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

Malthusian

Col_Jessop wrote: »

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.

No, please do, I only need to steal another million from people using nothing but an anonymous list of their underlying investments before I can hop it to Bermuda.

By the way, I checked my Charles Stanley account and my money is still there, despite me having divulged all the information relating to my assets that I have asked of others - and more. Should I put my tenner back in my pocket?

Beaufort inverstors stand to lose up to 40% of their investment.

No they don't. That is, some may lose 40% of their investment, but you are not in a position to quantify anyone's losses, let alone baldly state that anyone in Beaufort stands to lose 40%.

Someone in Beaufort may stand to lose anything between nothing whatsoever (if they are fully covered by the FSCS) to everything (if they used Beaufort to invest in toxic junk without any regulated firm other than Beaufort in the chain).

If people are PMing you, you should direct them to somebody who knows what they are talking about instead of adding to their problems with misleading and scaremongering information.

Col_Jessop

Malthusian wrote: »

No they don't. That is, some may lose 40% of their investment, but you are not in a position to quantify anyone's losses, let alone baldly state that anyone in Beaufort stands to lose 40%.

Someone in Beaufort may stand to lose anything between nothing whatsoever (if they are fully covered by the FSCS) to everything (if they used Beaufort to invest in toxic junk without any regulated firm other than Beaufort in the chain).

If people are PMing you, you should direct them to somebody who knows what they are talking about instead of adding to their problems with misleading and scaremongering information.

Looks like Malthusian has been outed by her / his own ego.

"PwC also estimated that around 700 clients with assets valued over £150,000 may experience a loss up-to a maximum of 40%. How is a hair-cut of 40% on ring-fenced assets fair?" - it is PWC that is claiming victims of Beaufort, the FCA and PWC will lose up to 40% of their investment - not me.

The 40% figure comes from PWC themselves. So the scaremongering is being done by PWC. A truth that Malthusian and his 1,000+ post defenders of the finance sector won't like.

Ignore the self-proclaimed "experts" offering advice and certianly do not provide them with any personal data on your investments. That is not a safe and secure practice and you will be a risk for no benefit. If you do need advice contact ShareSOC who are running a campaign on this. There are already hundreds of Beaufort victims signed up for the capaign and all are demanding answers of their MPs, especially in relation to the "Nominee" issue, which sits at the very core of this. (Another area that Malthusian and co want to pour cold water on.

The UK finance sector demands the freedoms of the USA financial sector. Where this leaves investors vulnerable is two-fold. The US Government were the ones that investigated Beaufort's criminal activity - what did the FCA or the UK Gov do? Basically, what they were forced to do by the US Gov - no action in the interests of the Uk citizen / individual investor. Secondly, the instant news like this breaks mutli-million dollar class actions are raised in the USA. We are blocked from that recourse in the UK. Basically, individual investors in the UK are being left defenceless by the UK government.

We have been the victims of Beauforts criminal activity. We have been the victims of the FCA's inaction on our behalf and refusal to provide timely notification of the risks to our investments. We have been defenceless regarding the FCA's announcement regarding Beaufort administration and the appointment of PWC as the administrations leaving victims to incur further losses and months and potentially years without access to their cash and assets.

We are told that Beaufort's criminal behaviour is in fact common practice by other UK brokers all regulated by the FCA. When the axe falls on the other brokers individual investors will still be in the same defenceless position as the victims of Beaufort and the FCA are now.

eskbanker

Col_Jessop wrote: »

"PwC also estimated that around 700 clients with assets valued over £150,000 may experience a loss up-to a maximum of 40%. How is a hair-cut of 40% on ring-fenced assets fair?" - it is PWC that is claiming victims of Beaufort, the FCA and PWC will lose up to 40% of their investment - not me.

The 40% figure comes from PWC themselves. So the scaremongering is being done by PWC. A truth that Malthusian and his 1,000+ post defenders of the finance sector won't like.

Perhaps it would be worth updating this for the sake of some balance - the 8 June update at https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/business-recovery/administrations/beaufort/latest-news-and-update.html now clarifies:

Russell Downs, BACSL joint special administrator and PwC partner, said:

“The special administrators held a constructive and wide-ranging discussion with the creditors’ committee on Wednesday 6 June.

“The administration team, the creditors’ committee and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) have agreed a cost allocation that will see 94% of the costs for returning assets to approximately 17,500 retail and corporate clients* being covered by the FSCS.

“Fewer than ten retail clients will face any costs exposure at all.

“The remaining 6% of costs will be borne by corporate clients, although this percentage may reduce as the distribution plan evolves.

"This is based on a cost allocation that is a flat fee for securities, where maximum costs will be capped at £10,000 per client. The FSCS will cover this amount for all clients bar those who are not eligible (i.e. some of the corporate clients).

“The creditors’ committee support the development of the distribution plan, with the aim of receiving all necessary approvals in July before the intended block transfer of the majority of clients to a nominated broker in September.”

Glen_Clark

Fair point that divulging what investments you hold does not give scammers all the information they need. But it may give them a start. When I held shares in certificated form, scammers would often get my contact details off the share register and ring me up. :rotfl: