SVS Securities - shut down?

masonic

Ravima said:

Comrades, 
is price per trade/annual fee the only issue here? Look at where we are now, months later after picking the cheapest broker. I would certainly be prepared to pay a higher fee and/or annual charge for security and the freedom to trade whenever I chose. I have learned an expensive lesson with SVS. 

You could have avoided the whole mess by moving to a cheaper broker when SVS hiked its charges. SVS was a mid-priced offering and price was not a warning sign. The warning signs were that SVS got involved in trading carbon credits as a side activity, those transactions were connected with fraud, and HMRC took SVS to court over it. Also, 5 years earlier, SVS had to resort to raising money through the issue of mini-bonds, which they subsequently defaulted on (several months before going into administraion).

manorhouse

When SVS went down some on here where saying customers with acc over 100k might lose money .
No one knows nothing for real we only know what has happened in the past.
I lost no sleep as in the passed FSCS had covered .
The experiences might of helped me during this last meltdown as i did not panic , sold nothing and bought at lows.
But have spent far to much of my time trying to pick the winners.
Maybe you have been just as well being trapped in as many might of sold as prices kept falling ( many do this )
I am with most of them as already said ..
I thought HL had no extra charge for shares in non ISA acc ? That would be better then bell in that instant .
Just read masonic post above , best post for ages sums the demise of SVS in a nutshell 
Thankyou masonic nice and simple.
 

olderbutnowiser

Thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion regarding an alternative broker.

@Ravina -  I have not been looking for a "cheap" broker, just one that appears to provide the best value among the  market leaders. Also @manorhouse makes a good point about HL. They do not charge a custody fee for their dealing account and so if you are like me and have a dealing account and an ISA, their charges are very similar to AJ Bell if you are an infrequent trader. In fact, I calculate that HL and AJB are more or less identical if you hold a dealing account and an ISA and deal only eight times a year. Beyond that HL are more expensive but HL do not charge exit fees. AJB charge £25 per holding.

manorhouse

I held GUN with three different brokers consolidation yesterday SVS in administration the only one to inform me by e-mail the 1 new for 85 old ?
A comparison of service ?
And as i said before i was moving from SVS to new one which i looked for when they raised prices but i was not going to pay transfer out fees .
So when i took slices or complete sales id buy back with new broker.
If i thought a good buy back .
If you wanted to do it around same time think about the stamp tax.
But that is the same as a bed and ISA.

Eastneuk

Well I’ve decided to move to HSBC. The charges are higher (but I expect only £30 per year higher than AJB) but at the  end of the day a lot more secure than any stockbroker, whether a privately held one or a quoted Plc. 

Lets hope the court case proceeds smoothly with no objections on Friday so we can see some light at the end of the tunnel!

manorhouse

The most worrying e-mail from administrates yet to me today .
It appears  there was a shortfall in stock of one client ( Pets at home ) and this shortfall has to borne by all clients in that share .
Therefore i will lose 15% of it.
Scary as i was not able to check all mine and assumed it was all there , how can a shortfall like this happen ? 
The better news was the cost of them will be given and at the August 5th 2019 close price I am annoyed they have taken so long to inform us  as my reasoning  would of been to buy them back for that price if possible.
On 18th March i could of done that for 197p a lower price, they are 243p toady so i am at a loss were i did not need to be.
If anyone else in same position maybe you can copy e-mail, i have tried to do that but can not seem to copy from my e-mails.
This guy must of had a big holding ?
I wondered if recent buys more risky i had not bought anything recently with them ?
I wonder if i was unlucky and this was the only share shortfall and if they have informed all clients or just us affected ?

bowlhead99

manorhouse said:

Scary as i was not able to check all mine and assumed it was all there , how can a shortfall like this happen ? 

A shortfall can happen if the company takes a customer's money to buy shares, telling the customer they have the shares, but then there is some error or fraud and the shares are not actually bought, so the total amount of shares owned by the nominee is less than the total of shares which people have been told are being held on their behalf. Firms will do periodic reconciliations and correct errors. However, if they go bust, it can take a while for these things to be uncovered, and people were given a while to review and confirm their claims. 

