collapse of Beaufort - how is it different to investment platforms we use

Malthusian

Col_Jessop wrote: »

Word of advice. Never, ever divulge details of your assets in a public forum. This information can be utilised to commit fraud against you.

16% HSBC FTSE All Share Index
10% iShares Emerging Markets Equity Index
10% iShares North American Equity Index
10% Legal & General Pacific Index
10% L&G UK Property
10% HSBC European Index
10% Legal & General Global Inflation Lnk Bond Indx
9% Polar Technology Trust (The)
6% BlackRock Smaller Companies Trust (XD)
5% Standard Life Global Smaller Companies
5% Templeton Global Emerging Markets Sm Cos

If you can hack into my Charles Stanley account and steal all my money using that information, I will give you a tenner.

As Linton said, all we need to help you gain a better understanding of whether you are likely to have lost anything as a result of the Beaufort collapse, is a list of the funds or other assets you are invested in, along the same lines of mine above. Nobody asked you to provide personally identifying information.

If on the other hand you just want to accuse us of being involved in a conspiracy against you, just because we're trying to provide useful information instead of saying "oh no, how terrible, they're all criminals and should be shot", carry on with the accusations of bad faith

eskbanker

Perhaps Col Jessop can't handle the truth!

HappyHarry

Col_Jessop wrote: »

Word of advice. Never, ever divulge details of your assets in a public forum. This information can be utilised to commit fraud against you. There are gangs that frequent share dealing forums trying to garner this information.

Malthusian wrote: »

16% HSBC FTSE All Share Index
10% iShares Emerging Markets Equity Index
10% iShares North American Equity Index
10% Legal & General Pacific Index
10% L&G UK Property
10% HSBC European Index
10% Legal & General Global Inflation Lnk Bond Indx
9% Polar Technology Trust (The)
6% BlackRock Smaller Companies Trust (XD)
5% Standard Life Global Smaller Companies
5% Templeton Global Emerging Markets Sm Cos

It should be noted that Malthusian also gives 101% effort when writing his posts.

bowlhead99

Col_Jessop wrote: »

.

A lot of very defensive "bankers" on this site. Are these people actually paid to try and stop people complaining about issues like Beaufort where criminal charges have been brought?

One thing we do see a lot of on the site from time to time is people being dissatisfied with a financial services provider and coming on here to moan about it (anything from a clerical error to website downtime to the interest rates being reduced or the head of the firm being paid a bonus instead of paying better interest rates for customers or lowering borrowing rates for customers or keeping all the branches open more hours).

In such cases, the OPs of such threads and people who are distressed or disgusted with what they have experienced or heard, are often talking with bystanders who take time out to pass comment about why the state of affairs might be the case. If some of those people passing comments dare say anything that doesn't positively reinforce the perception that the financial service provider is evil and should be strung up and shot - then they are often roundly castigated as "bankers".

Around these parts, "probably bankers" is the universal shorthand for someone who has a cursory knowledge of the financial services industry and dares to muse over what has caused the situation and perhaps offer neutral observations or solutions, rather than just diving onto the bandwagon and waving a pitchfork in disgust while baying for blood.

It is certainly easy to paint everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint as a "banker", and presume it's a big conspiracy theory where bank employees are paid to create thousands of posts on a forum and build up their credibility over a number of years before arguing with the poor disaffected common man until he's beaten into submission and retires from the forum with his tail between his legs.

However, while pigeonholing anyone who disagrees with you as a detestable manifestation of the evils of capitalism might be an easier thing to do than engage in grown up discussion, it doesn't tend to help educate the curious masses on what is *actually* going on.

In the thread above I haven't seen much evidence that you are surrounded by a "lot of very defensive 'bankers' who are 'actually paid to try and stop people complaining about issues'." It would help your credibility more if you didn't let your frustrations boil over into a sideshow about good versus evil. A narrative that the long-standing forum users found here are all bankers out to get you or shut you down, somewhat dilutes the good points you probably have to make -because treating others with derision is not the way to make friends and influence people. Unless you're Donald Trump, but few could carry that off.

dunstonh

eskbanker wrote: »

Perhaps Col Jessop can't handle the truth!

he has a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom

Malthusian

HappyHarry wrote: »

It should be noted that Malthusian also gives 101% effort when writing his posts.

The percentages are correct, and the extra 1% is due to rounding, but I know you knew that

HappyHarry

Malthusian wrote: »

The percentages are correct, and the extra 1% is due to rounding, but I know you knew that

Of course I did, just found it funny. It was a very dull day

Col_Jessop

Note the number of posts made by the people trying to play down the situation at Beaufort. Malthusian is also in another thread trying to get someone to divulge details of their assets. Under no circumstances should you divulge information relating to your assets.

Beaufort inverstors stand to lose up to 40% of their investment. Hardly a laughing matter. I have received a number of PMs from victims of the FCA, Beaufort and PWC. They have been scammed by Beaufort and very often by advisors and Beaufort.


Sharesoc now has hundreds of members for their Beaufort campaign, which has much wider implications. At the root of the Beaufort situation is the issue on Nominees. An issue arises where Brokers use nominee accounts holdings as cashflow:

Nominee Accounts and Safety
Although regulators and exchanges periodically check up on nominee accounts' holdings, the process is not performed on a daily basis. Because a stockbroker may move or sell shares from nominee accounts at any time, fraud may occur. This is especially common if a firm is facing insolvency and needs cash or assets to meet liabilities. A stockbroker's records may become altered, increasing the difficulty of determining which investors own assets in a nominee account.

State sanctioned fraud - the nominee system needs to be shut down and Beaufort is the exemplar of why it should never have been introduced in the first place.

If your broker operates in this way best to cash out at the earliest opportunity.

MK62

State sanctioned fraud - the nominee system needs to be shut down and Beaufort is the exemplar of why it should never have been introduced in the first place.

If your broker operates in this way best to cash out at the earliest opportunity.

What alternative would you suggest?

dunstonh

Note the number of posts made by the people trying to play down the situation at Beaufort.

Cant see it. I can see posts pointing out the big differences and why people shouldn't compare Beaufort to other options.

Under no circumstances should you divulge information relating to your assets.

Why not? it is the assets that are the issue. Are these liquid assets, illiquid assets or mainstream regulated assets. Wihtout knowing, the comments will be very different.