SVS Securities - shut down?

Michael_Reynolds

Jamesram said:

Strictly we should have had access to our accounts from 11 June- But a deal agreed was for ITI to have UP TO 6 weeks to implement their systems and they took full advantage.  Don't forget they had been in agreement to purchase since on or before 7 April:-  

CLIENT UPDATE – 7 APRIL 2020     [from LC Download of that date]
"Positive Progress on Transfer
The Joint Special Administrators (the "Administrators") are pleased to inform clients that they have entered into an agreement (the "Transfer Agreement") with a nominated broker in respect of the transfer of the vast majority of SVS's custody assets and client money to that broker.
The nominated broker is a London Stock Exchange member firm and is an FCA regulated entity with all appropriate permissions for the transfer and holding custody assets and client money for clients".

They should have been fully operational by 23 July - no excuses!

Looks like you've researched this very carefully and therefore perhaps I'm wrong about the end date? I'm puzzled however given that the official date for ITI to send out the logins was July 24th? I actually received mine by email Sat Jul 25th. If I recall none of us could sight the holdings in our onboarding accounts until we completed the identity verification process by uploading the required proof documents to ITI's website? Once I'd done that I was able to gain full visibility of my onboarding account. My physical unit holldings were Exactly as per my SVS account agreed with Carl Lever at LC. The valuations were also all correct with the exception of two ex PIBS which were overvalued by a factor of 100. PIBS are quoted on the LSE per GBP100. I immediately raised a notification regarding this over valuation with ITI. My cash accounts were also correct apart from the five missing ishare dividends paid June 24th which LC didn't retreive from Crest until August 12th. I think this clearly proves that ITI's claim in their recent message to SVS Clients of Sept 11th regarding fractional transfers of holdings from LC to be a blatant lie. Cash accounts clearly did move on different dates but NOT portfolio unit holdings. I also think that under the terms of the sale agreement that ITI have to facilitate AIM Holdings. Our rights to approve the sale were waived by LC and the High Court. We were given mo choice in the matter of the sale to ITI, something I still find very hard to fathom?. My understanding is that it was ALL or Nothing for ITI.  They had to take the complete SVS database in it's entirety that includes AIM Holdings and Non resident SVS Clients. ITI didn't do any of the required due diliigence prior to signing the sale agreement and are now desperating trying to find excuses for their professional incompetence. I think we must assume that LC would have given ITI ample opportunity to inspect the contents of the SVS Clients database and would therefore have known that many Clients had AIM Holdings and some were non resident. These are all questions that LC must answer. and will have to if this all blows up in thier faces.

ahouse185

It might have been easier for ITI if they had taken onboard the SVS system, rebranded it and transferred their own clients to that system rather than trying to transfer SVS clients to the ITI system. The SVS system was reasonably good.

API45

Logged in again tonight both accounts incorrect no dividends showing despite receiving an email from ITI saying my accounts had been updated. Just sent a email highlighting a formal complaint to ITI, but I shall not hold my breath. What are we to do?
 I need access to MY savings ....... 

RasputinB

API45 said:

What are we to do?

1. make a claim for missing dividends to SVS Securities PLC (in special administration)

2. demand that the FCA confirm that dividend income is fully protected under CASS rules. That means that they must confirm that our dividend income is segregated and is not being used by ITI Capital.

Those are my thoughts. Maybe others have better ideas?

snipkin

ahouse185 said:

It might have been easier for ITI if they had taken onboard the SVS system, rebranded it and transferred their own clients to that system rather than trying to transfer SVS clients to the ITI system. The SVS system was reasonably good.

Yes!! This is sort of what I suggested recently. Yours is a better idea than what I suggested - that LC allowed SVS to continue under strict supervision so we could make an 'orderly' exit over, say, a six month period whilst still able to trade as before on the SVS system. The SVS online system - as far as I experienced it over many years - worked, it was intuitive and fast. And you could even fund an account with debit card or withdraw cash in minutes directly into your bank account without faffing around with pdf downloads etc.

Another related point that has played on my mind - please bear with me, I know it is all 'water under the bridge' - troubled waters perhaps... About the selection of ITI Capital as the broker to take over our SVS accounts. I am sure I read somewhere some months ago (perhaps on this forum - not sure) that Leonard Curtis had over 100 brokers interested in taking over the SVS client book. Out of these, LC selected 11 brokers on a shortlist. Out of these 11, three were chosen for final detailed review. One of these three dropped out. So LC were left with two brokers - one of which was ITI (of course the names of the brokers were never disclosed at the time).This was around end of October 2019. There was then a long wait - way past the promised announcement date - before the choice of ITI was finally announced in February 2020. HOWEVER, I am sure I read somewhere that LC rejected the other broker of the two because one of the directors/managers (can't remember) was a previous SVS staff member. Can anyone enlighten me on this? Perhaps that other broker would have been the better choice?? I understand that LC are now employing ex SVS staff to help ITI sort their mess out!!

As someone said (on the new ShareSoc forum) so clearly and simply that I burst out laughing - if ITI was the best choice, what were the others like??

Oh well, another week - will anything be different at the end of this week? Will this situation go on indefinitely? Have I had one too many cups of coffee this morning? There should be a deadline imposed on ITI by LC/FCA/FSCS/FOS/LSE/Trading Standards/Consumer Association/CAB - perhaps our own @Jamesram - or whoever will finally and actually take action.

shiznit76

I struggle to understand how the "super" Phoenix system can trade all sorts of holdings, except AIM's. Did LC know this when ITI were appointed? Surely AIM trading is very common/popular for small traders, why would it be such a unique demand?

