SVS Securities - shut down?

My2penneth

masonic said:

My2penneth said:

I definitely will not be staying with a broker that I've not heard of and not at their charges for a simple XO account.  I will be transferring to my  iWeb account.....assuming that the Covid 19 transfer restrictions have been lifted ! 

iWeb are currently accepting inward ISA transfers. I completed one in March and have another in progress.

The text on the iWeb site is misleading then!

"Transfer your existing investments to IWeb

We have temporarily paused all inward transfers of stock and cash, and transfers between accounts. Like all businesses we have to work differently amid concerns regarding Covid-19 and prioritise the safety of our staff and customers. As a result we are working with reduced resource which is impacting this service. "

 https://www.iweb-sharedealing.co.uk/share-dealing/transfer-your-existing-investments.asp

NZPK

Private Clients - Fees September 2019

- Custody Fee Flat fee Month end snapshot on asset value 25bps per annum. (0.25% per yr)

-  Funds custody fee Percentage on notional value Charged quarterly 35bps per annum

This is different to the fee structure that Masonic posted earlier. I thought it was 10 basis points custody fee and £15 per trade for UK ETFs. 
Either way, am I interpreting it right that they charge annually a fee just to hold our assets in a custodial account? That's basically bumping up the cost of my very low fee Vanguard ETFs by a big percentage. 
I am a foreign domeciled investor and I've found it really hard to open another account with any of the platforms since SVS imploded. I may find in stuck with these guys. Grumble.

masonic

My2penneth said:

masonic said:

My2penneth said:

I definitely will not be staying with a broker that I've not heard of and not at their charges for a simple XO account.  I will be transferring to my  iWeb account.....assuming that the Covid 19 transfer restrictions have been lifted ! 

iWeb are currently accepting inward ISA transfers. I completed one in March and have another in progress.

The text on the iWeb site is misleading then!

"Transfer your existing investments to IWeb

We have temporarily paused all inward transfers of stock and cash, and transfers between accounts. Like all businesses we have to work differently amid concerns regarding Covid-19 and prioritise the safety of our staff and customers. As a result we are working with reduced resource which is impacting this service. "

 https://www.iweb-sharedealing.co.uk/share-dealing/transfer-your-existing-investments.asp

I started my most recent ISA transfer to iWeb on 14th April. The facility still exists within my online account and there is nothing about inward transfers being paused there. It's possible the pausing is a very recent thing, but it seems odd if it is because they were previously closed to new account applications, but lifted that restriction just over a week ago: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130305/iweb-s-s-isa-reopened-to-new-applications

masonic

NZPK said:

Private Clients - Fees September 2019

- Custody Fee Flat fee Month end snapshot on asset value 25bps per annum. (0.25% per yr)

-  Funds custody fee Percentage on notional value Charged quarterly 35bps per annum

This is different to the fee structure that Masonic posted earlier. I thought it was 10 basis points custody fee and £15 per trade for UK ETFs. 
Either way, am I interpreting it right that they charge annually a fee just to hold our assets in a custodial account? That's basically bumping up the cost of my very low fee Vanguard ETFs by a big percentage. 
I am a foreign domeciled investor and I've found it really hard to open another account with any of the platforms since SVS imploded. I may find in stuck with these guys. Grumble.

The document I found was from July 2018, while My2penneth has located a more recent version. I struggled to find anything browsing their confusing website so ended up performing a Google search for the fees.

manorhouse

They have picked a surprise one here i am always suspicious when a company keeps changing its name.
I think they should have put a clause in the free transfer that it would start from when life gets back to some sort of normal .
They are getting well paid to think about all these things .
You would think the FSCS would want to avoid picking a broker which might fail itself.

My2penneth

30 bps (0.3%) to "look after" a £100k ISA would cost £300 per yr in charges. 

( if a broker fails....who benefits .....the likes of LC!)

pafpcg

May I post a plea that we are very circumspect in discussing the services and costs of the company which we believe to be the Nominated Broker?

