SVS Securities - shut down?

RasputinB

DRN-3112315 at Ombudsman decisions (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

WisdomTree Physical Silver is an Exchange-Traded Commodity (ETC) which has the ISIN JE00B1VS3333 and a base currency of USD

A Fact Sheet on this fund is available at WisdomTree.eu.

It shows that the PHSP Exchange Ticker is for the GBP version of this fund and PHAG is the Exchange Ticker for the USD version.

The ombudsman refers to "ETF Security (PHSP)" and as shown above, this would be the GBP denominated version.

The complaint was that "ITI changed her British Pounds (GBP) Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) to a US Dollars (USD) ETF without her permission or consent".

The investigator was "satisfied that ITI has demonstrated that ETF Security (PHSP) was already in USD when it was migrated from the previous platform to ITI".

From what I have found I think that statement is incorrect as if it "was already in USD" it would have had the ticker PHAG, not PHSP.

The ombudsman said -

"Based on what ITI says, on balance it seems more likely (than not) the ETF Security (PHSP) was held in USD, prior to the take-over by ITI. So, it would be reasonable to expect that’s how the transfer would take place. I note in addition to providing screenshot of the holdings on the day of the migration, ITI says: “This was received from (the previous provider) on 23 June 2020, you will see that it was received and held on the account as USD”.

Despite what Mr J says, in the circumstances, and on balance, I think it would be unreasonable to ask ITI to convert the USD to GBP. I’m mindful that despite what Ms J and Mr J say, neither have provided any evidence that the EFT Security (PHSP) was previously held in GBP."

But surely if the holding had the ticker symbol PHSP it was held in GBP and if transferred to ITI in USD it would have had the ticker symbol PHAG?

I think it much more likely that this ETC was in GBP at SVS and when transferred it reverted to the default USD version, or it was converted for the convenience of SVS or ITI.

This was not necessarily to the detriment of Mr J but does raise an interesting issue.

An issue that relates to other WisdomTree holdings (of which there were about 88 in total); and to all other assets that may have incurred an undisclosed currency change.

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

How did you present and structure your claim?

Badly. I don't remember the exact wording from the FOS but they turned down my request for consideration of compensation for the time I had spent on my claim on the basis that the time and costs in putting together a claim was all part of the necessary process for making a claim. Looking at the decision database I see that in DRN9286779 the ombudsman said "We don’t normally make awards for the normal costs involved in pursuing a complaint, including time and telephone." That does seem to be at odds with "Hidden in its compensation guidelines, it states it will award compensation for the time you've spent resolving your complaint". My guess is that you and masonic are right; so how did Money Saving Expert get it wrong? (I'll leave you check dates if relevant!) Shouldn't the FOS give clarity and be consistent so that even the duller ones of us know where we stand?

The wording of FOS guidelines will naturally evolve over time, and I haven't researched its full history, or that of the MSE page, although the ever-handy Web Archive site is a useful tool for those minded to do this!

http://web.archive.org/web/20181118213754/https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/distress-and-inconvenience.htm is the version still published in 2019, and to me the word 'occasionally' is important, and is certainly at odds with MSE's interpretation that FOS will compensate for time spent:

Occasionally, we decide that the time someone has spent trying to resolve their complaint means they should be awarded compensation for their time.

We usually ask people to provide evidence of the time they’ve spent. And to decide a fair amount of compensation, we’ll consider the overall impact that spending this time had on the consumer. We won’t usually award compensation for specific “units” of time (although there have been a few cases where we decided this was necessary).

Compensating someone for their time isn’t the same as refunding any costs they incurred when making a complaint - such as the cost of postage or phone calls. These are a financial loss to someone - money they’ve spent trying to resolve the complaint.

I quoted their current guidance on this on the previous page, but suspect that it won't give the clarity you seek - however, going back to the earlier discussion regarding complaints about complaints, I wonder if they recognise time spent pursuing the issue being complained about, but not for actually making the complaint itself?

RasputinB said:

johnburman said:

The FOS time limit for claiming may or may not have expired depending on your circumstances. The county court small claims has a six years claim period.

