SVS Securities - shut down?

manorhouse

Just to have things clear and to prevent others from worry.

Is it not the fact that at present there is no suggestion that SVS have not segregated shares of clients.
This is part of a brokers regulatory requirements .
What are the losses posters are concerned about at present ?

Degrio have informed me it would make no difference if you lived in England or Italy if you had to claim Dutch compensation .
I would hope our fscs would treat non residents in same way ?
I thought i read a post from someone resident in New Zealand i hope they do not have to be more concerned then i ?

Degrio inform forms are also in English as well as Dutch.

Is it a fair comparison Icelandic and Dutch ?
I thought the Dutch stock exchange had a similar history to our own ?

Fineco bank tell me they are an established bank with branches in Italy and the compensation limit there is 100000 euro .
( Not sure if Italy as trustworthy as Holland ? )
Thanks to all the posters here sharing info has to be a good thing for Pis.

johnburman

As to your comment s it not the fact that at present there is no suggestion that SVS have not segregated shares of clients. there si no evidence either way AT THE MOMENT. We simply do not know.

Iceland or Holland is more interesting. Both have court proceedings etc. in a language other than English. And all are governed by EU regulations which Iceland saw fit to ignore/breach.

System

manorhouse wrote: »

Just to have things clear and to prevent others from worry.

Is it not the fact that at present there is no suggestion that SVS have not segregated shares of clients.

A triple negative! That should make things really clear.

masonic

manorhouse wrote: »

Is it a fair comparison Icelandic and Dutch ?
I thought the Dutch stock exchange had a similar history to our own ?

I would have thought the Dutch compensation scheme was less likely to renege on its obligations to foreigners than the Icelandic compensation scheme, but that's easy to think when the Icelandic scheme has already refused to compensate foreign savers who were entitled to compensation. Prior to that, I had every confidence my savings in Icelandic banks would be protected by the scheme.

I hate to bring it up, but when the B-word happens, who knows what the consequences for passported compensation schemes will be. Presumably, all EEA companies will need to join the FSCS, but there may be a period during which there is a gap in coverage - I doubt even the law lords would be able to answer that one decisively.

johnburman

and masonic if i rmember back to 2008 Jersey or was it Guernsey (or the IoMan) protected their own residents but not overseas inviestors.

My point is whether it is France, Germany, Iceland or th eNetherlands, you are foreign, making a claim in English against a foreign compensation scheme. If the UK is outside of the EU is hardly an incentive for equal treatment. And how do you sue in Holland etc.. And appeal. And go to tthe EU Court of Justice. BUT is there evidence that their Regualtors are better - more consumer focused - than the FCA? If so there may be a case.

ND

I see the below:

Tried get some info. from LC but they simply say write to us and then say do not expect quick response, their help line is a joke . the person on line does not know any thing.
I suppose we have to wait till end of next month to get some clear picture.

I wonder if this is good enough? Should not representations be made to the FCA about the sloath of LC? Or at least their failure to provide information. At least to the XO clients...those with segregated assets/money? The point is that there are *only* 13.5k of them. It is not a huge number...we are not talking about a bank or building society with 100ks of savers and complex classes of competing claims/assets.

masonic

johnburman wrote: »

My point is whether it is France, Germany, Iceland or th eNetherlands, you are foreign, making a claim in English against a foreign compensation scheme. If the UK is outside of the EU is hardly an incentive for equal treatment. And how do you sue in Holland etc.. And appeal. And go to tthe EU Court of Justice.

I completely agree with this.

BUT is there evidence that their Regualtors are better - more consumer focused - than the FCA? If so there may be a case.

The regulator and compensation scheme are generally separate. The first test as to whether a compensation scheme can and will compensate foreigners is when it is called to do so. And the first test that a government will step in and back a compensation scheme if it doesn't have enough money to compensate foreigners is when it is called to do so. As far as I'm aware, foreign governments have a 100% failure record in this respect.

I see the below:

"Tried get some info. from LC but they simply say write to us and then say do not expect quick response, their help line is a joke . the person on line does not know any thing.
I suppose we have to wait till end of next month to get some clear picture."

