SVS Securities - shut down?

moneytroll

3. Only one person has reported a transfer has been carried out.

Oh really? So it's actually not totally out of the realms of this world? Any idea how long it took for them and which broker it was? Did they have to onboard first or have they rejected? Perhaps the mistake I made is that I tried to continue onboarding thinking it will all be fine...

My2penneth

Have folk tried logging on using the ititi accounts rather than the iti accounts...?

(if the result is anything like my accounts, then the sh1tstorm will really begin)

My2penneth

i'd urge folk to print out a copy of all their holdings into a pdf file "for evidence". All my on boarding accounts are showing zero cash and zero holdings - except for 2 purchases I made after being on boarded, Until today they were invisible and now they are showing up in the transaction history. 

I also note that if one clicks on the CASH statement - a list of transactions now appears (well, on one of the accounts !)...and I can see I've been charged the full rate.  

sweeter_strudel

My2Penneth
My initial jealousy that you had a Phoenix account with SVS shares inside it was tempered when I read on and discovered your posts that followed all detailing the errors and omissions.....
Time for a gazillion complaints to be sent.

Danie6

moneytroll said:

3. Only one person has reported a transfer has been carried out.

Oh really? So it's actually not totally out of the realms of this world? Any idea how long it took for them and which broker it was? Did they have to onboard first or have they rejected? Perhaps the mistake I made is that I tried to continue onboarding thinking it will all be fine...

I'm the lucky guy who got transferred out. I opened the process with Interactive Brokers around the 4th August and got a note from them to say I must contact ITI asking them to contact IB to arrange the transfer. I then mailed the note with IB details to ITI on 15th August and on 18 August the transfer was done. I can't believe my luck and just wish I have also included my cash at the same time.

moneytroll

Danie6 said:

moneytroll said:

3. Only one person has reported a transfer has been carried out.

Oh really? So it's actually not totally out of the realms of this world? Any idea how long it took for them and which broker it was? Did they have to onboard first or have they rejected? Perhaps the mistake I made is that I tried to continue onboarding thinking it will all be fine...

I'm the lucky guy who got transferred out. I opened the process with Interactive Brokers around the 4th August and got a note from them to say I must contact ITI asking them to contact IB to arrange the transfer. I then mailed the note with IB details to ITI on 15th August and on 18 August the transfer was done. I can't believe my luck and just wish I have also included my cash at the same time.

Amazing that it's actually possible to do it so quickly. You didn't only beat all of us here but also every other transfer ever done in the history of brokerage :-) I never understood why the process should take 6 weeks when it technically can be done in a few days. 
Back to this broker...it seems by transferring accounts to Phoenix and at the same time dealing with transfer out requests is giving ITI twice the amount of work...Not clever.

johnburman

As I said Danie6 has some magic touch.  Nothing happening for me.  And I have not got any contracts from my manual transaction done by the trading desk a week ago to-day - Friday.  And this despite calling the desk 2 days ago and they promised to let me have one.  Something is VERY wrong wiht ITI.

johnburman

that's contract notes

pafpcg

collin618 said (on 27Aug at 13:42 on page 310):

Just received this from the FCA:
......

Info about the special administrators
The FCA did not select the purchaser of the SVS book. This was a decision made by the Joint Special Administrators (‘JSAs’).
The FCA reviewed the regulatory history for each firm presented to us by the JSAs as having an interest in taking on the SVS book of business, and discussed each with the JSAs.  Ultimately, this was a decision for the JSAs after consultation with the creditors’ committee and which was confirmed by the Court as part of the JSA’s Distribution Plan. 

..........

collin618, please preserve the original communication from FCA together with any associated trail of emails or letters.

This message contains a key acknowledgement that FCA were involved in the selection of ITI by reviewing the regulatory history of each firm.  Should the saga of the transfer of ex-SVS clients and their assets to ITI Capital become a formal complaint about FCA's actions (or lack of action), then the issue of whether ITI had the resources to process the volume of ex-SVS business (which is becoming evident that they don't) becomes important because having sufficient competent staff is a requirement for any firm to be authorised by the FCA.  If the FCA discussed each [firm] with Leonard Curtis (LC), then I would suggest that FCA were duty bound to advise LC that FCA-authorisation implies sufficient resources at the time of ITI's application for authorisation, but that LC had better check that ITI have the capacity to handle the volume of SVS business.  FCA also has the responsibility to continuously monitor all authorised firms that they meet the requirements for authorisation, something that the message implies FCA are now undertaking with ITI.

Moving on to murkier territory, it has been suggested on this forum that FCA vetoed one of the short-listed firms.   If true, then clearly FCA discussed each candidate firm about the extent of the firms' suitability, including their competence.  I doubt that LC would have included on the list of candidate firms any firm which was not already formally authorised by the FCA, so the discussion between FCA and LC would have had to go beyond merely "regulatory history".  Assuming of course that the veto by FCA is fact and not something leaked by LC to give the impression that LC had no choice but to select ITI.

The other issue which runs in parallel with FCA's involvement is the role of the Creditors' Committee.  I find it difficult to believe that, before the committee approved the Distribution Plan, no-one on that committee asked the JSAs "can ITI do the job?" and that the reply was not in the affirmative.

pafpcg

Danie6 said:

moneytroll said:

3. Only one person has reported a transfer has been carried out.

Oh really? So it's actually not totally out of the realms of this world? Any idea how long it took for them and which broker it was? Did they have to onboard first or have they rejected? Perhaps the mistake I made is that I tried to continue onboarding thinking it will all be fine...

I'm the lucky guy who got transferred out. I opened the process with Interactive Brokers around the 4th August and got a note from them to say I must contact ITI asking them to contact IB to arrange the transfer. I then mailed the note with IB details to ITI on 15th August and on 18 August the transfer was done. I can't believe my luck and just wish I have also included my cash at the same time.

If I recall correctly, Danie6 had a different approach from the beginning by opening an account at ITI prior to July 23rd.  Could this explain the "luck"?