SVS Securities - shut down?

Sheris

eskbanker said:

Sheris said:

eskbanker

The FCA and LC was after the highest bidder in terms of monies, with no respect to the clients of SVS.
No homework or detail into ITI past history, should have accepted a lower bidder with a history for the transfer.
Incompetent is a understatement for the FCA and LC with unprofessional common sense what was always going to be the outcome.            

Out of curiosity, were the bid values published?

No they where not published, but a member of staff at LC was very helpful to me in telephone conversations with the required info and maybe stated to much, but the person was honest and not the same as the rest, also I was the whistleblower to the FCA in November 2021 as to the situation, within a few weeks ITI was stopped from taking on any new clients.      

tonyb42

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:
@tonyb42 is looking for a home for an ISA rather than a SIPP...
Oops! My mistake.
The link you provided goes on to say "You can transfer an ISA to another provider even if you are not resident in the UK".
If he can't find a provider then I guess that the assets simply need to come out of the ISA wrapper rather than be sold. As that isn't the fault of ITI it is doubtful that a claim could be made for the resultant inconvenience and / or tax problems?

"You can transfer an ISA to another provider even if you are not resident in the UK" - this is essentially what I'm looking for. I will hunt through the forums to see if this is a thread anywhere unless you know of one already started up?

tonyb42

"You can transfer an ISA to another provider even if you are not resident in the UK"

Which should also read "...if you had an another provider setup whilst still a UK resident" otherwise, good luck with that...

RasputinB

tonyb42 said:

"You can transfer an ISA to another provider even if you are not resident in the UK"

Which should also read "...if you had an another provider setup whilst still a UK resident" otherwise, good luck with that...

Yes, eskbanker highlighted the problem earlier – it is unlikely that a non UK resident can open a new ISA account and therefore unlikely that a transfer can be made.

I’ve never used them and they may be expensive but I see from https://www.redmayne.co.uk/faqs that they may open a stockbroking account for non-residents and that they also have ISAs. Maybe worth asking them if you can a) open an account b) transfer shares into a new ISA account with them. Their reply might confirm that it is impossible to do.

I must be missing something here because I can’t understand why a non UK resident would be very keen to hang on to an ISA as I assume that it makes no difference to the need, or otherwise, to report the income and any gains to the tax authority where you reside.

From the UK tax angle, I don’t think that a non UK resident has UK tax due on capital gains or income from share investments so there is little advantage in holding on to an ISA. There is a disadvantage if there are additional costs associated with an ISA.

Even if the plan is to return to the UK is it really worth holding on to an ISA? Hopefully it would have increased in value significantly so you’d have the advantage of a bigger ISA pot and then, as UK resident, the advantage of the tax-free environment is greater. But you lose any benefits from losses.

What I would plan to do on return to the UK (without an ISA) is to sell assets with gains before return (but after leaving the country where I am tax resident) so that there is no UK Capital Gains Tax to pay. After becoming UK tax resident I’d look at selling the loss-making shares (I have many!)  and use those losses to offset any future gains. I think that currently such losses can be carried forward indefinitely.

johnburman

Good advice from RasputinB but still in the short term for the non residents who have ISAs is there a recognised FSA regulated broker who takes on new accounts? 

tonyb42

johnburman said:

Good advice from RasputinB but still in the short term for the non residents who have ISAs is there a recognised FSA regulated broker who takes on new accounts? 

I've been a Barclays customer for over 30 years and since 2016 access my accounts from NZ, my last trip to the UK was 2019 and used my accounts as normal. They know my non UK resident status and I get a new bank card now and again at my NZ address. I thought there may be a chance they may look favorably on the ISA transfer, I'm a long standing customer and they have verified ID, AML checks etc and this is a historical ISA transfer so not a new ISA setup. I'm not a new 'customer' to Barclays so I will see if this gets me somewhere.

tonyb42

@RasputinBI must be missing something here because I can’t understand why a non UK resident would be very keen to hang on to an ISA as I assume that it makes no difference to the need, or otherwise, to report the income and any gains to the tax authority where you reside.

With the bit of tax I still have to pay, they work out better than anything in NZ as there is no tax free ISA equivalent, and dividends and most investment benefits in NZ are all taxed. One plus is there is no stamp duty/capital gains tax for shares and property sales here.

pafpcg

eskbanker said:

Sheris said:

eskbanker

The FCA and LC was after the highest bidder in terms of monies, with no respect to the clients of SVS.
No homework or detail into ITI past history, should have accepted a lower bidder with a history for the transfer.
Incompetent is a understatement for the FCA and LC with unprofessional common sense what was always going to be the outcome.            

Out of curiosity, were the bid values published?

