SVS Securities - shut down?

manorhouse

Much better read this morning and lots of useful info i thank you all.
I am not an educated man but hope i have common sense i read the first two responses on the Charing Cross train up to St Martins this morning  and thought, i think that is right it was £6 not £2 and wondered when i was researching a broker back in August to move the SVS portfolio to why i pencilled in IB in front of Jarvis Or Iweb.
( there was no rush )
I then remembered i had a large holding in lonmin and did not want to sell cheap at takeover and move to JSE .
Most brokers will either not hold them or want best part of £100 to deal.
As a side me and my son also held them with Degiro they decided as they also do not have a platform for JSE to sell all there clients holdings in bulk together unless you objected ( default potion was to take part and sell ) I complained this was wrong and default usually means you do not take part.
I forgot about my sons ( thank God a smaller holding ) he was away serving the country .
That was in July and they have increased 156% since. So Degiro have draw backs .
Sharing info and Degiro losing custom might make them pay more attention to reasonable customer feed back . 
( lonmin of course now part of Sibany Gold )
Any other views on rival brokers i always find interesting so please share info on anymore who trade on JSE, or your experiences / knowledge  off the newer cheaper ones about.
Now another thought i had is why keep large cash amounts with your broker earning no interest ( and risk ) when you could withdraw to your bank and send back when ever you want to buy ? ( it takes less then five min  ).
To some questions asked of me. 
LC gave me the info on charge / cost to me.
Degiro told me 50,000 euro Masonic has informed this is not across the board as i had assumed .
Wishing all a good Sunday .

johnburman

Guys
The doiscussion on whether the £85k limit on comepnsation is interesting.  As we found out in 2008, inadequate comp. causes runs on banks etc.  My feeling is simple, if we are to have REAL consumer proteciton, the 85K limit must go and replaced by one much more substantial.  Will it be used...I hope not, but the state, and Regulator, must give comfort to 'innocent' investors.  Here we haope that no XO shares will have 'gone missing', like the Maxwell pensioners and more recently the Norton motorbike pensioners.    

To have LOSSES over 85k for XO clients without shares going missing *is difficult* unless there are large cash balances (which my/may not have gone missing).  My guess is that all XO clients will eventially have access to their chares and their cash.  But it is not a satisfactory situation; especially for the larger shareholders.

The due diligence comments e.g. "your fault for putting your assets with a shoddy broker, that everyone knew was crooked/about to go bust" and suchlike is nonsence.  Such informtion simply was not known to clients...clinets who with ISAs had ot have nominee accounts (which themselves are unsatisfactory - FCA please note).  

Anyway whilst we wait for LC to reunite us wiht our shares, it is such fun rambling on aobu tthe failings of the financial services system: with no comments or criticism of SVS; the FCA; Comp Funds, London Stock Exchange etc.  6.5 months since the Administration and where are my shares and monies? 

masonic

johnburman said:

Anyway whilst we wait for LC to reunite us wiht our shares, it is such fun rambling on aobu tthe failings of the financial services system: with no comments or criticism of SVS; the FCA; Comp Funds, London Stock Exchange etc.  6.5 months since the Administration and where are my shares and monies? 

I'm not going to apologise for sounding like a broken record, but one entity that seems to be missing from your list is the only entity who has the power to change the pace of this process and that is Parliament, for which you have an elected representative. Have you sent any criticism in their direction yet?

bowlhead99

johnburman said:

Anyway whilst we wait for LC to reunite us wiht our shares, it is such fun rambling on aobu tthe failings of the financial services system: with no comments or criticism of SVS; the FCA; Comp Funds, London Stock Exchange etc.  6.5 months since the Administration and where are my shares and monies? 

I'm not sure what this means.

• Are you saying there's been no comments or criticism of SVS within the 980 posts on the thread?
• Or that there should be some criticism that you are not seeing here about compensation funds? The industry funds a compensation scheme and it will cover your losses within its limits, if you qualify for it. Once you know how much you have lost, if anything, you can claim. If as has been discussed here, the special administrators agree with the FSCS to fund the small investors' share of the costs directly, you won't need to claim. People have still moaned about it. Nobody is stopping you moaning about it, but there's not much more to say.
• Is it your contention that it's the London Stock Exchange's fault that this individual broker failed?
• The FCA, acting on information received, investigated and then prohibited the firm from carrying out regulated activities, and the business didn't have enough assets to continue once it was no longer allowed to carry out its main business activities, so everyone quit and the business ground to a halt and now you are waiting to get your assets back. It has been suggested that the FCA should have acted sooner. So you would have been waiting the 6+ months to get your assets back, from an earlier date. Would that have made you happy? It's certainly not true that there has been no comment or criticism of the FCA on the thread.

Glad you're enjoying the fun ramblings though.

johnburman

Griping at my gripes..

But let me comment on just a few:

Is it your contention that it's the London Stock Exchange's fault that this individual broker failed?
No. But I woudl like ot knwo what they did if anything to stop the failure...and what benefit is being a Member to ordinary clients of being a Member?

