SVS Securities - shut down?

My2penneth

Don;t worry about not having contract notes. They mean nothing anyway as you might have sold the shares the very next day so they are not proof.

Reading the blurb from the special administrators (SA for short) - they will contact you by 27th September by which time they will have assessed what's in the pool and what they believe your share is.

Note: They say that our custody assets (shares) will be used to fund their work ...(see the case Beaufort Securities that kicked off last year and read what happened) - they (the administrators are legally allowed to access the ring fenced assets and use them to fund their work. That's in Section D of the Leonard Curtis notes. If we suffer a loss as a result, then that;s when you approach the FSCS.

There are over 13500 clients with SVS. They are setting up a portal to deal with our claims.

The best resolution is for the FSCS to step in , pay the Special Administrators for their work and then allow the shares to be transferred to anotehr platform. This is what happened with Beaufort. The administrators (PwC) charged everyone £10k but the FSCS paid this.

It's early days.

seacaitch

pafpcg wrote: »

That's surely outside the scope of SVS-XO's operations and must be one of the other SVS divisions, presumably "Advisory Trading". If the customer data and the associated assets held by SVS Nominees Ltd are clearly compartmentalised between SVS-XO and the trading operations of the other SVS divisions, then there's hope for a straightforward handover of SVS-XO to an external operator.

If anyone here is a client of SVS's Advisory Trading or Advisory ISA services, then things don't look so simple. And clients of SVS Forex Trading are gamblers anyway!

I took the statement:

"Acting on intelligence received about the assets in which SVS invested its clients’ money, we conducted urgent supervisory work and identified serious concerns about the way in which the business was operating. "

...to most probably refer to a breach of client money regs, ie. what they've been up to with clients' uninvested cash balances.

For example, B]NB hypothetically speaking...[/B if instead of keeping it segregated and placed in client bank accounts (such as a bunch of term deposits and/or current accounts with banks), it may perhaps have been unsegregated and used by the business itself to support operations etc.

We'll find out in time.

moneytroll

Ah many thanks. I must have mis-read during a (slight) flurry of panic...

I am a little concerned that there are so few details regarding the alleged 'misconduct'.

If the shares are to be transferred to another broker, would one need to open an account with them or will the new broker open one automatically? (What happened with Beaufort in this regard?)

Many thanks again. This was in my book a negligible risk but it underlines the importance of brokering with a big-reputable firm!

MarkeR

Just found out about this myself when I went to log in and check my stocks and shares isa I have with them and I'm a bit worried. The first result that came up in google was a statement from the FCA, I read this and found this forum just a bit further down in the results so I joined.
I guess we have to wait to be contacted now?.
I'd post a link to the FCA Statement but as a newbie I'm not allowed.

masonic

moneytroll wrote: »

I am a little concerned that there are so few details regarding the alleged 'misconduct'.

This is not at all surprising. There is one news article linked in one of the first few posts of this thread that gives some clues, though the statement by the FCA suggests there is more to this matter, and it is probably the subject of an ongoing investigation.

The administrators report to creditors, due in 8 weeks, will likely give some insights.

If the shares are to be transferred to another broker, would one need to open an account with them or will the new broker open one automatically? (What happened with Beaufort in this regard?)

The process would depend entirely on the agreement reached between the administrators and new broker, but the investments would need to be re-registered to their nominee account as if you were transferring between providers. You might regain access to the same portal, under new management, you might need to sign up for access via the new provider's own website, and you might have the option to be issued share certificates rather than setting up an account if that's what you wanted.

masonic

MarkeR wrote: »

I guess we have to wait to be contacted now?.

Have you found the administrators' dedicated page for SVS clients and creditors? https://www.leonardcurtis.co.uk/SVS/

Ravima

Th 8.25% bond due on 30th June was not repaid as it should have been .
The non payment should have raised many a red flag!

masonic

Ravima wrote: »

Th 8.25% bond due on 30th June was not repaid as it should have been .
The non payment should have raised many a red flag!

Presumably this was a non-ORB bond? A mini-bond perhaps? I can't find any public record of it, other than the SVS promotional material, or the fact that it defaulted. How did this not put the company into insolvency long before the events of the past few days?

My2penneth

We will need to keep an eye on the administrators - with 13500 SVS clients - if they charge each one £5k from selling off assets, then they'll net £67m for their labours which is about what PwC got in their Beaufort case.

So, doing some sums - if I have £100k in shares and the admin people find that there is only 55% of the shares in the pool and they then want to charge me a further 5% (£5K for their labour) - I only get 50k back.

This loss of £50k would covered by the 85k FSCS scheme.

The sums above depend on what the admin find (I doubt that there will only be 55% of the shares in the pool that there should be) and how much you have with SVS.

(I'm just playing with numbers here)

masonic

My2penneth wrote: »

We will need to keep an eye on the administrators - with 13500 SVS clients - if they charge each one £5k from selling off assets, then they'll net £67m for their labours which is about what PwC got in their Beaufort case.

The Beaufort administration was rather complex, first there was an international fraud and money laundering investigation that needed to be dealt with, second a significant proportion of the assets under management were invested in unconventional and illiquid assets that proved difficult to dispose of. Presuming SVS is not caught up in similar levels of dodginess, costs could come to significantly less than £67m.