November 2007

The Financial Services Authority invites comments on this Consultation Paper. Comments should reach us by 12 February 2008.

You can send your response by electronic submission using the following form or by emailing us at the address shown.

Alternatively, please send comments in writing to:

Simon Cottee
Policy - Primary Markets
Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London E14 5HS

Telephone: 020 7066 2248
Fax: 020 7066 2249

E-mail: cp07_20@fsa.gov.uk

It is the FSA's policy to make all responses to formal consultation available for public inspection unless the respondent requests otherwise

Note: You can take a printout of your response before clicking the 'Submit to FSA' button at the end of the form, but this will only print the visible text on screen, and you may have given longer answers. After submitting your response, the form will clear, but when we acknowledge receipt of your response by email, we can return to you a copy of your full submission as received. Check this box if you would like to have a copy of your submission returned:

Submission Details









as an individual
as a representative of an authorised firm
as a representative of a professional firm
other (please specify):

 

 

Do you agree that we have identified the concerns of issuers and market participants correctly?

 

Do you agree that we have identified the right market failures? If not, what other potential market failures do you think we should consider?

 

Do you agree with our analysis of the evidence set out in this chapter? Is there further evidence that you think we should consider?

 

Do you agree with our conclusion that action should be taken to increase disclosure of CfDs?

 

Do you agree that our proposed definition of comparable financial instrument, taken together with our guidance on ‘similar economic effect’, will effectively capture all instruments that could potentially otherwise be used to build stakes or exert influence on an undisclosed basis? If not, are there any instruments that a) should be caught but will not be, or b) will be caught but should not be?

 

Do you agree that CfDs not complying with a safe harbour should be disclosed?

 

Do you agree with the specific conditions we have proposed for the safe harbour, and that, as necessary, they can practicably be incorporated into the agreements between the parties to a CfD contract?

 

Do you agree that there should be a ‘notification to issuer on reasonable request’ provision?

 

Do you agree with the proposed guidance on what constitutes reasonable grounds, and that issuers should be required to include these in the notification request?

 

Do you agree with our proposed approach to aggregation and thresholds for Option 2?

 

Do you agree with our proposed approach to aggregation and thresholds for Option 3?

 

Do you agree with our analysis of the relative costs and benefits of Option 2 and Option 3?

 

Which option do you think would best address the identified market failures?

 

Do you agree with our view on what information should be disclosed to the issuer, and how that information should be disseminated?

 

Do you agree with our proposal that we should seek to avoid as far as possible duplication of disclosure?

 

Do you agree with our approach that disclosures pursuant to the Code would negate the need for additional disclosures under the proposed CfD disclosure regime?