X-O (Jarvis) online platform to close in the summer

wmb194

sjw1 said:

Thanks.  And just to make sure, as long as iWeb trade in the stocks being transferred, the in specie transfer is just an electronic transfer (besides the wet signature requirement) of the shares from X-O to iWeb - no costs or losses at all.

Correct. Technically it’ll be a change in the ownership of the shares from x-o nominees to iWeb nominees, or whatever those nominee companies are actually named.

GeoffTF

sjw1 said:

Thanks.  And just to make sure, as long as iWeb trade in the stocks being transferred, the in specie transfer is just an electronic transfer (besides the wet signature requirement) of the shares from X-O to iWeb - no costs or losses at all.

If iWeb require a wet signature, then I expect that the transfer will be done with paper forms. There will be no costs and you will stay in the market throughout. Your shares may go down in value though.

wmb194

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

someone said:

ali1947fish said:

people here just comment about the monthly fee- you have to see things in the round-XO doest allow you to vote without a 20 pounds fee or ask questions at agms. in addition i have read on a respected platform that the FCA has forced xo to do this- the reason for the intervention is not mentioned? as to the fees 50 or 60 pounds per year is neither here not there if there is an opportunity to deal for less than 5 pounds which is cheaper than xo. some one has mentioned AJ bell as the preferred broker to transfer to and they are very good- iam interesd in your reponse to this please comment

I thought it was they had agreed with the FCA to close to new business given they are winding up and transferring the customers? Suspect it’s just to avoid anyone grumbling about miss selling and to protect consumers.

It’s been in trouble for the last couple of years. IIRC something do with asset safeguarding and not having competent, skilled people on the corporate side of its business - not the retail stockbroker, I don’t think.

It’s cost a lot of money not to fix the issues to the FCA’s satisfaction and quite a few of its corporate clients left and it couldn’t replace them so it appears to have decided the solution is to wind up the company. In these circumstances it makes sense you would close to new business.

Company founder is retiring. Probably been looking to sell the business for some time.  There's now a new generation of competitors. No one need buy the business to win new customers. 

Majority of SIPP accounts were transferred to AJ Bell last December. Probably some consideration for this. 

This might be the convenient excuse.

I'd be interested to know what your conspiracy theory is. 

I don't need a conspiracy theory, it's simple observation; after spending a lot of money on trying to fix these apparently insurmountable FCA issues raised 09/22* and losing corporate customers its business is toast. Just look at its chart and market cap. The announcement the other day states it's selling the retail brokerage side for up to £11m but the market cap is now c.£6m.

*Note the sudden, large drop on the chart from which it largely recovered initially but then began to fall as it reported it was spending a lot of money, it was losing corporate customers - Jarvis stated they wouldn't accept the risk of using a firm with these issues - and it was having a hard time resolving the FCA's concerns.

sjw1

GeoffTF said:

sjw1 said:

Thanks.  And just to make sure, as long as iWeb trade in the stocks being transferred, the in specie transfer is just an electronic transfer (besides the wet signature requirement) of the shares from X-O to iWeb - no costs or losses at all.

If iWeb require a wet signature, then I expect that the transfer will be done with paper forms. There will be no costs and you will stay in the market throughout. Your shares may go down in value though.

Thanks again.  Can I ask why they may go down in value - they're not sold and re-bought are they?

I think the wet signature part is a big thing here as it's a Jarvis requirement so will affect many here - so I'm surprised Jarvis haven't mentioned it in the FAQ.  I wonder if they have an agreement with the broker they're moving everyone to to not require it?

wmb194

sjw1 said:

GeoffTF said:

sjw1 said:

Thanks.  And just to make sure, as long as iWeb trade in the stocks being transferred, the in specie transfer is just an electronic transfer (besides the wet signature requirement) of the shares from X-O to iWeb - no costs or losses at all.

If iWeb require a wet signature, then I expect that the transfer will be done with paper forms. There will be no costs and you will stay in the market throughout. Your shares may go down in value though.

Thanks again.  Can I ask why they may go down in value - they're not sold and re-bought are they?

I think the wet signature part is a big thing here as it's a Jarvis requirement so will affect many here - so I'm surprised Jarvis haven't mentioned it in the FAQ.  I wonder if they have an agreement with the broker they're moving everyone to to not require it?

Geoff's referring to market price movements. The correct number of shares will be transferred. There will be a (hopefully short) period where you won't be able to trade the shares.

The transfer to Interactive Investor will be a change in the ownership of the company and the nominee holding the shares so it's a different process. 

"...Jarvis Investment Management Limited ("JIML"), has today executed a conditional sale agreement disposing of its retail execution-only brokerage business to Interactive Investor Services Limited ("Interactive Investor") for a consideration of up to £11,000,000 payable in cash ("Consideration") (the "Transaction") (the "Agreement")."

