XO vs SVS vs Beaufort

stphnstevey

I'm looking into the financial stability of platforms following SVS Securities and Beaufort Securities administration

I have seen comments on this forum that SVS and BS were small companies in comparison to some of the major players.

This seems to be the case for IWeb, H&L and AJ Bell, their parent company decreasing in size in that order

Looking into the accounts of XO vs SVS vs BS, it "seems" XO might be of a similar size financially

These were the rough figures I gleamed from the accounts (rounded to the nearest million, apart form SVS) as

Revenue, Net Income, Assets and Equity

Jarvis Securities PLC £10 £3 £10 £6
SVS Securities PLC £41 £0.288 £12 £4
Beaufort Securities Ltd £13 £5 £5 £5

This is purely looking at the accounts and I draw no conclusions other than they seem to be of a similar size financially

Are there other considerations in comparison SVS and BS?

XO previously (no longer to new customers but continues for existing customers) offered a refund of annual and transfer in fees for their SIPP product. This appeared to make charges very competitive, but was a mental barrier to moving in entirety or partially to another provider. For these SIPP customers that might be over the FSCS limit, should they consider moving completely from XO or splitting their SIPP among providers?

masonic

It's notable that both Beaufort and SVS were shut down because of their advisory services, which Jarvis does not have.

In the case of Beaufort, administration costs were capped under the FSCS compensation limit. I expect the losses incurred by SVS XO customers to also be well below the FSCS limit, so those with investments above that limit will not lose out.

The main risk is having your investment account locked up in an administration for several months to a year when you might need to transact and/or access money held in the account. It therefore seems sensible to have a backup account elsewhere if you may need short-term access or sufficient cash to ride out an insolvency.

philng

IWEB is owned by Lloyds Banking Group so should be pretty secure you would think with parent company valued at over £30bn

Thrugelmir

X-O is the consumer offering of Jarvis Investment Managers a fullly fledged stockbroking operation. JIM offer an ISA service for the employees of Goldman Sachs. A fair indication that are well respected within the the City of London.

Unsure what you are expecting to read in the accounts. Stock broking has no need of fixed assets. JIM's policy is to distribute a fixed % of annual profits to it's shareholders. Has a minimal marketing spend as is happy to grow organically.

There'll always be bad apples in any industry. JIM I feel isn't one of them. Long established and focussed on their reputation.

As for fees. Regulatory costs are ramping up. Have to be paid for. Bottom line is that the customer pays in the end.

stphnstevey

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Unsure what you are expecting to read in the accounts. Stock broking has no need of fixed assets. JIM's policy is to distribute a fixed % of annual profits to it's shareholders. Has a minimal marketing spend as is happy to grow organically.

I was looking to compare popular platforms in some way and it seemed fair to do this by analysing the accounts. In that way there is an idea of the size of an organisation. Although there is the "never too big to fail", I personally feel more comfortable with the success of the business model. The assets might not be needed for the business, but give an idea of how much the company has to fall back on during difficult times and the equity how much their liabilities are in comparison to assets.

stphnstevey

philng wrote: »

IWEB is owned by Lloyds Banking Group so should be pretty secure you would think with parent company valued at over £30bn

Yes, I am aware. I did want to look into though the reasons behind a bail out by the government in the last recession. Also what factors might have been implemented to prevent this happening again

stphnstevey

masonic wrote: »

In the case of Beaufort, administration costs were capped under the FSCS compensation limit.

Do you have a link to this - I googled but there are multiple articles published as, during and not that easy to locate the conclusion

masonic

stphnstevey wrote: »

Do you have a link to this - I googled but there are multiple articles published as, during and not that easy to locate the conclusion

This one has the conclusion (second ranked article in my search results): https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/06/fscs-to-cover-beaufort-securities-administration-costs-but-will-investors-lose-money/

£10,000 per client cap.