--- title: "ESMA Q&A 2799 — Q&A — Attribution of investment advice in split [Question Rejected]" shortTitle: "ESMA Q&A 2799 — Q&A — Attribution of investment advice in split [Question Rejected]" answer_id: ESMA_QA_2799 topic: "Suitability" status: "Question Rejected" type: qa instrument_type: qa authority: ESMA binding: false binding_character: non_binding legal_status: withdrawn regulation: "MiFID II" mifid_level3: true mica_level2: false legal_basis: "MiFID II 2014/65/EU (Art. 16, 25); Reg. (EU) 2017/565 (Art. 54); ESMA/2015/1886 (rev.) (paras 4(j), 19, 20(d)-(g))." date: 10 March 2026 source_link: https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2799 lifecycle: "Question Rejected" text_version: "ESMA Q&A register, 10 March 2026" source_url: "https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2799" check_status: matched verified: true last_checked: 2026-10-26 checked_against: "the ESMA publication" source: prepared_by: "not stated in the document" published_by: "ESMA" published_in: "ESMA Q&A tool" evidence: prepared_by: "ESMA_QA_2799" locator: "ESMA Q&A entry ESMA_QA_2799: no answer; no author named" document_type: "qa_question" legal_nature: "not_legislation" addressees: "not stated in the document" dates: question_submitted_on: "2026-03-10" locators: question_submitted_on: "ESMA Q&A Excel export ESMA_QA_2799, column 'Date of submission'" lifecycle_label: "Question Rejected" --- **Question published in the ESMA Q&A tool · no answer · not legislation [Question Rejected]** *Question Rejected · ESMA Q&A register, 10 March 2026 · Checked against the ESMA publication on 26 Oct 2026 · [Official source](https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2799)* | | | |---|---| | **Full title** | ESMA Q&A 2799 — Q&A — Attribution of investment advice in split \[Question Rejected\] | | **Prepared by** | Not stated in the document | | **Published by** | ESMA, in the ESMA Q&A tool | | **Reference** | ESMA_QA_2799 | | **Document type** | Q&A | | **Legal nature** | No answer · not legislation | | **Addressees** | Not stated in the document | | **Dates** | Question submitted 10 March 2026 | | **Legal basis** | MiFID II 2014/65/EU (Art. 16, 25); Reg. (EU) 2017/565 (Art. 54); ESMA/2015/1886 (rev.) (paras 4(j), 19, 20(d)-(g)). | | **Related instruments** | None recorded | | **Text on this page** | Word for word — the full text of the ESMA publication | **Attribution of investment advice in split or system-supported workflows (personal recommendation vs suitability statement)** ### Question In practice, investment firms may apply “tandem” or split workflows where one staff member conducts the client meeting, gathers the client’s circumstances and communicates/explains a concrete course of action to the client, while another staff member and/or a partly automated system performs the suitability assessment, approval and/or generates/transmits the suitability statement. Against this background, could ESMA clarify, under MiFID II and relevant Level-2 measures, the EU-law criteria for determining whether the staff member who leads the client interaction and explains the recommendation is already providing investment advice, or whether that activity can be regarded as acting under supervision? In particular: 1. For the attribution of investment advice, is the decisive element who communicates the personal recommendation to the client, rather than who technically generates/approves/transmits the suitability statement? 2. In split workflows, what organisational minimum features are expected to evidence “under supervision” (e.g. explicit assignment of the supervisory role, timely intervention capability, documented review/approval/sign-off), where the supervised staff member communicates the personal recommendation? *** **Source:** [ESMA original document](https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2799)