SVS Securities - shut down?

bowlhead99

Monsieur_Bourse said:

Why on earth are people attacking johnburman on this forum. 

Nobody is being 'attacked'. Johnburnam is telling us that it is simply not acceptable or understandable for it to take as long as it takes. and wants to get more information about it or for something to be done about it and we are giving him suggestions but after 1000+ posts on a thread there is not a lot of new information to impart or new suggestions to make. There's nothing new under the sun, as they say.

As noted above, some of the delay is due to law and process (appoint an MP to represent you on issues you find important and contact them when you feel something needs to be done in relation to law and regulation), while some of it on timeliness and information flow is down to the specifics of the administration and negotiation for a new custodian of the assets (appoint a Creditor's Committee to represent you in the liquidation and contact them when you want them to make a point or find out information on behalf of you and your fellow thousands of creditors/ investors).

Platitudes on a public forum such as, 'but something MUST BE DONE' ; 'someone should be DEMANDING things' are relatively useless. That's why it was suggested to johnburman that he actually contacted his MP or the creditors committee, though we would not expect to see an immediate effect from it. Likewise someone asking *us* why it is taking so long is not going to make it go faster as it is not *us* doing the administration. 

We can see the frustration, 1000+ posts into the thread, and sympathise with John. If someone wants to blow off some steam and rant that it is terrible and scandalous and simply unacceptable, in the hope that other like-minded individuals will post back to say, 'there there, yes it is terrible isn't it', then they're welcome to fill the thread up with that kind of content, but as it's a public forum you might expect others to interject and say that the whole thread is getting a bit tiresome, and then others say that they're welcome not to look at the thread etc etc.  Such is the nature of public discussions.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not going to write to johnburnam's MP to say on John's behalf that it is important that the laws should be changed and the FCA have something to answer for, because I don't care enough. Perhaps John has already done that last year, or in January when he read the client update and updated FAQs, or in February when he read that client update, or on Friday after reading the Progress Report. 

johnburman

Anybody on the creditors committee or anyone who has a connection to them like to comment? What are you doing to reduce the delay? 

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.