Beaufort Securities

Alibert

@Malthusian you should cough up the small amount of money needed to read the article. Also read stuff in the FT (ten articles for free when you register)

I don't think this is a problem of bad ring fencing. The big point of interest here is that administrators are allowed to access client money to pay administration costs (following a judgement in Lehman case)

Add to that the problems that the adminstration is unusually complicated as
. Investments seriously over valued
. suspicion of fraud ??

Col_Jessop

The FSCS should wave the £50,000.00 limit in relation to this shambles. The FCA has worsened a situation that it failed to manage properly.

When I contacted the FCA in September 17 I was told that they had been investigating Beaufort for at least 6 months prior to that. I was also assured that there was no criminal activity. Why were the FCA covering for the criminal activity of Beaufort Securities when the US Government had advised them that they were investigating criminal behaviour?

The victims of Beaufort and the FCA should be raising criminal complaints with the police against both Beaufort and the FCA. Surely, the FCA should have been compelled to instruct the UK police regarding a criminial investigation into a UK company with UK citizens also victims of the criminal behaviour being investigated. One has to assume that the Treasury Select Committee and Phillip Hammond must have been aware of this situation.

The Government should foot the bill for any resulting losses incurred by UK citizens that invested via Beaufort. Phillip Hammond should resign if he failed to act knowing about a criminal investigation into Beaufort and blocked notifaction and protection of UK citizens.

Alibert

But given what you knew in Sept 17 , why didn't you pull your money out ?
Or were you seeking returns along with an assurance that y risk covered by the someone else ?

Col_Jessop

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

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

92,000+ posts should sound off the alarm bells. Then you actually read the bile posted above.

The last sentence is disgusting. We'll have to assume that these boards are not monitored. Beaufort by its very nature is about small individual investors, some double mugged by IFA as the level of complaints with the Financial Ombudsman exemplifies.

Not a penny should be lost by the victims of Beaufort and the FCA. If the FCA wants to restore what little faith the investing public has in it they should foot the entire bill for this. I wonder if they would be so quick to put PWC in play if they were paying for it!

The victims of Beaufort and the FCA invested through a regulated broker in good faith. When the initial alarm beels were raised victims reached out to the FCA to check that their investment was save. The FCA told us nothing about a criminal investigation into fraud. That makes them liable for any losses incurred. If they suspected a crime was being committed they should have reported it to the UK police and the potential victims should have been warned. The last people considered by the FCA were the victims.

This will prove difficult for the FCA as they are all to aware that the practices of Beaufort are common place across the industry. More will fall and the victims will be left to foot that bill as we are now. The FCA appear to exist to protect the finance sector at the expense of the individual investor - not a healthy situation for our country or the businesses we invest in.

AnotherJoe

Alibert wrote: »

But given what you knew in Sept 17 , why didn't you pull your money out ?
Or were you seeking returns along with an assurance that y risk covered by the someone else ?

Even if thats a valid question it doesn't help the other thousands of people who didn't know that and are in the same boat.

Alibert

It's not really clear to me what the actual complaint is ..

Is it
.. you were badly advised and bought risky products that fell in value
.. you were victim of fraud
.. the alarm bells that you heard weren't loud enough
.. administrators shouldn't be paid from client money
.. you don't really know what went wrong or whose fauot it is but somwhow you have lost money and everyone else should reimburse you

dunstonh

The FSCS should wave the £50,000.00 limit in relation to this shambles. The FCA has worsened a situation that it failed to manage properly.

Why should the FSCS take on a greater liability than it is required to do so?
Why should other investors pay a greater amount to cover those that took a punt in high-risk unregulated investments through discretionary management (as the costs are effectively passed back to the consumer)

The Government should foot the bill for any resulting losses incurred by UK citizens that invested via Beaufort.

Now you want the taxpayers to cover those that took punts in high-risk unregulated investments.

The last sentence is disgusting. We'll have to assume that these boards are not monitored. Beaufort by its very nature is about small individual investors, some double mugged by IFA as the level of complaints with the Financial Ombudsman exemplifies.

