SVS Securities - shut down?

Sheris

Thrugelmir said:

gibson81 said:

 but they should have split the accounts up and found a better broker.

And your complaining about the length of time it's taken so far............

Perhaps the better broker issue is the one that customers should accept responsibility for. As was there choice at the outset. 

Customers should accept responsibility ? That's a very strange one. 

eskbanker

Sheris said:

Thrugelmir said:

gibson81 said:

 but they should have split the accounts up and found a better broker.

And your complaining about the length of time it's taken so far............

Perhaps the better broker issue is the one that customers should accept responsibility for. As was there choice at the outset. 

Customers should accept responsibility ? That's a very strange one. 

Presumably the point being that it's a bit ironic for someone who chose a poor broker (SVS) to castigate LC for choosing a poor broker (ITI)?

RasputinB

LC are a professional firm that knew exactly what they were doing when they chose ITI and took many precautions to avoid blame. They made quite sure that the responsibility for the ensuing mess was with ITI; a broker that did not have the resources, or sufficient motivation, to properly administer the SVS client accounts.

Did SVS have poor administration? Not in my experience.

justworriedabit

eskbanker said:

Sheris said:

Thrugelmir said:

gibson81 said:

 but they should have split the accounts up and found a better broker.

And your complaining about the length of time it's taken so far............

Perhaps the better broker issue is the one that customers should accept responsibility for. As was there choice at the outset. 

Customers should accept responsibility ? That's a very strange one. 

Presumably the point being that it's a bit ironic for someone who chose a poor broker (SVS) to castigate LC for choosing a poor broker (ITI)?

May I add that those that chose SVS regualated by the FCA then goes belly up because they did not follow the rules, SVS was then left with LC by the FCA, LC gave the business to ITI also regualted by the FCA, but you know the rest.
The good news is if you have been dealt a bad hand through no fault of you own as you chose a regulated broker, there is hope for you via the good old FOS.
There is good and bad news regarding the FOS who right wrongs for people that have been messed about through no fault of their own.

The good news re FOS.  The joker leading FOS has given up.
The bad news is. Please link below
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-9348191/Boss-Financial-Ombudsman-Service-quits-158-000-case-logjam.html

Thrugelmir

RasputinB said:

LC are a professional firm that knew exactly what they were doing when they chose ITI and took many precautions to avoid blame. 

Chose or where left with. Given the nature of SVS client base as a whole. With dissection not an option. May well have been a matter of Hobson's choice. 

RasputinB

Thrugelmir said:

RasputinB said:

LC are a professional firm that knew exactly what they were doing when they chose ITI and took many precautions to avoid blame. 

Chose or where left with. Given the nature of SVS client base as a whole. With dissection not an option. May well have been a matter of Hobson's choice.

I agree, it may have been a matter of Hobson's choice but in my view it was a matter of expediency - and the cash coming in from ITI. Having selected ITI what did LC do to ensure that SVS clients got a reasonable service towards the stated aim of getting assets back to clients?
Making all SVS administration staff redundant before their jobs were finished is just one example of LC's attitude.
Maybe they thought "if client's were dumb enough to go to SVS we won't have much problem shepherding them to ITI."? Your previous comments appear to be in accordance with that sentiment.

gibson81

Thrugelmir said:

gibson81 said:

 but they should have split the accounts up and found a better broker.

And your complaining about the length of time it's taken so far............

Perhaps the better broker issue is the one that customers should accept responsibility for. As was there choice at the outset. 

I don't believe we ever had any choice about where our accounts would end up. My understanding in previous broker administrations, is different types of accounts have been split between different companies. SVS had lots of FX trading accounts which I understand were appealing to ITI Capital. They simply aren't interested in people like me, who trade about half a dozen times a year with a buy and hold approach to investing, which is why they have shown total indifference.

My point being, the experts at LC should have foresaw this and done something about it.

Sheris

RasputinB said:

LC are a professional firm that knew exactly what they were doing when they chose ITI and took many precautions to avoid blame. They made quite sure that the responsibility for the ensuing mess was with ITI; a broker that did not have the resources, or sufficient motivation, to properly administer the SVS client accounts.

Did SVS have poor administration? Not in my experience.

Fully agree with you, never had a problem with SVS in 9 years until the shut down, experienced more issues with H&L previous to SVS.
Some people talk to much without the experience and facts.  

pafpcg

Have those that are complaining about LC's choices forgotten what the role of the administrator is in the liquidation of a company?  The primary objective is to maximise the return for the creditors of the liquidated company - the wishes of the ex-clients brings little financial benefit for the creditors! 

The administrator is almost duty bound to accept the highest bid for the remnants of the liquidated company.  That LC were able to find anyone willing to pay a substantial sum for the client base of SVS must have delighted the creditors.  The fact that the administrator's choice has brought considerable difficulty for us as ex-SVS clients is an irrevelance. 

Welcome to the world of insolvency practitioners!

RasputinB

pafpcg said:

Have those that are complaining about LC's choices forgotten what the role of the administrator is in the liquidation of a company?  The primary objective is to maximise the return for the creditors of the liquidated company ...

The following is from the court judgement of Mr Justice Miles - "Regulation 10 provides that a special administrator has three special administration objectives. Objective 1 is to ensure the return of client assets as soon as is reasonably practicable".