SVS Securities - shut down?

masonic

ZingPowZing said:

I'll bow to your knowledge, masonic.
This being the case, why were qualifying SVS investors not reacquainted with their own assets at the outset of administration, last August?

The reason for this is because insolvency law requires that the administrator follows certain statutory and regulatory procedures that prevent such an ambitious target being met. See my previous post on the need for Parliament to change the law.

[Deleted User]

It is not an ambition but a right of the qualifying investor under law.

masonic

ZingPowZing said:

It is not an ambition but a right of the qualifying investor under law.

To which UK legislation do you refer that compels an appointed Administrator or Special Administrator to act contrary to the Insolvency Act 1986, the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 and related legislation?

[Deleted User]

I assume there is none, masonic; which just undermines the assurances you give upthread:
"quite good"
"unlikely"
"vast majority"

I think concerned readers in limbo would prefer
"watertight"
"not possible"
"all"

Above all, don't tell them it is their fault.

masonic

ZingPowZing said:

I assume there is none, masonic; which just undermines the assurances you give upthread:
"quite good"
"unlikely"
"vast majority"

I think concerned readers in limbo would prefer
"watertight"
"not possible"
"all"

Above all, don't tell them it is their fault.

It doesn't undermine those assurances. That is, as a matter of fact, the situation today.

That is not to say I think it is a good situation to be in. I would prefer a situation in which investors could rely on a seamless transition to a backup provider. But that situation, as I've mentioned a few times already, would require Parliament to change the law. Those grumbling in this thread about the present situation do have the option of doing something to support such a change. It is up to them whether they do so or not. The facts will not change as a result of wishful thinking or making assertions to those who have no power to enact a change.

manorhouse

Why am i still reading clients will have to pay anything towards admin cost .
If you agreed to portal by 10 January 2020 all cost are being covered.

masonic

manorhouse said:

Why am i still reading clients will have to pay anything towards admin cost .
If you agreed to portal by 10 January 2020 all cost are being covered.

So you are saying that LC has confirmed that no investor will pay a share of the administrator's costs greater than £85k and so the costs will be fully covered by the FSCS? If so, then that's great news for investors with large portfolios at SVS.

manorhouse

Yes that is correct and I have refered to it before . What’s more if I didn’t agree by 10th ( it appears you were agreeing to claim , I wondered why one wouldn’t ).
The cost would of been a very small percentage of my portfolio as I was curious I asked .
I have said before there appears to be a lot of scaremongering on here .
who is behind this site ? could they have some interest in advising using the big brokers .

manorhouse

Just to put it out there I have interactive brokers in mind when I eventually get my shares back .
They  charge just £2 to deal and seem to have USA protection which is much more .
i read something about Europe on here there protection is less not more .
50 000 euro I was told ?

masonic

manorhouse said:

Yes that is correct and I have refered to it before . What’s more if I didn’t agree by 10th ( it appears you were agreeing to claim , I wondered why one wouldn’t ).
The cost would of been a very small percentage of my portfolio as I was curious so asked .
I have said before there appears to be a lot of scaremongering on here .
who is behind this site ? could they have some interest in advising using the big brokers .

Presumably you are referring to this post. It's very easy for things to get missed in a very active thread like this one. Nobody posting in this thread is likely to be associated with the site, anyone can sign up and post here. There are advisers who post in the forum and might have contributed to this thread, but they generally state this in their signatures.

The commentary around avoiding such a situation in future has centred around big DIY investment firms, nobody has tried to push people away from execution only and towards investing through an adviser. While it is great news the fees are being capped (or projected to be below the level any investor would lose out) in this case, the risk does remain that a future insolvency could see those with the largest portfolios lose out. I have always maintained that risk is low for those with less than ~£1m held with a single provider.