SVS Securities - shut down?

SteveJohnson56

My2penneth said:

They must be playing the  numbers game...." we opened xxxx thousand new SVS client accounts and only a few have been closed!"

With ii recently taken on 50k new customers from EQi for £48.5M, if ITI decides to offload ex-SVS customers the ii deal equates to approx. £1k each. Clearly ITI see some value to be had keeping us on their books although if escapees are no longer using the platform it's debatable how much value they could gain.

 https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-9338057/Interactive-Investor-snaps-personal-investing-accounts-Equiniti.html

In the meantime I note they have sent emails out, having changed the Phoenix account numbers from the PX to the SC account number.

RasputinB

The FCA wrote to brokers in September to remind them of their obligations regarding maintaining adequate client assets arrangements in the current environment.
It included this paragraph headed “Accuracy of recordkeeping” -
“Your firm must ensure that it has accurate records and accounts. To help maintain their accuracy, firms are required to conduct frequent reconciliations in a timely manner with all discrepancies and breaks appropriately recorded and resolved promptly. In particular, the client money reconciliations and custody reconciliations help verify the accuracy of the balances held for clients and confirm that they are held in client accounts.”
If you are a client of ITI and know that their recordkeeping is inaccurate you should (in my opinion) raise the matter with the FCA (0800 111 6768) and also make a formal complaint to the company. ITI has been restricted in receiving any new client money or custody assets from new clients since December.

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

Personally I still see the handover of responsibility for assets to ITI (that day) as significant, i.e. that FSCS statement effectively recognises that there may be legitimate claims relating to the administration period between August 2019 and July 2020, but it doesn't seem to me to open up the potential to claim for subsequent ITI-related problems..

But what if SVS did not properly discharge their responsibilities for the handover of assets to ITI? Also note that for a period (3 months plus?) after that day of transfer the transferees could still Reverse Transfer back to SVS.

There is a growing suspicion that as well as the known problems of transfer from ITI to new brokers there were problems with the custody transfer between SVS and ITI.

And I would argue that both companies had responsibilities relating to the assets after that day of transfer.  Mr Justice Miles allowed Leonard Curtis to carry out the transfer from one FCA regulated body to another FCA regulated body and, no doubt, worked on the assumption that FCA rules would be followed. But if SVS did not follow FCA / CASS rules for the transfer from them to ITI then any one of the 18,000 plus ex-SVS clients affected would have a legitimate complaint against SVS? That is against SVS; who are still required to have a complaint process as per the FCA Handbook.

Maybe Leonard Curtis is in a hurry to get a longstop date before ex-SVS clients work out how to make further claims despite having accepted offers from ITI?

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

Personally I still see the handover of responsibility for assets to ITI (that day) as significant, i.e. that FSCS statement effectively recognises that there may be legitimate claims relating to the administration period between August 2019 and July 2020, but it doesn't seem to me to open up the potential to claim for subsequent ITI-related problems..

But what if SVS did not properly discharge their responsibilities for the handover of assets to ITI? Also note that for a period (3 months plus?) after that day of transfer the transferees could still Reverse Transfer back to SVS.

There is a growing suspicion that as well as the known problems of transfer from ITI to new brokers there were problems with the custody transfer between SVS and ITI.

And I would argue that both companies had responsibilities relating to the assets after that day of transfer.  Mr Justice Miles allowed Leonard Curtis to carry out the transfer from one FCA regulated body to another FCA regulated body and, no doubt, worked on the assumption that FCA rules would be followed. But if SVS did not follow FCA / CASS rules for the transfer from them to ITI then any one of the 18,000 plus ex-SVS clients affected would have a legitimate complaint against SVS? That is against SVS; who are still required to have a complaint process as per the FCA Handbook.

Maybe Leonard Curtis is in a hurry to get a longstop date before ex-SVS clients work out how to make further claims despite having accepted offers from ITI?

I'm sure you're right that in some cases responsibility may not be obvious, so it may take some unpicking as to exactly who should be on the hook, but the bottom line remains that FSCS will only entertain claims that can be demonstrated to be the responsibility of the failed firm, so they won't be liable for anything that ITI have done (or failed to do).

RasputinB

Mary McDougall of the Investors Chronicle and FT highlighted in a recent article that “Pressure may be needed from the regulator to fix the issues” of lengthy platform transfers.
See the article here https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2021/04/12/time-for-the-fca-to-crack-down-on-platform-transfers/
To put pressure on the regulators we should all raise formal complaints, both with the stockbrokers and the regulators, whenever there are issues...whether or not our transfers have been completed.

"Mary would like folks to send her examples of their own experiences with broker/platform transfers so she can take up this problem with the regulators.” Please send her an email to mary.mcdougall@ft.com

Thrugelmir

RasputinB said:

To put pressure on the regulators we should all raise formal complaints, both with the stockbrokers and the regulators, whenever there are issues...whether or not our transfers have been completed.

That just wastes people's valuable time. Resources are finite. All that happens is that people complain their complaints aren't dealt with. Then spend their time complaining on MSE. 

RasputinB

Thrugelmir said:

That just wastes people's valuable time

Can I ask, what are you doing here? It looks like you make thousands of visits and posts. Are you employed by MoneySavingExpert or is there some other reason for your posts?

As to your negative attitude on raising complaints - what constructive advice would you give so that the system is improved and issues resolved? Maybe you think that the regulators already know how bad the situation is and are on the case?

Thrugelmir

RasputinB said:

Thrugelmir said:

That just wastes people's valuable time

Can I ask, what are you doing here? It looks like you make thousands of visits and posts. Are you employed by MoneySavingExpert or is there some other reason for your posts?

As to your negative attitude on raising complaints - what constructive advice would you give so that the system is improved and issues resolved? Maybe you think that the regulators already know how bad the situation is and are on the case?

I'm sure the problems are easily identifiable. Doesn't require a mass protest to fill email boxes with spam to improve matters. Over the years I have often found that the biggest complainers were often the least productive people when it came to their own jobs. After all organisations themselves are staffed by people. 
. 

Sheris

RasputinB said:

Thrugelmir said:

That just wastes people's valuable time

Can I ask, what are you doing here? It looks like you make thousands of visits and posts. Are you employed by MoneySavingExpert or is there some other reason for your posts?

As to your negative attitude on raising complaints - what constructive advice would you give so that the system is improved and issues resolved? Maybe you think that the regulators already know how bad the situation is and are on the case?

He is just a troll with no experience with the major issues with ITI Capital and how the ex SVS Clients have had to suffer.
     

RasputinB

I’d suggest that the power of complaints should not be underestimated, nor should the importance of transparency.

In my opinion it was due to the volume of complaints that FCA took action against ITI and stopped them taking on new clients.

Other posters on this forum were particularly keen on complaints being raised and also pointed in the direction of Trustpilot and made allegations that false postings were appearing in defence of ITI.

Around the same time long term posters at Money Savings Expert started posting what appeared to be illogical posts in order to suppress the efforts of “complainers”.