I think that the time limit for making a claim (to the institution) is 6 years after you are aware of the issue.

It's six years after the event complained of or (if later) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint.

masonic

RasputinB said:

masonic said:

RasputinB said:

5. The ombudsman said that “I’m satisfied that this [compensation] adequately reflects the time and effort put in by Mr M to try and resolve the issues, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused”. In my complaint the ombudsman refused to consider compensation for my time and effort despite my referring to the statement “You can charge for your time. Hidden in its compensation guidelines, it states it will award compensation for the time you've spent resolving your complaint.” which can be found here https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/fight-back-fos/ 

Within that MSE guide, it expands on the point about claiming for time spent with: "However it won't usually award this as an hourly or daily rate. Instead it will take into account the overall impact the time spent has had on you."

This is all wrapped up in the compensation scales for non-financial losses, which have been cited here several times. You should communicate in your complaint the amount of time and effort you have needed to spend trying to sort out the issues, but you cannot attach an hourly rate, nor argue that, for example, two one hour phonecalls warrant double the compensation of a single one hour phonecall. Awarding an amount for non-financial loss, incorporating time/effort/distress/inconvenience as a whole, is normal. You would not be the first person to get a knee-jerk response refusing to consider an itemised list of charges for time over a complaint, and it can be quite difficult to walk it back once met with this objection. This has been seen elsewhere in relation to different companies.

So what do you make of an ombudsman stating "we don’t usually make awards for the normal costs involved in pursuing a complaint, including postage, telephone calls and time" in DRN9030524 ?

What I make of DRN9030524 is that it seems consistent with "Instead, it will take into account the overall impact the time spent has had on you." It certainly is consistent with my previous explanation of it being wrapped up in the £100 awarded for distress and inconvenience.

Just out of interest, I believe I may know Mr K and that we discussed his complaint on this forum. A number of us transferred from HL to II at around the same time following announcement of a hike in charges, and while I only suffered a painfully slow 14 week in specie transfer (which wasn't worth pursuing in my view), some others were not so lucky, including one whose transfer request was sent to the wrong company. Several complained to FOS, and feedback they received at that time was broadly in line with this decision - that they wouldn't entertain an invoice of charges for pursuing the complaint.

However, it may interest you to learn that in a subsequent FOS complaint I made against TSB Bank following their IT meltdown, I received the following in my decision letter (not an Ombudsman decision, so no DRN):

"...Thank you for getting in touch to let us know about the problems that TSB’s IT issues have caused you.  As you’ll probably know from the media coverage, these issues have affected a lot of people. It’s clear this has had an impact on you.
I’ve thought about everything you’ve told us – and that’s helped me decide what I think TSB should do to put things right for you. It might help if I briefly explain how I’ve done this – broadly, I’ve considered three different things:
-          what financial loss you’ve incurred;
-          what impact this has had on you; and
-          any other problems that have been caused by the IT issues.
what is a financial loss?
This is any loss caused, either directly or indirectly, by the IT issues. Examples of this could be the cost of phone calls if someone’s had to call TSB, parking charges if someone’s had to visit a branch, or late payment charges if any payments were missed because of the IT issues

...

what this means for you
Based on what you’ve told me, and bearing in mind what I’ve said above, I’ve recommended to TSB that it pay you:
- £2 for the financial loss you’ve incurred; this is because you said you were charged this amount for your calls to TSB
- £150 for the impact this matter has had on you..."

I would put it to you that the reason I was able to get the cost of my phonecalls refunded, even though I was calling TSB to complain, is that I framed them as part of the issue I was complaining about, rather than a complaint about the complaints process. I had learned from the prior experience involving HL-II transfer complaints, as well as others I had read about, that complaints about complaints seem to raise red flags at the FOS, and once they perceive things in a certain way, it can be difficult to convince them otherwise. I did not attempt to ask for compensation for time spent trying to call TSB.

masonic

RasputinB said:

masonic said:  I expect anyone who has been following this thread will have acted by now if they will at all.

You are likely correct but in my view it is still too early to put in a final claim. One reason is because of the continuing issues at ITI.

