Facts vs. Opinions and When Not to Comment: Compliance-Safe Phrasing for Emails and Calls

Why Facts vs. Opinions Matter in Sales/Trading Communications

In sales and trading, small wording choices can change how a regulator interprets your message. A sentence that sounds casual to you can be read as a recommendation, a price target, or even a disclosure of non-public information. The safest approach is to separate facts and opinions clearly and label them. This approach aligns with FCA expectations because it lets the listener or reader understand what is verifiable and what is a judgment. It also helps you avoid advice language unless you have the proper approvals and disclosures.

Facts are verifiable statements tied to a specific time, source, and data point. They can be checked independently and usually include a timestamp and a reference that others can confirm. On recorded lines or in emails, a fact should point to a data source (e.g., a public filing, a reputable data provider, or an official exchange). A reliable test for a fact is to ask: “Can another person confirm this today from a public source?” If yes, and if you can point to that source, you are likely stating a fact.

Opinions are judgments, expectations, or interpretations. They express a view rather than a verifiable data point. Even when you have models or experience, a statement about what might happen is still an opinion. In sales/trading, opinions can create “advice-risk” if they sound like firm recommendations or implied guarantees. To keep opinions compliant, you must label them clearly, frame their basis, and add appropriate caveats about uncertainty and risk.

Mislabeling creates risk because the receiver may act as if you gave advice. If you present a judgment as a fact, you may unintentionally imply a level of certainty or inside knowledge. For example, converting a subjective view into an absolute statement can sound like a covert recommendation. Regulators often examine the tone, qualifiers, and sources you cite to determine whether your message could be understood as advice. Clarity and careful wording reduce that risk and protect both you and the firm.

A quick mental checklist helps in real time:

• Is what I’m saying independently confirmable right now? If yes, treat it as a fact and cite the source and time.
• Is what I’m saying a projection, interpretation, or probability? If yes, label it as an opinion and frame the uncertainty.
• Could my phrasing be heard as a recommendation or target? If yes, either remove the advice element or switch to a compliant “cannot comment” response.

Building a Safe-Phrasing Toolkit

Your goal is to have ready-made language that you can deliver quickly on recorded lines and in emails. Below are five categories to cover most situations on the desk.

a) Recorded-line/opening disclaimers

At the start of calls, especially with clients who request views, clarify the nature of the conversation and the recording status. This helps set expectations and can de-escalate advice-risk later. Clearly stating that you are on a recorded line anchors compliance from the first seconds. It also reminds you to use the safe-phrasing toolkit and avoid casual speculation.

Key elements to include:

• Acknowledgement of the recorded line.
• Clarification that the call is for market color and publicly available information.
• Reminder that you are not providing personal recommendations unless explicitly stated under the firm’s processes.

This opening framework doesn’t block the conversation; it simply defines it. It reduces pressure to answer sensitive questions because you have already explained boundaries. In an email, a short header or footer can perform a similar function, signaling that the content is informational and sourced from public data.

b) Fact-forward statements

A fact-forward statement puts verifiable data first and cites a public source. It avoids implying certainty about future outcomes. When you use a fact-forward structure, lead with the time, source, and data, then stop. This design prevents a slide into speculative language and protects you from being perceived as offering a target or a recommendation.

Key components:

• Timestamp: date and time zone.
• Public source: exchange, issuer release, regulator website, reputable newswire, or licensed data vendor.
• Scope: what the data covers and what it doesn’t.

If you must include context, keep it factual. For example, you can mention a historical range if it is publicly available and accurately cited. Avoid words that suggest advice, such as “should,” “best,” “perfect,” or “guaranteed.” Be careful with adjectives that imply value judgments. Keep adjectives minimal and neutral.

c) Opinion framing

There are times when clients ask for your perspective. If your role allows you to share views, keep them in a compliant frame. You should clearly label your view as an opinion, describe its basis (public inputs, assumptions), and include uncertainty language. Separate your view from the client’s decision-making and avoid personal recommendations unless you are authorized and follow all required procedures.

Effective opinion framing includes:

• Explicit label: clearly stating that this is your personal view or a desk view, not a recommendation.
• Basis of view: public data points, historical patterns, model assumptions.
• Uncertainty caveats: highlight what could change the view or why outcomes may differ.
• No price targets unless specifically approved. Avoid language that suggests a client should buy, sell, or hold.

A disciplined opinion frame helps listeners understand that your view is not privileged information or a prediction. It invites the client to seek their own analysis and to consult internal advisors, aligning with regulatory expectations.

d) Cannot-comment and rumor disclaimers

Sometimes the safest and only correct response is to decline to comment. This is particularly important when the topic involves rumors, potential corporate actions, sensitive macro events, or anything that could infer non-public knowledge. A strong “cannot comment” statement includes the reason for declining, not just the refusal. The reason improves clarity and reduces probing.

Elements of a robust “cannot comment” response:

• Clear refusal: you cannot comment on that topic.
• Rationale: policy, ongoing market sensitivity, or public vs. non-public status.
• Redirect: point to public sources or a neutral next step.
• Professional tone: firm but courteous, avoiding ambiguity that invites further pressure.

