. The key principle of the rules, however, is that firms subject to them must ensure that their remuneration policies and practices are consistent with and promote sound and effective risk management.

Some elements of the rules apply to all staff, whereas others apply only to material risk-takers within a particular firm.

By way of a snapshot, the rules generally cover such matters as:

• the appropriate ratio between fixed pay and variable pay, to ensure that fixed pay is a sufficiently high proportion of total remuneration to allow for the possibility of paying no variable pay;
• the amount of any discretionary bonus pool, which should be based on profit, adjusted for current and future risks, and take into account the cost and quantity of the capital and liquidity required;
• performance-related bonuses, which should be assessed based on a variety of factors, including the performance of the individual, the relevant business unit and the overall results of the firm;
• restrictions on guaranteed variable pay and payments on termination of employment; and
• malus and clawback requirements.

Overtime

Financial services employees in the United States are commonly classified as administrative employees exempt from both minimum wage and overtime laws. To qualify for this administrative exception under the Fair Labor Standard Acts (FLSA) and often, applicable state law, an employee must:

• be compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate at least equal to the minimum required threshold (at the time of writing set at $684 a week or $35,568 annually); and
• have a primary duty:
  • that is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and
  • includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment on significant matters.

Examples of employees qualifying for the administrative exemption are those whose duties include:

• collecting and analysing information regarding the customer’s income, assets, investments or debts;
• determining which financial products best meet a customer’s needs;
• advising customers regarding the pros and cons of various financial products; and
• marketing, servicing, or promoting financial products.

An employee whose sole duty is selling financial products does not qualify for the administrative exemption. United States courts are split on whether financial advisors are exempt.

Many states have a higher minimum annual salary threshold for the administrative exemption, including California ($1,240 a week, as of 1 January 2023) and New York ($1,125 a week for New York City and Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties and $990 a week for the remainder of the state. The remainder of the State increased to $1,064.25 a week on 31 December 2022).

California has an administrative exemption test, which also requires the employee to customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgement, in addition to being primarily engaged in administrative duties. Employees that do not qualify as non-exempt under one of the exemptions must receive overtime pay under California law.

FLSA also exempts “highly compensated” employees. To qualify for this exemption, an employee must earn at least $107,432 in total annual compensation (not including discretionary bonuses), must perform office or non-manual work as part of their primary duty, and must customarily perform one or more exempt duties of an administrative, executive, or professional employee.

Bonuses

Discretionary bonuses can be for any amount and can be determined on quantitative factors (eg, employer profits) or subjective factors (eg, known performance indicators, performance, merit) and employers may condition an employee’s eligibility to receive a bonus on their active employment at the time when bonuses are paid.

Guaranteed bonuses are typically non-discretionary and set at a fixed number or percentage (eg, a percentage of the employee’s annual base salary or the employer’s profits). A guaranteed bonus (unlike a discretionary one) creates a contractual obligation and will be considered wages. Once a payment is considered a “wage,” employers generally cannot withhold, recover or claw back the bonus from an employee.

California requires non-discretionary bonuses to be included in a non-exempt employee’s regular rate for overtime calculation.

Certain compensation plans include “forgivable loans,” conditioning an employee’s obligation to repay on their continued employment with the new employer for a time. If the employee leaves or is fired for certain reasons before the full loan amount is forgiven, the unforgiven share, with interest, can become due and payable.

California generally prohibits employers from deducting any outstanding loan balances from an employee’s final paycheck without express permission in contemporaneous writing signed by the employee, both at the time the loan or advance was given and at separation.

Similarly, New York has extremely nuanced rules related to permissible deductions for employee benefits, which are limited (eg, authorised deductions and deductions for the benefit of the employee).