Beaufort Securities

kidmugsy

There was a thread on here the other day where the lummox who posted planned to keep all his £800k SIPP with one company. When it was pointed out, less brusquely, that he was being a bloody fool, he whined by asking whether he was meant to open 17 different accounts.

Malthusian

mur104 wrote: »

Hi my husband transferred his pension to Beaufort Securities on the advice of a financial adviser, who strangely went into liquidation after this all kicked off.

I checked everything out with the FCA before we went ahead and was told that they were all regulated, money protected etc. I raised concerns with the FCA in November 2016, but they were at best useless. A complaint went into the Financial Ombudsman in April 2017, they did not start looking at our complaint until December 2017 and phoned us in April 2018, to say as Beaufort is now in liquidation there is nothing they can do.

Have you made a claim to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme yet?

They may not be able to pay a claim in respect of Beaufort yet, but they should be able to compensate you in regard to any bad advice received from your adviser. Assuming the adviser was FCA-regulated.

mur104

Yes, but they have now decided that they have not had a case like mine before, so we have to wait 6 months before they can investigate it.

Malthusian

What were the investments you held via Beaufort Securities?

Whether the adviser recommended sound investments and was just unfortunate with his choice of platform, or whether he mis-sold unregulated junk that is now worthless, is crucial.

mur104

From what I can ascertain, worthless junk mostly. Which was why the original case was made to the financial ombudsman, before they went bust. I'm angry that the Financial Ombudsman took so long to investigate the original complaint, neither them or the FCA, have been very helpful in this whole saga.
Probably need to say goodbye to the majority of this money and look forward to a retirement on benefits.

Malthusian

mur104 wrote: »

From what I can ascertain, worthless junk mostly. Which was why the original case was made to the financial ombudsman, before they went bust.

Did you specifically complain that the investments were unregulated and high risk and not suitable for your risk profile?

If the complaint was worded correctly it doesn't make sense for the FOS to say that "as Beaufort is now in liquidation there is nothing they can do". Beaufort is irrelevant. The complaint is about the advice. If your adviser had used, say, Carey Pensions (who are still going), the investments would be just as worthless and the complaint would be exactly the same.

On the other hand if the FOS said "As the adviser is in liquidation there is nothing we can do and you need to submit a claim to the FSCS" that would make more sense.

Who was your adviser and are they listed under https://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/search-for-companies-in-default/?

capital0ne

According to an article in The Sunday Times today, everyone could lose 40% once all the fees have been settled and it could be months if not years before clients see their money.

Emmanuel-

There are two beneficiaries from the FCA's decision to shut down Beaufort: PWC and their lawyers, Linklaters, one of the most expensive law firm in the UK. PWC partners charge £1080 per hour for this administration! It is in their interest to make this drag for as long as possible. One of the clues here is PWC's refusal to allocate a flat rate of costs to all clients, although this is the simplest and fairest solution: let's say the administration's total cost amounts to £20m (still a huge number for a small firm like Beaufort!), allocated across 14,000 clients it would be c. £1428 per client. No client would lose any money as this is far below the maximum that the FSCS would pay (£50,000) The FCA, which has refused to answer questions on its decision, can and must force PWC to charge a more reasonable rate. If the FCA is content with PWC raiding savers's ISAs, shouldn't it pick up the tab? If this theft is allowed to happen as PWC intend to, it will have huge consequences for the safety of savings in the UK.

dunstonh

How do the FCA benefit?

They have one less firm paying levies. There is reputation damage, which the FCA is meant to avoid. And it spreads the cost to all the other firms out that who have done nothing wrong.

If the FCA is content with PWC raiding savers's ISAs, shouldn't it pick up the tab?

You cant really consider people who used Beaufort as your regular savers.

Malthusian

capital0ne wrote: »

According to an article in The Sunday Times today, everyone could lose 40% once all the fees have been settled and it could be months if not years before clients see their money.

As the Sunday Times is behind a paywall and the specific assertion hasn't been quoted, I can't answer it directly. However, the text quoted above is simply wrong. Any losses resulting from Beaufort failing to ringfence assets correctly and PWC subsequently having to sort the mess out will be covered by the FSCS. While it is theoretically possible for someone to lose 40% if they had enough on the platform and the FSCS compensation cap will apply, no-one's loss can be quantified as "40%" at this point.

Remember that someone who invested money in worthless toxic junk via Beaufort has not lost anything due to Beaufort's collapse. They have lost all their money, but their losses are due to the toxic junk, not Beaufort.