As I understand it, there were broadly two groups of investors embroiled in this situation, those that wished to get away from ITI as soon as possible (hopefully all have been successful by now), and those that were lured in by the price matching and decided to stick around for a while. The first group, assuming they did get away, have no reason to delay pursuing their complaint based on the overall experience, while the second group are quite entitled to pursue the complaints about the migration to ITI, ongoing issues experienced while at ITI, and the experience of leaving when they finally do see sense, as they arise. It is not necessarily a bad thing to do this, and FOS can help to apply pressure for ongoing issues to be resolved if engaged at a time prior to the end game.

It is also pertinent to mention that you only have 6 months from receiving a final response from the business to put in a claim to the FOS. You don't have a great deal of control over when the business issues the final response, but it will not be more than 8 weeks after you initially complain to the business. If you decide to subject yourself to months of problems at the hands of the business without bringing this to their attention or giving them an opportunity to put it right for you, then I can't imagine that would be viewed very favourably by the FOS. They could take it as being opportunistic, to maximise the perceived impact in order to obtain a larger compensation amount. A general principle is that you should act where possible in a way that reduces the impact an issue has on you.

masonic

RasputinB said:

DRN-3112315 at Ombudsman decisions (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

WisdomTree Physical Silver is an Exchange-Traded Commodity (ETC) which has the ISIN JE00B1VS3333 and a base currency of USD

A Fact Sheet on this fund is available at WisdomTree.eu.

It shows that the PHSP Exchange Ticker is for the GBP version of this fund and PHAG is the Exchange Ticker for the USD version.

The ombudsman refers to "ETF Security (PHSP)" and as shown above, this would be the GBP denominated version.

The complaint was that "ITI changed her British Pounds (GBP) Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) to a US Dollars (USD) ETF without her permission or consent".

The investigator was "satisfied that ITI has demonstrated that ETF Security (PHSP) was already in USD when it was migrated from the previous platform to ITI".

From what I have found I think that statement is incorrect as if it "was already in USD" it would have had the ticker PHAG, not PHSP.

The ombudsman said -

"Based on what ITI says, on balance it seems more likely (than not) the ETF Security (PHSP) was held in USD, prior to the take-over by ITI. So, it would be reasonable to expect that’s how the transfer would take place. I note in addition to providing screenshot of the holdings on the day of the migration, ITI says: “This was received from (the previous provider) on 23 June 2020, you will see that it was received and held on the account as USD”.

Despite what Mr J says, in the circumstances, and on balance, I think it would be unreasonable to ask ITI to convert the USD to GBP. I’m mindful that despite what Ms J and Mr J say, neither have provided any evidence that the EFT Security (PHSP) was previously held in GBP."

But surely if the holding had the ticker symbol PHSP it was held in GBP and if transferred to ITI in USD it would have had the ticker symbol PHAG?

I think it much more likely that this ETC was in GBP at SVS and when transferred it reverted to the default USD version, or it was converted for the convenience of SVS or ITI.

This was not necessarily to the detriment of Mr J but does raise an interesting issue.

An issue that relates to other WisdomTree holdings (of which there were about 88 in total); and to all other assets that may have incurred an undisclosed currency change.

It's not uncommon for ETF/ETCs that available on multiple exchanges and in multiple trading currencies to have some overlap between ticker symbols. To prove which version was held at SVS, all that would be needed is a relevant contract note. This would identify the precise financial instrument by ISIN. Job done. It is therefore unfortunate that Mr J didn't provide this evidence, or ask someone about the matter who could have helped him back up what he was saying with evidence.

The matter of whether a conversion from one class to another would have been permissible as a necessary element of the transfer is another matter. I find it hard to believe the GBP version was unavailable at ITI.

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

I think it much more likely that this ETC was in GBP at SVS and when transferred it reverted to the default USD version, or it was converted for the convenience of SVS or ITI.

This was not necessarily to the detriment of Mr J but does raise an interesting issue.

An issue that relates to other WisdomTree holdings (of which there were about 88 in total); and to all other assets that may have incurred an undisclosed currency change.