* The FCA, acting on information received, investigated and then prohibited the firm from carrying out regulated activities, and the business didn't have enough assets to continue once it was no longer allowed to carry out its main business activities, so everyone quit and the business ground to a halt and now you are waiting to get your assets back. It has been suggested that the FCA should have acted sooner.
No one can answer this at the moment because we do not know wha tthe FCA knew.  BUT the suspicion is tha tthey knew of the wrongdoing by some within SVS long before they stepped in.  See their first report on their website.  Again everyone will say "the FCA should have acted sooner" but they appeared to have real evidence of wrongdoing way before the company was forced (by the FCA) to act. 
The real issue for the FCA is this: assuming that the 'ringfencing' of shares for XO clients was successful and the CASS Regulations were followed/worked - why is it taking 9 months for XO clients to be reunited wiht their shares/funds?  Especially so as 6 months ago other regulated brokers were interested in taking over management of the accounts?    

masonic

johnburman said:

No. But I woudl like ot knwo what they did if anything to stop the failure...and what benefit is being a Member to ordinary clients of being a Member?

I think we've covered this before, but membership of the LSE should be viewed more as a service offering than as a seal of approval or a layer of protection. The firm pays some money to access the market and agrees to abide by some terms and conditions. You can find those T&Cs here: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/rules-regulations/rules-lse.pdf

Perhaps you would care to look through those terms and see if there is anything in there that LSE should have acted upon, but didn't.

As a customer of a firm who is a member of the LSE, I don't believe you are afforded any additional rights or protections. Membership is not a sign that the firm is more trustworthy or better quality than another firm which is not a member. Membership does indicate that you as a customer may get the benefits of direct access to LSE's trading platforms.

johnburman said:

The real issue for the FCA is this: assuming that the 'ringfencing' of shares for XO clients was successful and the CASS Regulations were followed/worked - why is it taking 9 months for XO clients to be reunited wiht their shares/funds?  Especially so as 6 months ago other regulated brokers were interested in taking over management of the accounts?   

I think I might have mentioned this before, but the pace of the administration is due to the statutory and regulatory requirements set out in law. The FCA is not at liberty to change the law. Do you know who is?

Thrugelmir

johnburman said:

The real issue for the FCA is this: assuming that the 'ringfencing' of shares for XO clients was successful and the CASS Regulations were followed/worked - why is it taking 9 months for XO clients to be reunited wiht their shares/funds?  Especially so as 6 months ago other regulated brokers were interested in taking over management of the accounts?    

Timebar for creditors claims and the investigation of disputes. 
Insolvency Practitioners have to fully investigate all options.
Expression of interest is just that. Due diligence and full legal agreement takes a lot longer. 

johnburman

Responding to Masonic: you are right in that LSE membership appears to give no direct benefits or protections to *clients* of the Member.  BUT I am not sure the LSE website was always like this as I rmember there was a section showing the benefits to cliwents i.e. why brokers should apply for memebership.  Anyone else remember this/got a screenshot?
For interest here is the SVS 'membership record' wiht the LSE:

Result
SVS Securities Plc Termination of Membership 2019/079 23 August 2019
SVS Securities Plc Notification of Default 2019/076 09 August 2019
SVS Securities Plc Suspension of Membership 2019/075 05 August 2019
SVS Securities Plc Change of Trading Profile 2019/074 02 August 2019

johnburman

Some news on Reyker Securities below.  [linkd not inlcuded]

Smith & Williamson LLP, the Joint Special Administrators of Reyker Securities, have posted a notice providing information on their work to the clients and creditors of the firm which entered administration in October 2019.

The JSAs explains that good progress has been made in line with the anticipated timescales previously reported.

The administrators confirm that an offer for Reyker Securities’s business and assets has been accepted (subject to contract) which will facilitate the transfer of all client assets to a regulated broker.

The JSAs’ Reconciliation of client assets has been completed and no material client money discrepancies have been identified. The JSAs’ reconciliation of custody assets identified a number of inconsistencies between the computer records, CASS best practice and the physical certificates held and work is ongoing to resolve these. The JSAs are advised by their independent expert that this should not result in a client account shortfall, but this remains a (small) possibility.

The bespoke online client portal is in its final stages of development and is anticipated to launch before the end of February 2020 once final testing has been completed. Once the client portal is ready, the JSAs will issue formal notice of a bar date, being the date by which clients must submit a claim in respect of their client money and custody assets. On present information, it is anticipated this will be sent before the end of February 2020.

Clients do not need to take any action at this time.

The administrators continue to liaise with the FCA and FSCS in respect of the progress of the Special Administration and in relation to potential claims that may arise from clients where there is any shortfall in assets returned to clients.

The administrators’ initial assessment is that the majority of clients will be eligible for cover from the FSCS compensation scheme. The JSAs intend to work with the FSCS so that any compensation due to eligible clients may be paid direct to the JSAs and at the same time as any transfer to the purchaser. This will, hopefully, mitigate the need for any eligible client to submit a direct claim to the FSCS themselves and should facilitate a transfer of each eligible clients’ assets in whole.

manorhouse

Am I correct in thinking this is another broker in admin .
and SVS are a bit further on in the proses then this lot .
Have any other posters any ideas on who they might go with in a few months time ?
Has the broker selected by any admin of any failure not been the share Center ?