Beaufort by its very nature was a niche investment specialising in niche high-risk areas of the market using non-mainstream options. Around 98% of consumers in the UK use mainstream investments. Beaufort fell in that 2%.

It's interesting you mention complaints, IFAs and the FOS as the FOS has reported that IFA complaints continue to fall and now represent only 0.5% of FOS complaints. In 2017/18, the FOS received just 1678 complaints about IFAs with a 27% uphold rate. Far below the average. This is from a distribution channel that does millions of transactions a year.

Beaufort were not IFAs. So, your scud missile attempt at abuse failed to hit.

Not a penny should be lost by the victims of Beaufort and the FCA. If the FCA wants to restore what little faith the investing public has in it they should foot the entire bill for this. I wonder if they would be so quick to put PWC in play if they were paying for it!

Sorry but it is the nature of the beast. The more risk you take, the greater the potential for loss. Going away from mainstream increases the potential for loss. The reason you get risk warnings is that risk events will sometimes happen.

You cannot reward those taking higher risks with extra protections paid for by those taking lower risks. You would give them all the upside with none of the downside. Everybody could just pile into the high risk niche stuff without any fear if that was the case.

[Deleted User]

The more I read of these things the more the under the mattress strategy becomes a winner, you wont get the effects of inflation but nor would you see your money float off into the ether.


These stories serve laymen will to never trust financial services and even those who are designed to offer some protection clearly have their own interests at the fore.

tg99

dunstonh wrote: »

Why should the FSCS take on a greater liability than it is required to do so?
Why should other investors pay a greater amount to cover those that took a punt in high-risk unregulated investments through discretionary management (as the costs are effectively passed back to the consumer)



Now you want the taxpayers to cover those that took punts in high-risk unregulated investments.



Beaufort by its very nature was a niche investment specialising in niche high-risk areas of the market using non-mainstream options. Around 98% of consumers in the UK use mainstream investments. Beaufort fell in that 2%.

It's interesting you mention complaints, IFAs and the FOS as the FOS has reported that IFA complaints continue to fall and now represent only 0.5% of FOS complaints. In 2017/18, the FOS received just 1678 complaints about IFAs with a 27% uphold rate. Far below the average. This is from a distribution channel that does millions of transactions a year.

Beaufort were not IFAs. So, your scud missile attempt at abuse failed to hit.



Sorry but it is the nature of the beast. The more risk you take, the greater the potential for loss. Going away from mainstream increases the potential for loss. The reason you get risk warnings is that risk events will sometimes happen.

You cannot reward those taking higher risks with extra protections paid for by those taking lower risks. You would give them all the upside with none of the downside. Everybody could just pile into the high risk niche stuff without any fear if that was the case.

I’m not sure Beaufort only catered for high risk / niche investments as reading an article in The Sunday Times one investor had his portfolio invested in predominantly blue chip shares like Lloyds and Drax. (Though I’m not sure why you’d use Beaufort rather than one of the more robust brokers / platforms for investing in mainstream investments like these......albeit it was FCA regulated.)

dunstonh

The more I read of these things the more the under the mattress strategy becomes a winner, you wont get the effects of inflation but nor would you see your money float off into the ether.

Your house has just been broken into and the thieves went to your mattress and took your money.

These stories serve laymen will to never trust financial services and even those who are designed to offer some protection clearly have their own interests at the fore.

Time and again, the stories you hear are about niche or unusual areas. Not issues with the mainstream.

What you should be taking from all these stories is that you should stick to mainstream options and don't go with the weird or unusual or the niche options unless you can afford to lose the money you can place with them.

I!!!8217;m not sure Beaufort only catered for high risk / niche investments as reading an article in The Sunday Times one investor had his portfolio invested in predominantly blue chip shares like Lloyds and Drax. (Though I!!!8217;m not sure why you!!!8217;d use Beaufort rather than one of the more robust brokers / platforms for investing in mainstream investments like these......albeit it was FCA regulated.)

They did have some conventional shares in their spread and it is those assets which are easily realisable that saw PWC lower its estimate on the likely losses. Its the unusual illiquid assets that the losses are going to be on.