The explanation states that a member or candidate having the same position or being co-invested with clients does not always create a conflict. Being co-invested probably means that clients and member’s transactions will be executed at the same time which in theory would be a violation of the Priority of Transactions. Or if I am understanding correctly, if it is a situation where the client personally request’s the member to maintain that position or if the member isn’t intentionally manipulating the order of transactions to create a disadvantage for the clients. Any help or explanation will be appreciated. Thanks.
You are allowed to be co-invested with clients but client accounts must always trade first.