Are you basing that opinion solely on the FOS using the ticker symbol for the GBP version instead of the USD one?  I'd suggest that it's as least as likely to be the ombudsman (who also erroneously labels it as an 'EFT') erring in using the same symbol for both versions in the mistaken belief that it's a generic descriptor - note that this is the same ombudsman who published a rather mangled description of the other case discussed at length over the past few pages!

As ever, we're not seeing the full picture when reading the summarised decisions, and it would appear that ITI were able to supply screenshot data that supported their case (perhaps the cynic might contend forgery....) while the complainant was seemingly unable to produce anything to support her assertion that SVS held the GBP variant, which should have been evidenced by contract notes, statements, etc.  Obviously there's some scepticism about the basis of some FOS decisions, but when all is said and done, they're the ones who actually see the evidence presented, and make a judgement call about which of two contradictory versions is more credible, so perhaps the lesson is for all investors to ensure that they retain sufficient documentary proof of their holdings?

RasputinB

eskbanker said:
I wonder if they recognise time spent pursuing the issue being complained about, but not for actually making the complaint itself?

That would make sense. I'll try to remember this point and if I am ever in a similar situation I'll keep a record of my time and costs in resolving the issue separate from those relating to dealing with the complaint.

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

RasputinB said:

I think it much more likely that this ETC was in GBP at SVS and when transferred it reverted to the default USD version, or it was converted for the convenience of SVS or ITI.

This was not necessarily to the detriment of Mr J but does raise an interesting issue.

An issue that relates to other WisdomTree holdings (of which there were about 88 in total); and to all other assets that may have incurred an undisclosed currency change.

Are you basing that opinion solely on the FOS using the ticker symbol for the GBP version instead of the USD one?  I'd suggest that it's as least as likely to be the ombudsman (who also erroneously labels it as an 'EFT') erring in using the same symbol for both versions in the mistaken belief that it's a generic descriptor - note that this is the same ombudsman who published a rather mangled description of the other case discussed at length over the past few pages!

As ever, we're not seeing the full picture when reading the summarised decisions, and it would appear that ITI were able to supply screenshot data that supported their case (perhaps the cynic might contend forgery....) while the complainant was seemingly unable to produce anything to support her assertion that SVS held the GBP variant, which should have been evidenced by contract notes, statements, etc.  Obviously there's some scepticism about the basis of some FOS decisions, but when all is said and done, they're the ones who actually see the evidence presented, and make a judgement call about which of two contradictory versions is more credible, so perhaps the lesson is for all investors to ensure that they retain sufficient documentary proof of their holdings?

Are you basing that opinion solely on the FOS using the ticker symbol for the GBP version instead of the USD one?
No, but I do think it pretty convincing as the ticker for the default version is PHAG.
When my assets were with ITI there was a mysterious change in the currency status for one or two holdings which was rectified when they went to new custodians. The information in this decision suggests to me that, at the time of the transfer from SVS, some assets reverted to default currencies. I don't know why this would have happened but think it might have been due to the transfer process. With these WisdomTree holdings they might have been transferred in a block as JE00B1VS3333 when if they had been transferred as client holdings under ticker PHSP etc. they would have been more likely to retain the currency version.
In an ideal situation ITI would have clarified with each holder. For those of us without an associated USD account I think it would have been pretty obvious that we would expect any dividends etc. to be in GBP.
Those resident in the UK might suffer added complications due to having to convert to GBP for their tax returns.
Irrespective of whether or not ITI were at fault for transfers coming to them in a way that lost the currency status they should have flagged up the issue and advised any affected clients accordingly.
[Edited to add - the claimant might have decided not to bother to provide further evidence if the change from GBP to USD was an advantage if the value of GBP against USD had fallen, or was thought likely to fall.]

masonic

RasputinB said:

When my assets were with ITI there was a mysterious change in the currency status for one or two holdings which was rectified when they went to new custodians. The information in this decision suggests to me that, at the time of the transfer from SVS, some assets reverted to default currencies. I don't know why this would have happened but think it might have been due to the transfer process. With these WisdomTree holdings they might have been transferred in a block as JE00B1VS3333 when if they had been transferred as client holdings under ticker PHSP etc. they would have been more likely to retain the currency version.
In an ideal situation ITI would have clarified with each holder.

