SVS Securities - shut down?

masonic

RasputinB said:

masonic said:

RasputinB said:

masonic said:

RasputinB said:

Regarding the second point I wonder if clients who haven't got their assets back will simply be dumped. My understanding is that SVS clients legally "got their assets back" when LC transferred them to ITI Capital. If the clients haven't managed to get around to extracting their holdings from ITI surely it is expecting too much to expect ITI (or their independent third party) to now get transfers of suspended shares executed or certificates etc. on the way before the plug is pulled?

We should take care not to confuse parties here. SVS legally returned all assets to clients on the Settlement Date of the transfer, so thereafter SVS has no liability to clients. ITI on the other hand took on that responsibility at the same time, and, while they remain solvent, are the legal custodians of any remaining assets owned by clients. Clients have a legal claim to those assets until such time as ITI enters administration, at which point clients would have to go through another iteration of the process. If they can get in earlier than that, and extract share certificates with the help of the FOS, so much the better. I don't think anyone has to (or should) relinquish their claim to their assets currently held by ITI.

I agree that no one has to relinquish their claim to their assets currently held by ITI. I was thinking more of the practicalities. Will people be prepared to go through the hassle of insisting that ITI be responsible for returning those assets and do this in time? If ITI goes into administration what hope of claiming compensation through the Financial Services Compensation Scheme when the shares are unlisted and any value difficult, if not impossible, to obtain?
If the unlisted holdings are transferred to a new broker in due course would clients be prepared to pay any holding charges?

Each client would need to take a view based on their circumstances, but if all ITI is left holding is a small number of delisted shares for a handful of retail clients, then it would be surprising if these were bulk transferred to a new broker rather than rematerialised. It doesn't appear anyone was subjected to their suspended holdings being valued for FSCS compensation rather than returned to them (even if returned in this instance meant passing the buck to another nominee).

If the shares are eventually deemed worthless, either through the companies liquidating or them being valued at 0p for FSCS compensation, then that would create a loss that can be used for CGT relief in the future, whereas until that point they are in limbo. The danger would be in them being declared worthless prematurely and them going on to be relisted, at which point there may be no way to claim them back. That's why I would favour taking a complaint the FOS in order to apply more pressure if ITI is unwilling or unable to fill out a different kind of stock transfer form to have the shares re-registered to the beneficial owner.

I agree that it should be possible to rematerialise shares but kencom did say that "I cannot get share certificates for either share & neither of these share companies are contactable". I doubt that ITI or their third party / administrators will try any harder but I am happy to be proved wrong.

Every listed company has a company serving as its registrar. The registrar deals with record keeping related to ownership of the shares. I've not seen anything posted by kencom that suggests the registrar in this case (rather than the suspended company) was contacted. Of course, only an authorised representative of ITI's nominee company could enter into discussion about shares currently registered to the nominee, but the appropriate registrar could probably confirm to anyone whether it is able to re-register (and rematerialise) shares in the company in question.

RasputinB said:

I also agree about taking a complaint to the FOS in order to apply more pressure on ITI.
The data from LC's transfer list shows that there were about 2,700 holdings marked as delisted / unlisted / in administration / cancelled / suspended etc. I wonder how many of those have actually been dealt with and suspect that many are still on ITI's dubious QORT system. My guess is that most holders have written them off. or will, do so.
Regarding valuation for CGT losses I know that HMRC have a list of shares deemed to be of Nil Value. The timing and value of crystallised loss for the type of share we are talking about would probably come down to negotiation so, yes, a value of 0p for FSCS compensation would help. What I normally do is to take a view, fully document it on my Tax Return, and if HMRC don't come back to me then I assume their agreement. If the amount of tax is significant then I'd try to get a preliminary view from them.

That sounds like a useful approach to take. The concern I'd have is if the shares do go on to have value, and there is no official declaration that they are irrecoverable and written down to 0p (or even if formerly treated as being worthless by FSCS), it becomes tricky, as you end up being deprived of an asset that has value, but may no longer have a claim to the assets under FSCS rules. I suppose there isn't much point thinking about this until all efforts to extract the assets from ITI, or satisfactory compensation for giving them up from FOS, have failed.

