MAS Guidelines on Fair Dealing
Concept
The MAS Guidelines on Fair Dealing set out how financial institutions (FIs) should deliver fair outcomes to customers across the entire product life cycle — from design and marketing through advice, sales, and after-sales/complaints. Fair dealing is owned from the top: the board and senior management are directly and personally accountable for embedding it. It is a culture and governance obligation, not a task that can be delegated down to front-line staff or treated as mere box-ticking. The Guidelines centre on five Fair Dealing Outcomes.
Key rules & facts
- Board & senior-management accountability: set the fair-dealing culture and tone from the top; align remuneration, incentives and performance management so they do not reward mis-selling; govern product selection/approval and controls; and monitor outcomes on an ongoing basis.
- The five Fair Dealing Outcomes:
1. Culture — fair dealing is central to the FI's corporate culture.
2. Suitable products — products and services offered are suitable for the target customer segments they are directed at.
3. Competent representatives — customers are served by representatives with the competence to give quality advice/recommendations.
4. Clear information — customers receive clear, relevant and timely information to make informed decisions (including risks, fees, and limitations).
5. Complaints handling — complaints are handled independently, promptly and consistently, and any product/service that does not meet the represented standard is dealt with fairly.
- Complaints handling detail: an independent process; timely acknowledgement and resolution; root-cause analysis to fix systemic issues; and escalation to an independent dispute-resolution body — e.g. FIDReC (Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd) — where a complaint is unresolved.
- Switching / replacement of products: must be genuinely in the client's interest, with costs, lost benefits, and risks of switching disclosed and documented — a key guard against churning (excessive switching to generate commission) and twisting (misrepresenting to induce a switch). Client agreement alone does not make a switch appropriate.
- Scope: applies across the product life cycle and to all customer-facing activities, embedded through policies, controls, training, and monitoring.
Key data — the five Fair Dealing Outcomes
| # | Fair Dealing Outcome | What it requires |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Culture | Fair dealing central to corporate culture; owned by board/senior mgmt |
| 2 | Suitable products | Products/services suitable for their target customer segments |
| 3 | Competent representatives | Reps competent to give quality advice/recommendations |
| 4 | Clear information | Clear, relevant, timely information for informed decisions |
| 5 | Complaints handling | Independent, prompt, consistent complaints resolution |
| Responsibility | Board / senior management | Front-line representatives |
|---|---|---|
| Set culture & tone | Yes — owned here | Follow it |
| Design incentives/remuneration | Yes | Subject to it |
| Product selection & controls | Yes | Apply in practice |
| Monitor fair-dealing outcomes | Yes | Provide inputs |
| Cannot be delegated away | Correct | — |
| Improper switching | Definition | Fair-dealing safeguard |
|---|---|---|
| Churning | Excessive switching to generate commission | Justify need; disclose/document costs |
| Twisting | Misrepresenting to induce a switch | Ensure genuinely in client's interest |
Exam angle
Situational and ethics-linked — which Fair Dealing Outcome does a given action support or breach? Board vs front-line responsibility (fair dealing is board-owned)? Was a switch/replacement handled properly (interest + full disclosure)? Recall the five outcomes and the role of FIDReC in unresolved complaints.
⚠ The trap
Treating fair dealing as only a front-line duty — the board and senior management own it and cannot delegate accountability away. Also assuming a switch is acceptable simply because the client agreed, without demonstrating it is in the client's interest and disclosing the costs, lost benefits, and risks.
Worked example
A representative recommends surrendering an existing policy to buy a new one that pays higher commission, and the client signs off. Even with client consent, if the costs and lost benefits of switching were not disclosed and the switch is not genuinely in the client's interest, this breaches fair dealing (potential twisting/churning) and cuts against Outcome 2 (suitability) and Outcome 4 (clear information).
Takeaway
Five outcomes, owned from the boardroom down — and never switch a client without proving it benefits them.
Ready to test yourself on this?
Practise exam-style questions with the answer, explanation and the trap on every one.
Practise RES5 questions →