For rumors, disclaimers help you avoid inadvertently amplifying unverified information. You should explicitly state that you do not validate rumors and will rely only on official public disclosures. If asked to confirm a rumor, do not speculate or repeat it back in different words. State your policy and stop.

e) MNPI/wall-crossing safe language

Material non-public information (MNPI) requires strict handling. The safest approach is to decline to discuss anything that might indicate access to MNPI. If a client requests a wall-crossing, follow the firm’s approved process and do not preview, hint, or imply what might be behind the wall.

Key points:

• Do not comment on topics that could reveal or suggest MNPI exposure.
• If a client asks to be wall-crossed, use only the firm’s formal channels and language.
• Avoid adjectives or hints that could imply privileged knowledge, even if you believe your remark is harmless.

By consistently using this safe language, you protect confidentiality, uphold market integrity, and show regulators that your communications are structured to prevent leakage of sensitive information.

Applying the Decision Tree in Real Time

When you receive a question—on a call, chat, or email—use a simple decision tree. This process prevents rushed, risky statements and gives you a stable path through high-pressure moments.

Step 1: Identify the request type

• Is the client asking for a data point, a confirmation, a view, a price target, a recommendation, or comment on a rumor? Categorization comes first because it determines the risk profile. Data requests usually permit a fact-forward answer. Requests for targets, subjective judgments, or rumors often require opinion framing or a “cannot comment” response.

Step 2: Check data/public status

• Ask yourself: Is the information public, time-stamped, and sourced? If yes, you can proceed with a fact-forward statement. If not, do not share. If you are not sure, treat it as non-public and decline to comment. Remember that “market color” still must not reveal sensitive counterparties or convey MNPI.

Step 3: Choose response path

• Fact only: If the request is for public data, provide it with a timestamp and source. Stop at the data. Do not attach subjective language that could be read as advice.
• Opinion with labels + risk caveats: If a view is permissible, label it as an opinion, state the public basis, include uncertainty, and avoid advice words. If in doubt, reduce scope or shift to neutral framing.
• Cannot comment with reason: If the request risks MNPI, rumor confirmation, or advice, decline with a clear rationale. Reference policy or recording status and redirect to public disclosures or official channels.

Step 4: Close with next-best action

• Even when you cannot comment, offer a compliant next step. This might be pointing to a public source, offering to circulate official disclosures once released, or suggesting a follow-up after a public event. The close maintains client service while respecting boundaries.

This decision tree should become a habit. With practice, it becomes automatic and reduces the cognitive load during fast market conditions. It also gives you a consistent, documented approach if your communications are later reviewed.

Reinforcing “What to Say When You Cannot Comment”

Pressure to answer quickly is part of the job. However, regulatory expectations do not change under time pressure. The best defense is to develop muscle memory around safe stems and to know how to rewrite risky phrasing in your head before you speak. Use these principles as you craft your own desk-approved language:

• Lead with your boundary. Clearly state the recording status or policy. This sets the frame and helps you resist follow-up pressure.
• Keep your rationale short. Long explanations can sound defensive and may invite more probing. A concise reason is stronger and cleaner.
• Avoid repeating the rumor or sensitive detail. Repetition can make it seem like you confirm or validate the unverified information.
• Offer a neutral alternative. Point to official documents, public sources, or an upcoming announcement. This shows helpfulness within rules.
• Maintain a steady tone. Your tone communicates confidence in policy. Avoid hedging or filler words that can imply uncertainty or selective disclosure.

By combining these safe-phrasing habits with the decision tree, you can handle a wide range of real-world questions without drifting into advice or rumor territory. Over time, your colleagues and clients will learn your boundaries and respect them, which reduces repeat pressure and makes compliant conversations smoother.

Bringing It All Together

The core discipline in compliance-safe communications is to control three things: labels, sources, and scope. Label facts and opinions clearly. Cite public, time-stamped sources for facts. Keep the scope tight: answer the specific question without adding speculative commentary. When the topic touches rumors, MNPI, or implied recommendations, use “cannot comment” language with a brief reason and an alternative path.

• Labels: Separate facts from opinions, and mark opinions as such with caveats.
• Sources: Anchor facts in public data, clearly cited and time-stamped.
• Scope: Avoid drift into advice, prices targets, or forward-looking certainty.

These practices not only protect you but also enhance your credibility. Clients value clarity about what is known and what is judgment. Regulators value evidence that your communications are controlled and purposeful. By building your own toolkit of openers, fact-forward structures, opinion frames, and “cannot comment” stems, you transform compliance from a constraint into a reliable, professional style.

Finally, remember that speed does not have to mean risk. A simple mental routine—identify the request, check public status, choose the correct path, close with the next-best action—lets you respond quickly without cutting corners. Over time, your language will become consistent and precise, and your calls and emails will stay aligned with FCA expectations across routine days and volatile markets alike.