Shares Lost

upthejunction

I left my company in 2008 with £20,000 in which I started dealing in shares with one of the high street investment arms.

I was making small returns each month until the banking crash.

At the time they were allowing me to purchase shares up to the value of £65,000 but still with only £20,000 in my account.

What happened next was they sold all the shares held by myself, kept the £20,000 and the requested me to pay another £3200 due to the difference.

Now I understand the high risk of shares but still cannot believe I was given the opportunity to have shares to the value of £65,000 without them once asking for more investment or checking my annual income or capital.

Not getting no where with this and request some of your opinions / ideals.

Thanks

brasso

upthejunction wrote: »

Now I understand the high risk of shares but still cannot believe I was given the opportunity to have shares to the value of £65,000 without them once asking for more investment or checking my annual income or capital.

I agree it seems remiss on their part but it's the sort of laxity that characterised the behaviour of the banks in the run up to the crash.

Sounds to me like you both behaved a bit stupidly. When the economic sun was shining you must both have been congratulating yourselves, and each other. When things went wrong you turn on each other. That's life.

But ultimately, the bank wanted their money back, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Are you thinking that it was their fault for allowing you to take the gamble? I can sympathise with how disappointed you must feel. I'm sure most of us have kicked ourselves for stupid decisions -- but the hard truth seems to be that you went to the casino, got a bit over-confident after a few early wins and started to take bigger risks.

Probably not much consolation, but it could have been much worse if the crash had been delayed another year.

upthejunction

brasso wrote: »

I agree it seems remiss on their part but it's the sort of laxity that characterised the behaviour of the banks in the run up to the crash.

Sounds to me like you both behaved a bit stupidly. When the economic sun was shining you must both have been congratulating yourselves, and each other. When things went wrong you turn on each other. That's life.

But ultimately, the bank wanted their money back, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Are you thinking that it was their fault for allowing you to take the gamble? I can sympathise with how disappointed you must feel. I'm sure most of us have kicked ourselves for stupid decisions -- but the hard truth seems to be that you went to the casino, got a bit over-confident after a few early wins and started to take bigger risks.

Probably not much consolation, but it could have been much worse if the crash had been delayed another year.

Agree with you on most things you stated, But my point is if the limit was not set above my investment then I would now still hold the shares but with the decrease in value.

bigfreddiel

upthejunction wrote: »

At the time they were allowing me to purchase shares up to the value of £65,000 but still with only £20,000 in my account.

they sold all the shares held by myself

I was given the opportunity to have shares to the value of £65,000 without them once asking for more investment or checking my annual income or capital.

Thanks

sounds odd to me perhaps you could tell us more

who was your broker

how did you get past settlemnt dates without paying

no one can sell your 'stuff' without your permission - unless of course the bailiffs have been sent around

what did the t&c's state - perhaps you could post the salient points

cheers

fj

rockitup

With my TD Ameritrade account over in the U.S. they allow trading on margin if you tick the relevant box during the application process. I was in their office when I applied and they seemed quite keen for me to tick that option.

I should imagine that it is the same with your broker, that you pay a hefty rate of interest on the shares/funds you still owe money for.
The interest combined with the falls in prices can soon wipe you out.

Did you never receive a "margin call" asking for you to fund money before they sold your shares? I normally trade around $25k in my account and if using the margin of $75k, then I get a secure message asking for more money to be paid in or sell some of the shares if the price has dropped, even if I am $3k down.

I am sure that your broker has got themselves well covered somewhere in the small print. Leverage can be useful when your trade is going the right way, but damaging if it heads the other way

kfm

upthejunction wrote: »

Agree with you on most things you stated, But my point is if the limit was not set above my investment then I would now still hold the shares but with the decrease in value.

If you weren't happy with the limit being set beyond 20,000 you could have asked for it to be removed or just not used it.

You are correct that if the limit were not set above 20,000 you would still hold shares but with a decrease in value, however, even if the limit were set above 20,000 you could still have refrained from using the facility.

The flip side is if the investments you made with the 65,000 increased in value, you could have sold and kept the gains. Would you be complaining then? I'm sorry if this sounds harsh.

It sounds as though the value of your investments fell by more than 20,000 you initially placed and you were not able to cover the losses. In this case, I believe most T&Cs would allow the provider to try and recover losses from deposits held by them.

bigfreddiel wrote: »

no one can sell your 'stuff' without your permission

Technically, would it be his/hers or the banks given that it was bought with margin/credit?