When a customer is engaged in an arranged in specie transfer to a different provider, these issues are normally communicated up front. Sometimes a holding must be submitted for a conversion to a different class of the same instrument in order to be held at the gaining platform. It is not that the customer can choose, but they could decline the transfer entirely. In this case the customer would not be at liberty to decline the transfer of their account, but I agree with you that being informed of the change is a reasonable expectation, if indeed such a change happened.

RasputinB said:

For those of us without an associated USD account I think it would have been pretty obvious that we would expect any dividends etc. to be in GBP.
Those resident in the UK might suffer added complications due to having to convert to GBP for their tax returns.
Irrespective of whether or not ITI were at fault for transfers coming to them in a way that lost the currency status they should have flagged up the issue and advised any affected clients accordingly.

The trading currency of the ETF is irrelevant when it comes to the payment of dividends. Dividends are normally distributed in the base currency of the ETF, which for PHSP is USD. At SVS, these would have been converted to GBP by SVS (with some forex conversion charge) before being paid to the investor's account. If Mr J is asserting that the holding is PHAG just because he is now receiving dividends in USD, then that is an erroneous inference. He is now receiving dividends in USD because ITI permit this to happen without an enforced currency conversion, whereas SVS did not.

RasputinB

masonic said:

RasputinB said:

When my assets were with ITI there was a mysterious change in the currency status for one or two holdings which was rectified when they went to new custodians. The information in this decision suggests to me that, at the time of the transfer from SVS, some assets reverted to default currencies. I don't know why this would have happened but think it might have been due to the transfer process. With these WisdomTree holdings they might have been transferred in a block as JE00B1VS3333 when if they had been transferred as client holdings under ticker PHSP etc. they would have been more likely to retain the currency version.
In an ideal situation ITI would have clarified with each holder.

When a customer is engaged in an arranged in specie transfer to a different provider, these issues are normally communicated up front. Sometimes a holding must be submitted for a conversion to a different class of the same instrument in order to be held at the gaining platform. It is not that the customer can choose, but they could decline the transfer entirely. In this case the customer would not be at liberty to decline the transfer of their account, but I agree with you that being informed of the change is a reasonable expectation, if indeed such a change happened.

RasputinB said:

For those of us without an associated USD account I think it would have been pretty obvious that we would expect any dividends etc. to be in GBP.
Those resident in the UK might suffer added complications due to having to convert to GBP for their tax returns.
Irrespective of whether or not ITI were at fault for transfers coming to them in a way that lost the currency status they should have flagged up the issue and advised any affected clients accordingly.

The trading currency of the ETF is irrelevant when it comes to the payment of dividends. Dividends are normally distributed in the base currency of the ETF, which for PHSP is USD. At SVS, these would have been converted to GBP by SVS (with some forex conversion charge) before being paid to the investor's account. If Mr J is asserting that the holding is PHAG just because he is now receiving dividends in USD, then that is an erroneous inference. He is now receiving dividends in USD because ITI permit this to happen without an enforced currency conversion, whereas SVS did not.

My apologies if I have confused matters. eskbanker asked me if was basing my opinion solely on the use of the ticker symbol and I explained that a couple of my assets had a changed currency status. It was this that resulted in dividends not being received in the expected currency. I've not yet got up to speed on this but so far my research suggests that where there is an option for dividends to be paid in a different currency an instruction is evergreen. For example if you hold Hikma Pharmaceuticals Plc (Ticker HIK.L) the default currency for dividends is in USD. You can elect to have dividends paid in GBP and once that election has been made the registrar will only change it at the shareholder’s request. See https://www.hikma.com/media/2090/181023-dividend-faqs.pdf

It follows that holders of Hikma at SVS who had chosen to receive their dividends in GBP should still have received them in GBP after transfer. If “ownership” had changed then they might have reverted to the default currency of USD but SVS (LC) and / or ITI should have advised if this is what happened.

In my case there was a shortfall in expected dividends and I am still waiting for ITI to explain. It might be because the dividends were received in USD and converted by them to GBP. If so this should be clear from accurate account statements; which ITI haven’t yet provided.