SFC Licence Applications: RO Competence and Track Record Review Checklist

What the competent authority assesses in an RO or representative

A licensing application turns on whether the people put forward can be shown to be competent for the regulated activity. The assessment looks at academic or professional qualifications, industry experience, management experience and the wider track record of the individual. It is not a single test. A strong academic record does not answer a management-experience question, and long service in one role does not automatically answer a competence question for a different regulated activity.

For an applicant institution, the practical consequence is that each named person needs a file that answers the same questions the regulator will ask. The file should show what the person did, in which regulated activity, for how long, and with what level of responsibility. Claims that are asserted but not evidenced are the weakest part of any submission.

Competence: qualifications, experience and management responsibility

Competence for a responsible officer role rests on more than one dimension. The regulator can look at the individual's academic or professional qualifications, the length and relevance of their industry experience, and their management experience. These are assessed together rather than as alternatives.

A useful distinction for internal review is between experience that is merely adjacent to the regulated activity and experience that is directly within it. Time spent in a related function can support a case, but it should not be presented as if it were direct experience in the regulated activity. The same discipline applies to management experience: supervising a team is not the same as holding responsibility for a regulated business or a regulated function, and the evidence should make the actual scope of responsibility clear.

The regulator also expects the individual's track record to be consistent with the role. Where the records show a gap, a change of direction, or a period that cannot be verified, the application is stronger if the applicant explains the position rather than leaving the reviewer to draw a conclusion.

Reading a track record: frequent moves, cross-sector shifts and overseas credentials

Track records rarely follow a straight line, and the review should separate normal career movement from points that genuinely need explanation. Frequent changes of employer can raise a question about stability and about the depth of experience in any one regulated activity. A move from another sector into a regulated activity can raise a question about whether the person's earlier experience maps onto the new role. An overseas qualification or overseas licence can raise a question about how it corresponds to the local requirements.

The right response is not to hide these features. It is to document them. For a cross-sector move, set out which parts of the earlier role involved regulated activity, which skills transfer, and what supervised or additional experience fills the remaining gap. For an overseas credential, set out what it covers and how the applicant says it meets the applicable requirement, without treating a foreign licence as automatically equivalent. For frequent moves, set out the reason for each transition and what was delivered in each role.

Where the evidence is thin, the applicant can strengthen the file with additional material that shows the substance of the work: descriptions of responsibilities, evidence of decisions taken, references from senior colleagues, and records of relevant training completed. The point of these documents is to make the claim verifiable, not to add volume.

Common questions in track record review

Reviewers tend to return to a stable set of questions when they examine the people named in an application. A compliance officer preparing a submission can use the same set as a self-check.

• What exactly did the person do in the regulated activity, and for how long?
• Which regulated activities were they authorised or responsible for?
• What management responsibility did they hold, and over what?
• How does their academic or professional background connect to the role?
• If they moved between employers frequently, what explains each move?
• If they came from another sector, which parts of the earlier work are relevant?
• If they hold an overseas qualification or licence, how is it said to meet the requirement?
• What evidence verifies the periods and responsibilities described?
• Are there unexplained gaps in the record?
• Has the person's role changed materially over the period under review?
• Is the proposed role consistent with the experience presented?
• What additional evidence can be provided if the reviewer asks for more?

Working through these questions before submission lets the applicant identify where the file is complete and where it needs more support. It also reduces the chance of a follow-up request that the applicant cannot answer quickly.

Preparing an internal compliance memorandum

A short internal memorandum helps the applicant and the reviewer see the same picture. The memorandum should cover the individual's qualifications, the chronology of their industry experience, the specific regulated activities they were involved in, the nature and scope of their management responsibility, and the evidence held for each of these points. It should also list the weak points identified during self-review and the additional material gathered to address them.

Where the evidence does not yet support a claim, the memorandum should say so. An internal document that overstates a candidate's position creates a risk later, when the reviewer asks for proof. A candid memorandum is more useful, because it tells the applicant where to gather more evidence or adjust the proposed role.

Frequently asked questions

What is assessed when a responsible officer's competence is reviewed? Academic or professional qualifications, industry experience, management experience and the wider track record are assessed together when competence is reviewed.

Can overseas experience or an overseas licence be used to support competence? Overseas experience can form part of the record, but it should be presented with an explanation of how it is said to meet the applicable requirement rather than as automatically equivalent.

How should frequent changes of employer be handled in an application? Frequent changes can raise a question about stability and depth of experience, so the file should explain the reason for each transition and what was delivered in each role.

What can strengthen a file where the track record evidence is thin? Descriptions of responsibilities, evidence of decisions taken, references from senior colleagues and records of relevant training can make the claim verifiable.

Why prepare an internal memorandum before applying? It sets out the qualifications, experience, regulated activities and management responsibility in one place and identifies weak points before a reviewer raises them.