compensation for missold shares

shoi

dunstonh wrote: »

have you considered that you shouldnt be investing in something you dont understand?

You should read Martin's splendid blog piece about the right to be stupid or something like that.
I don't understand the FTSE100 really, do you?
How many pages do your T&Cs run to? How many of your clients are fully clued up as to where you allocated their money and why? How many of your clients are in profit, and how many of your clients know your track record, profitability, client retention, disputes with clients and etc, and if they don't then how could they consider themselves as understanding their investments?

Jegersmart

shoi wrote: »

If anyone here was a victim of a dodgy stockbroker (as I was, fool that I am) under the name of Montague Pitman / Falcon Securities / Jarvis Investment Management
Good News
I have just had my claim accepted and compensation paid by the FSCS
I used a claims outfit Hallbrook Partners to help fill out the forms, so they took a percentage.

Hurray for the compensation culture!

Steve

So what happened?

J

dunstonh

You should read Martin's splendid blog piece about the right to be stupid or something like that.

Yes. You have every right to be stupid. However, why not try and understand things rather than remain ignorant of the facts?

I don't understand the FTSE100 really, do you?

Yes.

How many pages do your T&Cs run to? How many of your clients are fully clued up as to where you allocated their money and why?

Clued up as much as they need to be.

how many of your clients know your track record, profitability, client retention, disputes with clients and etc,

None of their business.

if they don't then how could they consider themselves as understanding their investments?

You have some very strange criteria for understanding business. Also none of what you have said has anything to do with what Jarvis have done or not done.

JuicyJesus

shoi wrote: »

You should read Martin's splendid blog piece about the right to be stupid or something like that.

So you have the right to do things you don't fully comprehend, but have it be someone else's fault if there are negative consequences?

Jesus wept.

atush

shoi wrote: »

What do you mean they couldn't have any idea about it? They processed every transaction. It would have been easy for them to spot that most deals went spectacularly bad. In addition any tiny effort on their part would have revealed the management of MP had a dodgy track record. I was only processing orders is not a valid defence.

They process individual transactions. It is not in their remit to record and go over these and compare who gained and lost. Not their remit.

Go, keep to your right to be stupid and not learn/read and we look forward to seeing you here again complaining in a few years. :eek:

Start with the Ftse 100, I understand it, and unlike D I am not a professional.

Thrugelmir

shoi wrote: »

To have dodgy partners twice is awfully unfortunate for them.

To invest any money into a boiler room scam borders on stupidity driven by greed.

If it sounds too good to be true then it most likely is.

Never invest into something you don't understand.

shoi

Jegersmart wrote: »

So what happened?

J

They knowingly sold unsuitable investments in short. The law says that they had to make restitution, bust as they were broke the FSCS scheme steps in.
Or see https://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/falcon.pdf
Or if you look around in motley fool you will see some assertions, which it seems to me are very likely correct, that they were taking money from both sides, and in some cases were connected with the companies they had supposedly discovered through analysis.

The point of these protection schemes is to encourage people to invest, even those of us who are not all knowing and expert, because we can be certain that the supplier has to be able to demonstrate legally that they have acted in what they believed to be our insterests and that they sufficiently informed us of the reasoning and the risks. I have to say I now think that is in the main baloney because a team of lawyers and 100 pages of small print is able to substitute for honest dealing, but fortunately the protection worked for me in this case.
.

shoi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

To invest any money into a boiler room scam borders on stupidity driven by greed.

If it sounds too good to be true then it most likely is.

Never invest into something you don't understand.

Not a classic boiler room, didnt sound too good to be true, and yes of course, except there isn't a single thing in the city or banking that people really understand, except that charging the customer a percentage and never taking the risk yourself (or insider trading) is the only certain route to profits.

shoi

atush wrote: »

They process individual transactions. It is not in their remit to record and go over these and compare who gained and lost. Not their remit.

Go, keep to your right to be stupid and not learn/read and we look forward to seeing you here again complaining in a few years. :eek:

Start with the Ftse 100, I understand it, and unlike D I am not a professional.

Like I said, zey ver only processink orders.
I dont get the not learning, keep being stupid bit, how do you work that out?

shoi

JuicyJesus wrote: »

So you have the right to do things you don't fully comprehend, but have it be someone else's fault if there are negative consequences?

Jesus wept.

You didn't like Martin's blog piece then?

I expect people to behave honestly, and outside of the money business they generally do. I buy from plumbers, butchers, metalbashers, printers, supermarkets..., and you know what, I really don't properly understand what they do. Things are generally ok, it doesn't involve 100pages of smallprint, and if things go wrong then they generally get put right. I'm comforted by consumer legislation which creates an environment where most businesses are better off when they treat the customer decently. It's practically impossible to find the same stance in the money business.