This is absolutely the expected outcome and correct conclusion to draw. Insolvency practitioners should not be engaged in customer service at a cost of several hundred pounds per hour per person at the expense of creditors. They have a duty to achieve a favourable outcome for all creditors, which means quite rightly fobbing off those who try to distract them while they are engaged in the important work of investigating the affairs of the company and whether investors assets and money is accounted for.

I wonder if this is good enough? Should not representations be made to the FCA about the sloath of LC? Or at least their failure to provide information. At least to the XO clients...those with segregated assets/money? The point is that there are *only* 13.5k of them. It is not a huge number...we are not talking about a bank or building society with 100ks of savers and complex classes of competing claims/assets.

It's not the FCA's jurisdiction. LC are working for the High Court under the Insolvency Rules (various Acts). If you want them to provide information outside of the statutory reporting schedule, the correct complaints process to follow would be to complain to your MP and campaign to get the law changed.

It is clear that some investors have unreasonable expectations of the service they should be receiving from the administrators. Administrators are obliged to disclose information on a statutory schedule: they must circulate proposals within 8 weeks of being appointed, and 6 monthly progress reports thereafter (if you think that's bad, it used to be once a year). So far LC has been very generous in releasing two sets of FAQs in the interim period before the proposals are issued. This is commendable.

There are some instances in which investors have a genuine need to contact the administrators, such as the individual with a FOS compensation decision who needs some advice on how to lodge a claim for this, but for the vast majority of enquiries, I rather doubt it will make any material difference to the outcome for investors whether they receive a few tidbits of additional information between now and the date the body of creditors/investors receive the scheduled reports.

You could draw the comparison with Strand Capital, a small discretionary fund manager with approx. 3000 clients, that entered Special Administration in May 2017 and whose distribution plan was approved by the High Court almost a year later in April 2018. That's a firm with about one quarter of the clients of SVS.

englishmas

Hi Mosonic

Thanks for your comments regarding the LC, it is understandable that have to concentrate to look after all the interested parties . But in my case i have send them the ombudsman decision, I am keen to know if the late payments clause will apply to LC for the late payment ( the decision says 8% interest apply after 28 days Any thoughts on it.

masonic

englishmas wrote: »

Thanks for your comments regarding the LC, it is understandable that have to concentrate to look after all the interested parties . But in my case i have send them the ombudsman decision, I am keen to know if the late payments clause will apply to LC for the late payment ( the decision says 8% interest apply after 28 days Any thoughts on it.

Yes, I referenced your circumstances in my above post as an example where it was necessary to correspond with the administrators.

The subject of your 8% interest is likely to be largely academic. It is of course SVS Securities plc, not LC to whom this will apply. LC are just running SVS for the time being. You could only expect to receive interest from the liquidation of SVS if all creditors could be repaid their capital in full, which is unlikely (we know the administrators will be charging fees, there is £5-6m of mini-bond debt SVS defaulted on, about £0.5m in secured debt and no doubt other creditors will surface). I can't imagine SVS had much in the way of assets beyond cash at the bank.

Your immediate concern should be what to claim on your Proof of Debt form, and I would suggest that would be the base compensation figure you have been awarded. You could include a note that interest accrues at 8% from the date of that 28 day deadline. Should you receive a sufficient recovery in the fullness of time, you might be able to claim the interest from the FSCS if it doesn't take you over the £85k limit.

englishmas

Hi Masonic

Thanks again. My calculation take me already way buoyed the 85K, so it looks as you said it is academic, most I can hope for is to get the left over in my account and hopefully 85K form FCA, expansive mistake to join SVS. wait and see

masonic

englishmas wrote: »

Thanks again. My calculation take me already way buoyed the 85K, so it looks as you said it is academic, most I can hope for is to get the left over in my account and hopefully 85K form FCA, expansive mistake to join SVS. wait and see

I wouldn't want to put you off claiming for everything you are entitled to. Until we receive the administrators' proposals and a Statement of Affairs of the company, we are just guessing about the likely outcome.