SVS Securities - shut down?

city_of_angels

Monsieur_Bourse said:

I would like to thank everybody who has offered me investment advice. Obviously selling a share that has risen four times in value and one that had doubled would have made me a lot poorer, best hang on to them until they crash back to the price that I paid.

It's very easy in investing — I've done it myself — to get sucked into thinking: I should have sold this holding when it went up, or bought that holding when it was cheaper, or both. But the share that's risen may keep going up, and the one that's fallen may keep going down. The peaks and troughs are only clear with hindsight.

You may choose to take being unable to trade your account as an opportunity to pick all the highs and lows with hindsight, and say: I'd have sold there, and bought there, and made lots of money! But this is complete fantasy.

If you're that confident about future share price movements, you could investigate the possiblity using derivatives, for instance shorting (via a different platform) a share you hold with SVS, so that you are no longer exposed to future movements in its price. Though there are various potential pitfalls with using derivatives to consider.

johnburman

I'm not sure this is the thread to discuss investing strategy... Fun though it is.  For most of us, getting our hands on "OUR" shares and "OUR" cash (dividends, mainly) - and the time period (and, in my view, the delay) is the reason for the thread.  

olderbutnowiser

johnburman said:

I'm not sure this is the thread to discuss investing strategy... Fun though it is.  For most of us, getting our hands on "OUR" shares and "OUR" cash (dividends, mainly) - and the time period (and, in my view, the delay) is the reason for the thread.  

I agree totally that the ridiculous delay is the main concern for most of us.

The nearest comparison I can find is Beaufort Securities. Similar size firm but worse in the sense that they were involved in outright fraud and money laundering.

They went into admin in March 2018. By early August 2018 everything was agreed and the legals all sorted. The first 12,000 clients were reunited with their assets on 25 September 2018. That is clients were only excluded for six months. Administrators were PwC.

LC should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I must say that my heart sank when I heard heard that they had been appointed since I had a bad experience with their inept administration practices a few years ago but was prepared to give them the benefit of doubt. No longer!

manted

I have tried contacting a few papers to bring forward this topic and highlight the plight of all impacted. I guess we all can make noises in the right places to at least get attention from the authorities. Right now it doesn't seem like anyone other than the unfortunate clients of SVS are bothered.

johnburman

Olderbutnot wiser says of Beaufort:
They went into admin in March 2018. By early August 2018 everything was agreed and the legals all sorted. The first 12,000 clients were reunited with their assets on 25 September 2018. That is clients were only excluded for six months. Administrators were PwC.
He makes a good point.  Yes PwC's fees were outrageous - extremely high - and this was an early "special" administration but they did a much more complex admin in (for the majority) 6 months.  LC are cheaper than PwC, but in my view simply are they as experienced as PwC in financial services matters.  I noticed that at the public meeting they talked about the large number of clients, but there are only 21k.
As I have said before, what are the FCA and the Creditors Committee doing?      

masonic

johnburman said:

Yes PwC's fees were outrageous - extremely high - and this was an early "special" administration but they did a much more complex admin in (for the majority) 6 months.

PwC's high fees, and their ability to move quickly are likely related. I'm sure LC could have sped things up somewhat if they allocated more people and resources to the case, but it is not in the best interests of creditors (including the FSCS) for them to do so. This highlights the inherent conflict of interests associated with a Special Administration: investors want it done with ASAP whatever the cost, while creditors want it done as cheaply as possible. The law currently favours the interests of the creditors.

johnburman

Well said masonic! 

bowlhead99

masonic said:

johnburman said:

Yes PwC's fees were outrageous - extremely high - and this was an early "special" administration but they did a much more complex admin in (for the majority) 6 months.

 I'm sure LC could have sped things up somewhat if they allocated more people and resources to the case, but it is not in the best interests of creditors (including the FSCS) for them to do so. This highlights the inherent conflict of interests associated with a Special Administration: investors want it done with ASAP whatever the cost, while creditors want it done as cheaply as possible. The law currently favours the interests of the creditors.

Yes, the average nominee customer would want minimal disruption to their holdings and wouldn't care if it cost more because their losses could be picked up by FSCS. Whereas the lenders and other trade creditors want to recover the most pence in the pound that they can, out of what they are owed.

Those in favour of running the process slowly and methodically rather than throwing masses of resources at it to shave a few weeks off the timescale will include FSCS, who are keen for there to be lower losses/expenses to need to compensate out of the resources they have.

juliamarsh

masonic said:

manted said:

juliamarsh said:

I'm quite convinced SVS's client contact details have been sold on. Several times a week we get calls from 'financial' companies supposedly following up on information we have 'requested' and this has been going on for quite a few months. Beaufort Securities is one, and yesterday it was Cleo Securities but I suspect they could be one and the same outfit. Usually they ask for my son but occasionally me. The fact that they always ring the landline, never our mobiles is a bit of a giveaway -  I was concerned about SVS ringing my children directly to try to persuade them to invest in dodgy companies, so in order to protect them I removed everybody's mobile numbers from SVS's database because I knew that if they phoned on the landline I would be able to intercept the call and fend them off. Has anybody else been targeted by Beaufort Securities or Cleo?

You could report the nuisance calls to your landline using this link - https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/nuisance-calls-and-messages/spam-texts-and-nuisance-calls/report-spam-texts-and-nuisance-sales-calls/

Yes, although this is generally only worth doing if the calls you are receiving are from reputable firms.

Exactly that. I've reported them to the TPS on more than one occasion but they are unable to find enough information on them to investigate unfortunately.

johnburman

A small wager with anyone on the date that LC will announce matters (or whatever connected to SVS) are delayed owing to the COVUD-19 virus.  Yes it could be down to the demise of Flybe, but I reckon the virus is good for a oh, say a 3 month delay.