Unmentionable

I've been lurking on this thread since the initial SVS debacle and decided to finally sign up and add my experiences.

Having tried to transfer away from ITI into IWEB in late 2020 with no progress (IWEB tell me they tried to contact ITI 8 times without response and then closed the transfer in June '21) I've decided to have another go (considering the circumstances).

After a couple of weeks, IWEB send me a letter saying "On this occassion we cannot proceed with your transfer due to some security risks identified, which prevent us from corresponding and sharing customer information with this particular company"

I've phoned IWEB several times in the last few days and got a range of different answers about what this means, including:
"FCA rules prevent us from proceeding with the transfer"
"ITI don't have a business in the UK and so they can't use the CREST system"
"[IWEB] cannot speak to [ITI] / are not able to get in contact"
They also say this will be the situation for the foreseeable future.
It's quite clear that those answering the phones and their direct supervisors (who they've conferred with) have not been given the full reason by upper management, and there doesn't seem to be a forthcoming way to escalate.
My guess (and it's only a guess) is that they are sick of ITI being so slow and cumbersome and have issued a blanket rule to decline transfers.
I've essentially given up on trying the IWEB route.

I also spoke to the FCA and they say there are no restrictions on ITI which would prevent a transfer out.

Finally, I've now set up an account with H&L who I spoke to on the phone. They assured me that they are having no issues transferring from ITI (besides the usual paper form based system ITI insist on), so that request away in the post.

Has anyone else had the same recent issue with IWEB or found a broker that can successfully extract their investments from ITI recently?

johnburman

It would be very wrong for iWeb to refuse to accept a transfer 

I would venture that would put them in breach with the FCA and tax rules on ISA s

But why were you so silly as to keep anything with ITI. Also Jarvis are smaller but seem to be OK to deal with. HL are a bit expensive 

masonic

It is not a requirement for an investment firm to accept transfers from others, and iWeb stopped accepting transfers for a period of time last year. In general, ISA managers do not have to accept transfers from other ISA managers. A number do not.

It sounds like iWeb have got the wrong ITI. Especially from the comment that "ITI don't have a business in the UK". If the details for ITI were pre-populated from their online system, it might be worth checking them over. iWeb are not renowned for their transfer service. They were a real mess in late 2020 - end of 2021, with many complaining of transfers grinding to a halt.

RasputinB

Unmentionable said:

IWEB [sent] me a letter saying "On this occassion we cannot proceed with your transfer due to some security risks identified, which prevent us from corresponding and sharing customer information with this particular company"

If IWEB have identified security risks have they communicated these to the ICO? 

jenwrendorset

Since my last post on 13 August I've now received an email back from the FCA and although very informative and it confirmed that they fully understood my concerns/problem sadly they were unable to intervene but my comments have been forwarded etc. etc.  I actually didn't expect anything different but I thought it was a box that should be ticked.  Likewise with LC, they too responded but I lost the will to live half-way through their email but the gist of it was that I won't get any change from them so the last player standing is the FOS so I wait to be surprised - ITI has yet to answer any of my 3 emails so I hope this makes some impression with the FOS, there is just over two weeks before ITI pulls the plug so time is not on our side.

johnburman

A few points.

I have just seen the Panorama programme about Blackmore Bonds and the damning criticism of the FCA.  Thank goodness we all were not in the position of the people on the programme who lost savings.

But the way the FCA operates is the same and I wonder if the ITI story would be of interest to journalists etc?

I have always believed that all complaints should be made/copied to the FCA so they have evidence from the consumer of what was going on.  They can not say "we did not know".  And to be fair to the FCA they did act - not that we know what or when.

Anyway below is copied from the ITI website:

ITI Capital Limited has made the decision to exit the retail client business in the UK by 30th September 2022.

Dear Client,

ITI Capital Limited has made the decision to exit the retail client business in the UK by 30th September 2022.

We are providing these FAQ’s to help answer any questions you might have.

Key Dates:

22nd July 2022; Clients will not be able to open any new positions, but can close positions.

31st August 2022; All Retail client open positions must be closed.

30th September 2022; All Retail client accounts will be closed at ITI Capital Limited.

Our dedicated account management and dealing team will be on hand to answer any questions you might have but we do ask you to have a look at these FAQ’s which will also be available on our website.