The better news was the cost of them will be given and at the August 5th 2019 close price 

So do you mean you will get compensation for the 'cost' of your shares which you had paid at some point in the past  (which might have been a lot more or a lot less than the August value)? Or just for the 5 August value of those shares? If the shares don't exist but SVS had told you they did, it probably makes sense that they use the share value at the point SVS went out of business.

my reasoning  would of been to buy them back for that price if possible. On 18th March i could of done that for 197p a lower price, they are 243p toady so i am at a loss were i did not need to be.

On 16 March you could have got them for 195p. By 18 March, 197p. By 19 March, you might have needed to pay 234p. The share prices change all the time and you probably don't get to work out the very best time you could have bought the shares with hindsight and claim compensation for that.
While financial services firms should compensate you for errors by putting you back in the position you'd have been in if they didn't make the error, and the FSCS will try to compensate you if the company dies and can't pay you a claim, you generally can't claim for the best cherry-pick of missed opportunities along the way.

I wonder if i was unlucky and this was the only share shortfall and if they have informed all clients or just us affected ?

It probably is not the business of clients who aren't affected.

manorhouse

Just to clarify ( but i think you had guessed bowlhead ) they are giving the missing 15% allocated to me .
Compensation at the 5th of April close price. And all mine did exist it was one other customer who it seems had a shortfall. 
I wish i could copy the mail it was generic .
The point about mentioning 18th March is that would of been a time i could of purchased using money i have  if they had informed me before then .
( with the knowledge i have been forced to slice against my choice , and i know the amount of cash  i will be given for that  )
I buy a least one share every day so i do know they go up and down. 
It defiantly is the business of all to be aware that shares were missing , it is not clear if the client brought this to there attention or the administrator spotted it .
If any others have been sent anything similar i hope they will post information .

Thrugelmir

manorhouse said:

It defiantly is the business of all to be aware that shares were missing , it is not clear if the client brought this to there attention or the administrator spotted it .

Be an overall reconciliation of the overall holding.  Easiest and cheapest way of resolving the matter is to treat all stock holders equally. Perhaps one of a number of similar events. That is a reason behind the slow process. In due course full details will be published. 

masonic

manorhouse said:

Just to clarify ( but i think you had guessed bowlhead ) they are giving the missing 15% allocated to me .
Compensation at the 5th of April close price. And all mine did exist it was one other customer who it seems had a shortfall.

I don't really see the rationale for picking 5th April (especially given it was a Sunday and markets were closed). The fact that the actual shortfall was the result of a trade by another customer makes sense if you had not traded the share recently.

manorhouse said:

The point about mentioning 18th March is that would of been a time i could of purchased using money i have  if they had informed me before then .

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the discrepancy was not identified (or did not exist) until after the 18th March.

If I remember correctly, there was some discussion about how such a scenario would be treated in one of the many communications published by the administrators, and at that point it was not a settled issue.

What they have done is in effect allowed you to continue to hold the shares until 5th April, at which point they are allocated to the investor whose trade caused the shortfall and you are compensated to the value of the shares on that date.

It's unclear if you are saying you would seek to maintain your holding subject to having the money upon discovery that you no longer held it, if so you will obviously be looking to repurchase next week, and the good news is the share price is not much different, so you could pick up for about the same amount as the FSCS compensation you'll eventually receive.

It is worth remembering that on 18th March, you wouldn't have known the share was in a temporary dip, and if they credited you with the value at or around that time, they might have shot up in value before you had chance to repurchase.

manorhouse said:

It defiantly is the business of all to be aware that shares were missing , it is not clear if the client brought this to there attention or the administrator spotted it .
If any others have been sent anything similar i hope they will post information .

Some here are of a more defiant disposition than others, but it's certainly worth being aware. Especially as one or two already have FSCS claims they want paying and might not benefit from any additional compensation for new losses. It is well known that trades made towards the end did not settle, and some of these might have been in dispute. It's worth people knowing that if any share they are holding at SVS suffers such a discrepancy, they can expect to carry a share of the burden.