SVS Securities - shut down?

masonic

manorhouse said:

Sorry you are losing me masonic.
To me its simple they e-mailed me stating i was to lose 15% but i would be compensated in cash for the value of the shares taken off me for the equivalent price of 219p  per share .
They told be how much this would be in cash .
Are you suggesting i will not be getting that ?

You previously posted, and I quote "I posted on Tuesday i think it was ,i got my missing shares back". I questioned whether you'd really got them back or just spent money on new shares to replace the ones you lost. You then accused me of being picky. But if you really did get your "missing shares back" then they wouldn't be missing any more and you would not be entitled to any compensation. So I wouldn't go telling the FSCS you had some missing shares but got them back.

Coming back to why any of this matters:

manorhouse said:

I hope some on here can reflect on the scaremongering re 85K last summer when we now know the cost is around 12k .

If people can lose some of their shares as well as have costs of around £12k to pay, it isn't really scaremongering to fear that those with more than £85k invested could suffer a loss that exceeds the compensation they can get. One individual clearly placed one or more very large orders for a single share representing 15% of the total held across all SVS investors and lost the lot. Fortunately, the loss was spread between all investors in that share, but if there was less invested in that share the loss for all investors in that share would have been greater than 15%, and if there were no other investments in that share the individual would bear a 100% loss of that holding.

The whole point of me bringing up the shares you lost in my earlier response to this statement about scaremongering was to illustrate that some people will be claiming more than just the c. £12k costs from the FSCS, yourself included.

manorhouse

Read this from the New Yorker.

Be good if some of these brokers were available to uk residents .

......................................................

{Text removed by the Forum Team}

johnburman

Good on the New Yorker; an economist who has said somethig sensible:
“Free is always appealing. Everybody likes a free lunch, even though my colleagues don’t think they exist.”
But of course these brokers are only in the USA: here is a list 
https://www.bankrate.com/investing/best-online-brokers-for-low-fees/ 
and includes Charles Schwab

I am using Trading 212, with is oh so restrictive list of shares and funny 95% rule, but it is free and has not gone bust yet (and is FSCS covered of course)  Just never go over £85k.

Here is a question: why when some brokers -inthe USA very respectible names - are free are the guys here charging a "platform fee" and a commmission?

Actualy a second question - is there a correlation between a broker going bust and the fees they charge?  I don't remember Beaufort, let alone Barings [one for the oldies there] - being expecially cheap.
PS: still no resposne from Fineco to my question about their protection. AVOID

manorhouse

Thank you johnburman
Trading 212 one i have noticed .
Can you expand on restrictive list ( that might be a problem re -transfers )
And the 95% rule.
Guess you can not place a deal live ( 15 sec countdown ) are the limit orders put trough to market or bulked with others as i have read about .
Wondered how that bulk idea can work with people setting different limits ?

pafpcg

The Client Statements of Client Assets and Client Money are now available on the LC portal.

I can't say I'm impressed by the statement - although the data is correct, it's only a snapshot taken on 7-May-2020 - dividends distributed since then are not included.  I would have expected that the statement header to have displayed something like "Statement as at 7th May 2020" and not leave the reader in the dark as to why there's an apparent shortfall; one has to consult the FAQ to see the cut-off date.

I'm even more surprised by the size of the fees - 14% of the total assets would have been swallowed by LC's costs.  Thanks heavens for FSCS!

EDIT:  Ignore the 14%! As pointed out in a post below, the fees are apportioned per client not on the value of assets held by SVS.

johnburman

i saw 
I'm even more surprised by the size of the fees - 14% of the total assets would have been swallowed by LC's costs.  Thanks heavens for FSCS!
I agree.  I'm going for the cheapest mainstream UK broker.  And we need to make sure that the accounts are under £85k 
X-O; Trading 212; AJ Bell and iWeb...with HL inthe background.  Its going to be fun trying to transfer out to these!

masonic

I think you threw out the ballpark figure of 10% in the very early pages of the thread johnburman, and I'm surprised it's come in north of that.

While I'm not splitting up my investments into £85k chunks, I think I'll take a somewhat more conservative view of how big I should let my holdings get with any one platform before splitting.

I haven't looked at Freetrade in any detail yet, but it could be another option, and an alternative to Trading212 who I wouldn't use again given my past experience. If nothing else, such a broker is useful if you want to take advantage of some market turbulence.

wmb194

I've been experimenting with Freetrade a bit and it seems much better than Trading212. Its stock selection is a little limited but it's okay for most (all?) FTSE350 companies including the more popular investment trusts and it executes trades at the prevailing best price. It's currently crowdsourcing and as I type has raised £6.5m so it should be around for a little longer. I haven't signed up to Crowdcube so cannot see what it claims its business case is.
https://www.crowdcube.com/companies/freetrade/pitches/bvP4rl

manorhouse

I see the piece i copied from New Yorker has been removed !
Not sure what was wrong with that johnburman seemed to enjoy reading it ?
Good to see masonic is saying he is not splitting into 85K chunks .
I am going to find that difficult as i would need more then Ten .
So thanks for throwing up Freetrade and Trading 212 . 
Others personal experiences are very useful .
More ideas the merry as far as i am concerned , i had never heard of the one we are headed for so there must be more out there.

My2penneth

Originally  ( many pages back!) I suggested 10% costs...14% is taking the biscuit!  

(15th August 2019...page 25).