Kind Regards,

ITI Capital

But what if you 31st August 2022; All Retail client open positions must be closed.  can not close your positions, and ITI ignores your emails?  A yet further complaint the FCA and FOS.  As I have said before, if emails are ignored that is of itself not "treating clients fairly" 

Unmentionable

masonic said:

It is not a requirement for an investment firm to accept transfers from others, and iWeb stopped accepting transfers for a period of time last year. In general, ISA managers do not have to accept transfers from other ISA managers. A number do not.

It sounds like iWeb have got the wrong ITI. Especially from the comment that "ITI don't have a business in the UK". If the details for ITI were pre-populated from their online system, it might be worth checking them over. iWeb are not renowned for their transfer service. They were a real mess in late 2020 - end of 2021, with many complaining of transfers grinding to a halt.

Thank you for the useful thoughts & information.
As and when I next speak to them, I'll check with IWEB on whether they have the correct ITI on their system. From what you've said, I would expect that (even if they do), they are just unwilling to work with ITI any longer. If I were upper management there, I would be wanting my staff's time applied elsewhere.
Counting on HL to come though now...

RasputinB said:

If IWEB have identified security risks[,] have they communicated these to the ICO?

I would certainly hope so. I don't anticipate them being particularly forthcoming, however.

Eskay22

Unmentionable said:

I've been lurking on this thread since the initial SVS debacle and decided to finally sign up and add my experiences.

Having tried to transfer away from ITI into IWEB in late 2020 with no progress (IWEB tell me they tried to contact ITI 8 times without response and then closed the transfer in June '21) I've decided to have another go (considering the circumstances).

After a couple of weeks, IWEB send me a letter saying "On this occassion we cannot proceed with your transfer due to some security risks identified, which prevent us from corresponding and sharing customer information with this particular company"

I've phoned IWEB several times in the last few days and got a range of different answers about what this means, including:
"FCA rules prevent us from proceeding with the transfer"
"ITI don't have a business in the UK and so they can't use the CREST system"
"[IWEB] cannot speak to [ITI] / are not able to get in contact"
They also say this will be the situation for the foreseeable future.
It's quite clear that those answering the phones and their direct supervisors (who they've conferred with) have not been given the full reason by upper management, and there doesn't seem to be a forthcoming way to escalate.
My guess (and it's only a guess) is that they are sick of ITI being so slow and cumbersome and have issued a blanket rule to decline transfers.
I've essentially given up on trying the IWEB route.

I also spoke to the FCA and they say there are no restrictions on ITI which would prevent a transfer out.

Finally, I've now set up an account with H&L who I spoke to on the phone. They assured me that they are having no issues transferring from ITI (besides the usual paper form based system ITI insist on), so that request away in the post.

Has anyone else had the same recent issue with IWEB or found a broker that can successfully extract their investments from ITI recently?

I am similarly a lurker on this thread on and off since the summer of 2021, having nothing meaningful really to contribute - and in the same situation having recently opened an account with IWEB.

After sending off the ITI transfer request to IWEB, last Friday they sent a letter declining it: "On this occasion we cannot proceed with your transfer due to some security risks we've identified, which prevent us from corresponding and sharing customer information with this particular company." 

IWEB was my first choice, but now after this experience, the collapse of SVS and withdrawal of ITI from the UK, my priority is to transfer into a large brokerage, or UK established bank with brokerage services, where the risk of this happening should be reduced.

Please do keep us updated on any news about the H&L transfer.          

Unmentionable

Eskay22 said:
IWEB was my first choice, but now after this experience, the collapse of SVS and withdrawal of ITI from the UK, my priority is to transfer into a large brokerage, or UK established bank with brokerage services, where the risk of this happening should be reduced.

Please do keep us updated on any news about the H&L transfer.          

I signed up with them yesterday morning and posted my form out (which they generated online) immediately by free-post (they provide an address).

Today I got a message acknowledging the transfer request, though I'm not sure if this is because they received the form already or if it's just a delayed acknowledgement from the online process yesterday.

Their message did state it may take a while to do the transfer as ITI are handling a lot of them...

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Good luck to you and others in this situation with your attempts.