SVS Securities - shut down?

coyrls

High horse vs. hobby horse.

johnburman

Guys 2 points.
1  The client assets are must be considered 'returned' when they have been transferred to the new broker. This must be right....whatever the word "deemed" or 'returned' means.  further the transfer to the new broker ITI was approved by the FCa and the court.
If you believe otherwise try and take action against LC for the transfer

2  Despite 1, ITI are unsuitable for the majority of XO clients.  They have poor customer service; poor and over complex platforms (I use the plural); incoherent advice and are expensive.   I want out. And soon.  ASAP.  So lets not argue about what the word "deem" means, let's see how we can expedite transfers.

johnburman

BTW I mean the new broker in 1 to be ITI.  We have all been their clients since 23 July remember.

manorhouse

My2penneth said:

Of the 3 , the top candidate for taking on SVS accounts dropped out..they were almost about to sign but pulled out..they decided to take on other work instead. Don't know who they were.
This left 2 candidates.  One of the candidates was an ex SVS director, the FCA said "no". This left just ITI from an initial 100+ interested parties.  

If it is true the iti were in the top three of over a hundred candidates.
i would like to see a list of the ones they beat .
I fact we should be able to that list now.
At the very least the transfer out and fee match period must be extended by one month .
LC should be asked to hand back part of fees .
Otherwise they have both made financial gain through there own poor actions . 
If this were a plumber or mechanic would it be accepted.

masonic

manorhouse said:

My2penneth said:

Of the 3 , the top candidate for taking on SVS accounts dropped out..they were almost about to sign but pulled out..they decided to take on other work instead. Don't know who they were.
This left 2 candidates.  One of the candidates was an ex SVS director, the FCA said "no". This left just ITI from an initial 100+ interested parties.  

If it is true the iti were in the top three of over a hundred candidates.
i would like to see a list of the ones they beat .
I fact we should be able to that list now.
At the very least the transfer out and fee match period must be extended by one month .
LC should be asked to hand back part of fees .
Otherwise they have both made financial gain through there own poor actions . 
If this were a plumber or mechanic would it be accepted.

It has been speculated by others that a lot of brokers were ruled out as they did not provide the additional services some SVS clients were using, such as FX instruments. I have no idea if that's actually true, but is certainly plausible. The usual suspect (The Share Centre) probably did not take part this time as it was in the process of itself being acquired by Interactive Investor. Other popular choices are not known to take part in such bidding processes.

While an argument could be made for the fee matching agreement being extended by ITI (suggest anyone wanting this does complain to ITI and request this as part of their redress), the free transfer out should still give ample time to anyone wishing to leave. Do hold ITI to FCA fairness principles, since it can reasonably be interpreted that a transfer should be free if requested, not completed, within that period of time. I continue to advocate all investors leaving ITI just as soon as they can.

masonic

johnburman said:

Guys 2 points.
1  The client assets are must be considered 'returned' when they have been transferred to the new broker. This must be right....whatever the word "deemed" or 'returned' means.  further the transfer to the new broker ITI was approved by the FCa and the court.
If you believe otherwise try and take action against LC for the transfer

2  Despite 1, ITI are unsuitable for the majority of XO clients.  They have poor customer service; poor and over complex platforms (I use the plural); incoherent advice and are expensive.   I want out. And soon.  ASAP.  So lets not argue about what the word "deem" means, let's see how we can expedite transfers.

It's certainly refreshing to agree 100% with you on these points.

olderbutnowiser

manorhouse said:

My2penneth said:

Of the 3 , the top candidate for taking on SVS accounts dropped out..they were almost about to sign but pulled out..they decided to take on other work instead. Don't know who they were.
This left 2 candidates.  One of the candidates was an ex SVS director, the FCA said "no". This left just ITI from an initial 100+ interested parties.  

If it is true the iti were in the top three of over a hundred candidates.
i would like to see a list of the ones they beat .
I fact we should be able to that list now.

We are covering old ground here but for the benefit of those who haven't read all the threads here goes:

SVS had approx 14,000 XO clients and around 7,000 FX traders, many of whom were apparently Chinese. Many of the XO clients were based overseas. That is the reason I opened an account with them when I was working abroad as they were about the only firm I could find that would take on overseas investors. (I returned to the UK two years ago but changing brokers was not my immediate priority - big mistake!).

Since all the well know brokers we are now seeking to transfer to do not accept overseas investors (let alone thousands of Chinese FX traders), it is obvious that they would not be willing to pay for the SVS clients with all the headaches involved.

Clearly it would have been in the interest of most of us if LC had split the client base into the UK based ones and those overseas. If this had done this, there would have been plenty of competition for us from the main brokers and we would not be going through this extended nightmare. I am led to believe that LC considered this but felt that if they separated us out, they would never get any bids for the rump. As it is they found a bidder in ITI for the whole lot which from their perspective was fine but leaves us in the doo dah.

shawdon

Still waiting for my cash withdrawals requested 7 days ago to be actioned despite providing all the required paperwork. ITI are also not replying to any of my emails i have sent so what a complete shambles. A reputable company would action cash withdrawals within 48hours at the latest and of course would reply to emails rather than ignoring them. Has anyone actually managed to successfully withdraw any of their cash yet? 

Sheris

manorhouse said:

My2penneth said:

Of the 3 , the top candidate for taking on SVS accounts dropped out..they were almost about to sign but pulled out..they decided to take on other work instead. Don't know who they were.
This left 2 candidates.  One of the candidates was an ex SVS director, the FCA said "no". This left just ITI from an initial 100+ interested parties.  

If it is true the iti were in the top three of over a hundred candidates.
i would like to see a list of the ones they beat .
I fact we should be able to that list now.
At the very least the transfer out and fee match period must be extended by one month .
LC should be asked to hand back part of fees .
Otherwise they have both made financial gain through there own poor actions . 
If this were a plumber or mechanic would it be accepted.

Correct Manorhouse in your statement.
L&C are in breach of there contract

Sheris

My2penneth said:

Did anyone get the following password?
P1$$edOff 

I wish I had that one over a year ago !!