SVS Securities - shut down?

johnburman

You all all want to see this on thre FCA website

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/supervisory-notices/first-supervisory-svs-securities-plc-2019.pdf

My2penneth

Ignore the form.
Ignore all paperwork unless it is from the administrator.
Pello Capital ??? I googled them. I refer back to my opening comment.

Robster88

johnburman wrote: »

You all all want to see this on thre FCA website

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/supervisory-notices/first-supervisory-svs-securities-plc-2019.pdf

Brilliant, thanks. Makes interesting reading.

My2penneth

johnburman wrote: »

You all all want to see this on thre FCA website
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/supervisory-notices/first-supervisory-svs-securities-plc-2019.pdf

Looks like the issue is related to SVS selling possibly illiquid bonds, in high percentages in packages (''model portfolios") to pensioners for a high commission. SVS should understand all about the bonds but it seems the high commissions over rode any duty of care to their clients.

The report indicates that SVS was lacking in the non financial skills ( as well as in finances)...understanding the risks involved and also having the skill sets to manage these risks.

They also provided misleading information relating to whom and where these illiquid bonds were sold. Initially SVS reported that the bonds were only in the packages but that seems not to be the case.

SVS issued a £5m bond themselves and appear to have no means to pay it back. A number of the bonds they flogged are tied in with companies that are either struggling or are themselves now in admin.

The relationship of some of the directors to these firms is also brought into question.

SVS appear to have acted recklessly, pushing clients into dodgy investments , driven by kick backs to themselves for flogging these 'investment ' packages.

My2penneth

"SVS’ CMAR report between April and May 2019 shows a material
inconsistency in the valuation of custody assets, which was confirmed by
SVS’ Finance Director, Ruchir Rupani. The April CMAR submission confirmed
a total value of custody assets of £249 million and the May CMAR
submission confirmed a total value of custody assets at £178 million. This
brings into question the reconciliation and valuation methodology, and
related systems and controls which should be in place to ensure that serious
errors are identified and corrected"

From section 4.47
in an e-mail dated 11 July 2019, Mr Bushell (CF10a) stated that SVS was
under-reporting custody assets by not including the value of eight accounts
which together have a value of around £85 million. This indicated a lack of
adequate checks and controls.

Why would you not report this ?
Who were the clients with approx £10m each to invest...?

(I recollect they were moving business location at this time and they were working on computer system upgrades in April) - it might be these 10 accounts simply were not transferred correctly but that's a weak excuse..all I'm saying is that it might not have been a deliberate understatement)

masonic

johnburman wrote: »

Warning. I've seen a "Transfer Request" from "SVS XO to Pello Capital"

You have seen? Where? Farcebook?

Now I have not heard of this company before. They provide a form to transfer which you fill in and they say they will send to SVS and that they will "...liaise with the company and administrators on your behalf.....". What is attractive is they say you will "be kept in touch with any developments" unlike the present where one have no info whatsoever.

What makes you think you'll be provided with any information that wouldn't be released to you directly?

So presumably they've not offered to buy your rights to a recovery for Xp in the pound (which would be a terrible deal for X < 100). Instead, they'll take a fee from your assets.

This may be completely proper, but how does one know? Do the FCA know (and approve)?

Thoughts?

Why would anyone pay a group of vultures for something they will get for free if they ignore those vultures?

masonic

My2penneth wrote: »

From section 4.47
in an e-mail dated 11 July 2019, Mr Bushell (CF10a) stated that SVS was
under-reporting custody assets by not including the value of eight accounts
which together have a value of around £85 million. This indicated a lack of
adequate checks and controls.

Why would you not report this ?
Who were the clients with approx £10m each to invest...?

This section will come as a bit of a blow to investors, as if CASS rules were not followed that's going to make a quick sale of the XO accounts to a competitor very tricky.

Robster88

My2penneth wrote: »

Looks like the issue is related to SVS selling possibly illiquid bonds, in high percentages in packages (''model portfolios") to pensioners for a high commission. SVS should understand all about the bonds but it seems the high commissions over rode any duty of care to their clients.

The report indicates that SVS was lacking in the non financial skills ( as well as in finances)...understanding the risks involved and also having the skill sets to manage these risks.

They also provided misleading information relating to whom and where these illiquid bonds were sold. Initially SVS reported that the bonds were only in the packages but that seems not to be the case.

SVS issued a £5m bond themselves and appear to have no means to pay it back. A number of the bonds they flogged are tied in with companies that are either struggling or are themselves now in admin.

The relationship of some of the directors to these firms is also brought into question.

SVS appear to have acted recklessly, pushing clients into dodgy investments , driven by kick backs to themselves for flogging these 'investment ' packages.

Would someone more knowledgeable than me be able to interpret what, if the accusations in the report are accurate, it would mean for people with cash and shares within SVS (not invested in any of these bonds or portfolios). Does it make recovering the full value of these more or less likely, or is it impossible to tell?

I'm not sure if I'm explaining what I mean well, but if a report said 'SVS have been fraudulently spending people's money to invest in companies that have now gone belly up' I could understand that might mean it was unlikely people with cash within SVS would get it all back easily.

I'm not sure how what was stated in the report would mean in that regard however..

My2penneth

PELLO CAPITAL

DO NOT RESPOND TO THEM

I've been in touch with Leonard Curtis (Manchester) to check Pello out.

DO NOT SIGN ANY TRANSFER REQUESTS!!!!!

My2penneth

Robster88 wrote: »

Would someone more knowledgeable than me be able to interpret what, if the accusations in the report are accurate, it would mean for people with cash and shares within SVS (not invested in any of these bonds or portfolios). Does it make recovering the full value of these more or less likely, or is it impossible to tell?
.

Robster - The way I look at it is - "what have I bought".. Like you, I bought shares (shares only using their execution only system). When they "open the box" and have a look at what is in the ring fenced accounts there should be 100% of the shares that we have bought. If - for example - 10% of the shares are missing, then we would share the pain pro-rata. We would then need to make a compo claim from FSCS for any losses to the value of £85k.
(If SVS have been raiding these, then they have committed theft.).

I didn't buy any bonds or any of these model portfolios so I can't lose money on what I didn't personally buy.

I can't see the logic in accumulating all Clients into one boat and saying that "the loss is" and it'll be shared out pro-rata.

That's my take on it.