SVS Securities - shut down?

johnburman

As above, LSE has some rules which it expects member companies to follow. That's the 'protection' that was probably advertised.

Actually no. I recollect the LSE's website (and I am going back 3 or 4 years) saying somethign about the reasosn why you shoudl use a Member, as it would give you protecton as the clients funds were segregated. It was to give comfort to new clients. I am sure I read it and I am sure it gave me comfort! But where is that webpage now?

masonic

johnburman wrote: »

I recollect the LSE's website (and I am going back 3 or 4 years) saying somethign about the reasosn why you shoudl use a Member, as it would give you protecton as the clients funds were segregated. It was to give comfort to new clients. I am sure I read it and I am sure it gave me comfort! But where is that webpage now?

That information is technically correct, because a Member must segregate client funds. It's part of being authorised by the FCA and doesn't just apply to LSE Members.

Firms that do not segregate client funds do not have permission to hold client funds. It is a condition of being authorised to hold client funds that a firm must follow CASS rules and protect these funds by segregating them from their own assets. This is nothing new, it was certainly the case 3 or 4 years ago.

So if you want a webpage with that assurance, you need look no further than the FCA Register:
https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000000MfNZkAAN

Expand the section titled 'Permission' and read the text in the section "Client Money" and note the permissions "Arranging safeguarding and administration of assets" and "Safeguarding and administration of assets (without arranging)".

Do those statements restore the comfort you sought on the LSE website?

johnburman

Tnx for that masonic but as I have said before there was a piece in the LSE website saying to clients and prospective clients of LSE Members that their investments were safe because Members segregated clients assets. They have to do anyway under CASS but this was a statement from the LSE. which I cannot now find? Any ideas where it is or has a copy?

AND whilst I am posting LC said they would keep us informed per their photocopied letter. And they haven't in my view. Why not?

manorhouse

Hi Masonic.
Have you an example of an administrator selling shares and giving the cash raised to owners of those shares.
I would think that would cause much more work and cost then transferring them to another company .

masonic

manorhouse wrote: »

Hi Masonic.
Have you an example of an administrator selling shares and giving the cash raised to owners of those shares.
I would think that would cause much more work and cost then transferring them to another company .

I'm not aware of an example of a firm dealing in mainstream investments failing and going down this route, no. There are plenty of examples of investment firms dealing in illiquid assets being forced down this path though.

In the case of SVS, it seems very likely the administrators will be able to find a firm willing to take on some additional customers. Presuming the ongoing investigation into the affairs of the company reveals CASS rules were followed and investments are present, correct and attributable to individual customers, then a transfer would be the preferred option for the reasons you outline.

masonic

johnburman wrote: »

Tnx for that masonic but as I have said before there was a piece in the LSE website saying to clients and prospective clients of LSE Members that their investments were safe because Members segregated clients assets. They have to do anyway under CASS but this was a statement from the LSE. which I cannot now find? Any ideas where it is or has a copy?

Here's a copy of the website from 2015: http://web.archive.org/web/20150203104125/http://www.londonstockexchange.com/home/homepage.htm/

Why not have a poke around and see if you can find it. I'm not sure why it matters whether they made the statement or not, given it was technically correct, and is based on regulatory rules that can be verified as applying to SVS through the Financial Services Register.

If you have searched high and low for this statement and cannot find it, then there is always the possibility you are misremembering and it never existed or you misinterpreted it.

AND whilst I am posting LC said they would keep us informed per their photocopied letter. And they haven't in my view. Why not?

Why do you suppose there is anything substantive to release regarding the ongoing investigation? It has been less than 2 weeks since the last update. Insolvencies typically last a year and have a 6 monthly reporting schedule. The next update you'll likely receive will be in 3-4 weeks time.

johnburman

You are right about ordinary administration but this is a Special Administration. The legal obligations on SAs are different and their obligation is to return client assets to their owners. Now they must check the assets and check ownership of them. And then they must actually get em to the owners.

My feeling is that LC are well used to ordinary administration but not SA. One example is that they feel the client base of 13.5k is large. It is not. It is small. Another is the hopeless helpline. A third is the paucity of info they have given. A fourth is their non reply to emails. Why did the FCA use LC? Cost to the Compensation Fund perhaps,?

masonic

johnburman wrote: »

You are right about ordinary administration but this is a Special Administration. The legal obligations on SAs are different and their obligation is to return client assets to their owners. Now they must check the assets and check ownership of them. And then they must actually get em to the owners.

The legal obligations you state above are the same, whether it is a SA or just an A. The administrators are in the process of doing exactly what you suggest.

My feeling is that LC are well used to ordinary administration but not SA. One example is that they feel the client base of 13.5k is large. It is not. It is small. Another is the hopeless helpline. A third is the paucity of info they have given. A fourth is their non reply to emails. Why did the FCA use LC? Cost to the Compensation Fund perhaps,?

Administrators will generally do a lot less work on SA's than A's. SA's must make up less than one in a hundred insolvencies. So better the devil you know - at least you haven't ended up with certain other firms who I've mentioned earlier in the thread.

I agree the helpline is a bit pointless, although some people need to be talked through some of the information released on the website and it does serve that purpose. I think it was a mistake to engage with individual investors by phone, but perhaps the FCA wanted the phone line set up so for those in genuine need of help understanding the written communications.

As to the "paucity of info" they have given, perhaps that's connected with the "paucity of info" available at this early stage of the process. Trust me when I say there isn't any information you could be given now that would enable to you achieve a better outcome from this situation.

I would hope the FCA consider the cost to the compensation fund when making their decisions, after all, the levies on financial firms are ultimately paid for by people like you and me. I don't want the money I pay into the system being wasted on pointless communications that will achieve nothing.

You may disagree, and I've pointed out how you can take things further if you wish to frustrate and delay the ongoing process in the hope someone else might be more communicative.

Anyway, I feel we've gone over the same ground quite a few times now. I don't see any value for me in continuing to respond to your posts, so take these as my parting words.

LEAR1

Had a call from an individual who purported to be Jason Cohen from HMRC. Told me he was working closely with the 'insolvency services' and wanted to have a discussion to ensure I was aware about how the demise of SVS might impact our tax planning.

I was going to keep him talking to see where he was going but got fed up when he started trying to tell me there was £30k tax free limit on ISAs!

Anyhow, I post as an fyi to be wary of his intentions if he calls...

johnburman

Lots of scammers about... And sharks looking for new business