RasputinB

shiznit76 said:

why would it be such a unique demand?

Maybe it costs ITI more than £7.95 to execute a trade on AIM?

My2penneth

snipkin said:

ahouse185 said:

It might have been easier for ITI if they had taken onboard the SVS system, rebranded it and transferred their own clients to that system rather than trying to transfer SVS clients to the ITI system. The SVS system was reasonably good.

Yes!! This is sort of what I suggested recently. Yours is a better idea than what I suggested - that LC allowed SVS to continue under strict supervision so we could make an 'orderly' exit over, say, a six month period whilst still able to trade as before on the SVS system. The SVS online system - as far as I experienced it over many years - worked, it was intuitive and fast. And you could even fund an account with debit card or withdraw cash in minutes directly into your bank account without faffing around with pdf downloads etc.

Another related point that has played on my mind - please bear with me, I know it is all 'water under the bridge' - troubled waters perhaps... About the selection of ITI Capital as the broker to take over our SVS accounts. I am sure I read somewhere some months ago (perhaps on this forum - not sure) that Leonard Curtis had over 100 brokers interested in taking over the SVS client book. Out of these, LC selected 11 brokers on a shortlist. Out of these 11, three were chosen for final detailed review. One of these three dropped out. So LC were left with two brokers - one of which was ITI (of course the names of the brokers were never disclosed at the time).This was around end of October 2019. There was then a long wait - way past the promised announcement date - before the choice of ITI was finally announced in February 2020. HOWEVER, I am sure I read somewhere that LC rejected the other broker of the two because one of the directors/managers (can't remember) was a previous SVS staff member. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

Perhaps that other broker would have been the better choice?? I understand that LC are now employing ex SVS staff to help ITI sort their mess out!!...5 taken on (3 customer service, 2 technical).



Oh well, another week - will anything be different at the end of this week??..pffft!,

Ex SVS director was what I was told by a LC representative. 

johnburman

I can't see how ITI can comply with the CASS Regulations if at the end of the day it has not allocated the correct dividend to the correct shareholdings of the correct client. But if I am right no transfers out can be made to new brokers. Mind you no transfers have been made.... Mmmmm 

Jamesram

Michael_Reynolds said on 13 Sept 11.03 pm

"...I'm puzzled however given that the official date for ITI to send out the logins was July 24th? I actually received mine by email Sat Jul 25th. If I recall none of us could sight the holdings in our onboarding accounts until we completed the identity verification process by uploading the required proof documents to ITI's website? Once I'd done that I was able to gain full visibility of my onboarding account. My physical unit holldings were Exactly as per my SVS account agreed with Carl Lever at LC. The valuations were also all correct with the exception of two ex PIBS which were overvalued by a factor of 100. PIBS are quoted on the LSE per GBP100. I immediately raised a notification regarding this over valuation with ITI. My cash accounts were also correct apart from the five missing ishare dividends paid June 24th which LC didn't retreive from Crest until August 12th. I think this clearly proves that ITI's claim in their recent message to SVS Clients of Sept 11th regarding fractional transfers of holdings from LC to be a blatant lie. Cash accounts clearly did move on different dates but NOT portfolio unit holdings. I also think that under the terms of the sale agreement that ITI have to facilitate AIM Holdings. Our rights to approve the sale were waived by LC and the High Court. We were given mo choice in the matter of the sale to ITI, something I still find very hard to fathom?. My understanding is that it was ALL or Nothing for ITI.  They had to take the complete SVS database in it's entirety that includes AIM Holdings and Non resident SVS Clients. ITI didn't do any of the required due diliigence prior to signing the sale agreement and are now desperating trying to find excuses for their professional incompetence. I think we must assume that LC would have given ITI ample opportunity to inspect the contents of the SVS Clients database and would therefore have known that many Clients had AIM Holdings and some were non resident. These are all questions that LC must answer. and will have to if this all blows up in thier faces"

This is LC's notification of 6 July,: NOTE these historical messages are all still available on the LC SVS website as PDF downloads so its easy to research

"22 – 23 July 2020

ITI to issue clients with temporary login credentials to complete the onboarding process, following which clients are expected to be able to access their transferred client assets and client money.
The temporary login credentials will be issued via email to clients for whom ITI holds email addresses and via post to clients for whom ITI does not hold email addresses.

The next steps-Once you have received your login credentials from ITI on or around 22/23 July 2020, you will be able to visit their website"

The cynical might observe the term "on or around"- LC already losing confidence in ITI, or just including the posting example? Anyway, there was definitely "slippage" from the start Here is Carl Lever mailing me at 6.40pm on 23 July -" Thank you for your email.  I understand that ITI will shortly be sending an email to all clients informing them that there has been a technical delay and it may be tomorrow before the on-boarding takes place."

You are absolutely right about due diligence issues, but is it not extraordinary that just on an informal basis all these professionals do not appear once to have said to each other "Look lads, a lot of these small SVS  XO punters have invested in AIM listed companies- we assume there is no problem here is there, given that a few years ago some brokers would not hold AIM stocks. I mean nowadays you can even hold them in an ISA, so there won't be any problems at ITI will there?"

I have raised the issue of AIM as a Formal Complaint to David Moss on 12 September - I think I posted a copy on this site then- if I search back now I will lose this Comment!

As to LC's position, I feel that it has already blown up in their faces. The question is how, at what level, how speedily, and with what remedy (if any) they can be brought to book officially. I was interested in the suggestion a few days ago that a complaint could be made to LC's governing body. I might look into that.