I was delighted that following the research of one of our number, the Nominated Broker had been identified.  However on reflection, I have revised my thinking, in that until the Court hearing and the signing of the deal between the Nominated Broker and the Adminstrators, the transfer of client assets and their availablity in July is not yet certain.  If the Nominated Broker has good reasons to demand that the Administrators not reveal their name, then publicising the name and in particular pointing out deficiencies and fees might lead to the broker withdrawing from the agreement.  This could be to our considerable disadvantage as there would be an inevitable lengthy delay (several months at least) whilst the Administrators find another broker and any potential offer might not be as generous as the one which has been negotiated.

From the Distribution Plan documents which describe the offer from the Nominated Broker to ex-SVS clients, we will have two key factors to fall back upon.  First, if we feel another broker offers a better match for our requirements than that of the Nominated Broker, then we will be able to transfer our assets at a cost merely of time and inconvenience; there should be no substantial penalty for leaving.  Secondly, we will be able to have the Nominated Broker complete any programme of financial transactions which we had planned to undertake at SVS at the same cost as at SVS.

I ask the question, at this stage does it matter who the Nominated Broker is and what are their services and on-going charges?  I submit that they could be a front for the notorious "Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath & Wells*" with a list of fees measured in arms, legs and the surrender of our first-born for all I care!  We will have the opportunity from early June until mid-July (and for several months afterwards) to consider what action we wish to take, be it to continue with the Nominated Broker to hold our equity assets, to liquidate some or all of our assets at the same costs as SVS, or to move to another broker/platform.

The only issue is whether we trust the Administrators to have checked that the Nominated Broker has the competence and the resources to undertake the transfer-out of the volume of clients' assets in a timely manner and the basic brokerage functions of selling, buying or certification of equities in our accounts.  I trust that the Administrators have done so and I will raise no formal questions or objections about the Distribution Plan and the implicit choice of Nominated Broker.  Whether or not I trust whoever is subsequently revealed as the Nominated Broker with the custody of my equity holdings is a choice I will make in July.

I have edited one of my earlier posts to remove references to the suggested Nominated Broker and their service charges.


* I refer, of course, to the fictional medieval Bishop of Bath & Wells and not to the present incumbent of the See.

johnburman

Lots of good comments including the Bath and Wells bishopric but apart from the troubled history of IT I with all its name changes is it financially stable when the last set of accounts show a 2m GBP loss down from the year befores 5m GBP loss.
The charges are expensive and complex. This is not a company that should have been chosen for all the mainly XO clients of SVS. 

And yes we should be concerned because I wonder if it can service all the new clients (especially all of them leaving) and worry about its solvency. 

Danie6

I agree with pafpcg. Time is important and we must not mess the story up now. Let the situation take its course an whatever action we want to take can be done after the transfer of our assets to the new broker. The deal may turn out to be a good one. Give it a chance.

bowlhead99

johnburman said:

The charges are expensive and complex. This is not a company that should have been chosen for all the mainly XO clients of SVS. 

And yes we should be concerned because I wonder if it can service all the new clients (especially all of them leaving) and worry about its solvency. 

Fundamentally, LC have a job to do. Get the assets out from under a dead firm and conclude the wind-up of that dead firm. You have not engaged them on an advisory basis to find you the very best solution for your personal investment needs. In fact, you're not paying them at all, but you want your assets out from under the dead firm and you can't do it yourself. 

They have found a solution to the problem of needing to transfer existing nominee business for a whole range of asset classes. A firm stepped forward with a proposal and said they would take the assets. When the assets get there - out from under the dead firm where you currently can't access them - you will be infinity times better off than you are at the moment because you will have the ability to access, sell or transfer away 100% of your assets (you currently have the ability to access, sell or transfer away 0% of your assets).

You aren't being offered the opportunity to do anything about it, until the assets are back in your control. So you are no worse off than you were before, while closer to having your assets restored and accessible and being infinity times better off in respect of those assets.

So, you can sit there and wait. There is no point sitting there and being 'concerned' because that won't do anything positive for your mental health.