The full figures haven't been published as far as I know.  The amount to be paid by ITI (aka the "nominated broker") was stated in the Distribution Plan (April-20) but was redacted. In Appendix B of the Second Progress Report (26-Aug-20), there was a payment of £80,000 (made in January 2020) which was the non-returnable deposit made by the Nominated Broker to LC; there should have been a further payment (the "Initial Consideration") paid by ITI to LC on completion of the formal transfer in June 2020 - I haven't been able to identify the payment.  So all I know is that ITI paid in excess of £80,000.

eskbanker

pafpcg said:

eskbanker said:

Sheris said:

eskbanker

The FCA and LC was after the highest bidder in terms of monies, with no respect to the clients of SVS.
No homework or detail into ITI past history, should have accepted a lower bidder with a history for the transfer.
Incompetent is a understatement for the FCA and LC with unprofessional common sense what was always going to be the outcome.            

Out of curiosity, were the bid values published?

The full figures haven't been published as far as I know.  The amount to be paid by ITI (aka the "nominated broker") was stated in the Distribution Plan (April-20) but was redacted. In Appendix B of the Second Progress Report (26-Aug-20), there was a payment of £80,000 (made in January 2020) which was the non-returnable deposit made by the Nominated Broker to LC; there should have been a further payment (the "Initial Consideration") paid by ITI to LC on completion of the formal transfer in June 2020 - I haven't been able to identify the payment.  So all I know is that ITI paid in excess of £80,000.

Fair enough, thanks - I suppose what I was really getting at was how did ITI's bid stack up against their fellow bidders (and who were they)?  The contention is that FCA/LC should have selected a better quality bid rather than the highest, but it's not clear to me exactly what that competition looked like at the time - perhaps it's all buried somewhere in the other 627 pages of this thread!

pafpcg

eskbanker said:

pafpcg said:

eskbanker said:

Sheris said:

eskbanker

The FCA and LC was after the highest bidder in terms of monies, with no respect to the clients of SVS.
No homework or detail into ITI past history, should have accepted a lower bidder with a history for the transfer.
Incompetent is a understatement for the FCA and LC with unprofessional common sense what was always going to be the outcome.            

Out of curiosity, were the bid values published?

The full figures haven't been published as far as I know.  The amount to be paid by ITI (aka the "nominated broker") was stated in the Distribution Plan (April-20) but was redacted. In Appendix B of the Second Progress Report (26-Aug-20), there was a payment of £80,000 (made in January 2020) which was the non-returnable deposit made by the Nominated Broker to LC; there should have been a further payment (the "Initial Consideration") paid by ITI to LC on completion of the formal transfer in June 2020 - I haven't been able to identify the payment.  So all I know is that ITI paid in excess of £80,000.

Fair enough, thanks - I suppose what I was really getting at was how did ITI's bid stack up against their fellow bidders (and who were they)?  The contention is that FCA/LC should have selected a better quality bid rather than the highest, but it's not clear to me exactly what that competition looked like at the time - perhaps it's all buried somewhere in the other 627 pages of this thread!

Found it! 

The selection process by Leonard Curtis, the Administrators, was outlined in a document "Frequently Asked Questions - Transfer to ITI Capital Ltd" dated 11-Jun-20.  Here's the relevant section:

"Q. WHY WAS ITI SELECTED?
 
As previously advised, the Administrators have concluded that the quickest and most cost-effective
way for Client Assets and Client Money to be returned to clients is by way of a transfer to a single
broker regulated by the FCA.
 
Following their appointment, the Administrators engaged a specialist marketing company with
relevant experience to undertake an accelerated marketing process to identify an appropriate single
broker to whom the Client Assets and Client Money held by the Company could be transferred.  
 
As part of the accelerated marketing process, a shortlist of over 100 potential bidders was created,
with company information being made available to those parties that expressed an interest in
participating in the transfer, subject to the receipt of a confidentiality undertaking. A deadline was
subsequently set for indicative offers, of which the Administrators received eleven from FCA
regulated firms. The Administrators considered those offers in conjunction with the overall strategy
and allowed the eleven potential bidders to conduct further due diligence, setting a further deadline
for best and final offers. Three parties submitted final offers, one of whom subsequently withdrew
from the bidding process. Further due diligence was then undertaken by the remaining two brokers
and negotiations undertaken with each party.
 
The Administrators subsequently selected ITI as the preferred broker for the transfer and the terms
of the proposed transfer were agreed between the parties (in the "Sale and Purchase Agreement").
A key factor in the Administrators' decision was the scope of the FCA permissions granted to ITI,
which made ITI a suitable broker to receive, and deal with, the variety of Client Assets and Client
Money held by the Company.
 
Following the completion of this process, ITI was selected as the preferred broker by the
Administrators without objection by the FSCS or the FCA.  The Creditors' Committee were also

consulted on the choice of ITI."

Note the curious wording in the final paragraph, presumably to absolve FSCS and FCA from any responsibility for the choice of ITI - not objecting does not imply a recommendation.

From my recollection, subsequent to the publication of the FAQ document, there was discussion in this forum thread in which someone claimed that LC had revealed that one of the three final bidders had been vetoed by the FCA because of the involvement of one of the ex-directors of SVS.  It's entirely possible that LC were selecting a bidder from a list of only one!