Hoenir

wmb194 said:

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

someone said:

ali1947fish said:

people here just comment about the monthly fee- you have to see things in the round-XO doest allow you to vote without a 20 pounds fee or ask questions at agms. in addition i have read on a respected platform that the FCA has forced xo to do this- the reason for the intervention is not mentioned? as to the fees 50 or 60 pounds per year is neither here not there if there is an opportunity to deal for less than 5 pounds which is cheaper than xo. some one has mentioned AJ bell as the preferred broker to transfer to and they are very good- iam interesd in your reponse to this please comment

I thought it was they had agreed with the FCA to close to new business given they are winding up and transferring the customers? Suspect it’s just to avoid anyone grumbling about miss selling and to protect consumers.

It’s been in trouble for the last couple of years. IIRC something do with asset safeguarding and not having competent, skilled people on the corporate side of its business - not the retail stockbroker, I don’t think.

It’s cost a lot of money not to fix the issues to the FCA’s satisfaction and quite a few of its corporate clients left and it couldn’t replace them so it appears to have decided the solution is to wind up the company. In these circumstances it makes sense you would close to new business.

Company founder is retiring. Probably been looking to sell the business for some time.  There's now a new generation of competitors. No one need buy the business to win new customers. 

Majority of SIPP accounts were transferred to AJ Bell last December. Probably some consideration for this. 

This might be the convenient excuse.

I'd be interested to know what your conspiracy theory is. 

I don't need a conspiracy theory, it's simple observation; after spending a lot of money on trying to fix these apparently insurmountable FCA issues raised 09/22* and losing corporate customers its business is toast. Just look at its chart and market cap. The announcement the other day states it's selling the retail brokerage side for up to £11m but the market cap is now c.£6m.

*Note the sudden, large drop on the chart from which it largely recovered initially but then began to fall as it reported it was spending a lot of money, it was losing corporate customers - Jarvis stated they wouldn't accept the risk of using a firm with these issues - and it was having a hard time resolving the FCA's concerns.

I was a direct shareholder for over 15 years. Which was extremely profitable. Attended the AGM in the past. Understand the company and the business model well.  Andrew Grant, the founder and major shareholder,  launched the business over 40 years ago.  The world has changed. That's the nature of business. 

wmb194

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

someone said:

ali1947fish said:

people here just comment about the monthly fee- you have to see things in the round-XO doest allow you to vote without a 20 pounds fee or ask questions at agms. in addition i have read on a respected platform that the FCA has forced xo to do this- the reason for the intervention is not mentioned? as to the fees 50 or 60 pounds per year is neither here not there if there is an opportunity to deal for less than 5 pounds which is cheaper than xo. some one has mentioned AJ bell as the preferred broker to transfer to and they are very good- iam interesd in your reponse to this please comment

I thought it was they had agreed with the FCA to close to new business given they are winding up and transferring the customers? Suspect it’s just to avoid anyone grumbling about miss selling and to protect consumers.

It’s been in trouble for the last couple of years. IIRC something do with asset safeguarding and not having competent, skilled people on the corporate side of its business - not the retail stockbroker, I don’t think.

It’s cost a lot of money not to fix the issues to the FCA’s satisfaction and quite a few of its corporate clients left and it couldn’t replace them so it appears to have decided the solution is to wind up the company. In these circumstances it makes sense you would close to new business.

Company founder is retiring. Probably been looking to sell the business for some time.  There's now a new generation of competitors. No one need buy the business to win new customers. 

Majority of SIPP accounts were transferred to AJ Bell last December. Probably some consideration for this. 

This might be the convenient excuse.

I'd be interested to know what your conspiracy theory is. 

I don't need a conspiracy theory, it's simple observation; after spending a lot of money on trying to fix these apparently insurmountable FCA issues raised 09/22* and losing corporate customers its business is toast. Just look at its chart and market cap. The announcement the other day states it's selling the retail brokerage side for up to £11m but the market cap is now c.£6m.

*Note the sudden, large drop on the chart from which it largely recovered initially but then began to fall as it reported it was spending a lot of money, it was losing corporate customers - Jarvis stated they wouldn't accept the risk of using a firm with these issues - and it was having a hard time resolving the FCA's concerns.

I was a direct shareholder for over 15 years. Which was extremely profitable. Attended the AGM in the past. Understand the company and the business model well.  Andrew Grant, the founder and major shareholder,  launched the business over 40 years ago.  The world has changed. That's the nature of business. 

It appears to be more fundamental than the world changing. It went from trumpeting record results in its 2021 annual report to closing down in 2025. The key event was these FCA concerns and the inability to resolve them.

John464

wmb194 said:

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

someone said:

ali1947fish said:

people here just comment about the monthly fee- you have to see things in the round-XO doest allow you to vote without a 20 pounds fee or ask questions at agms. in addition i have read on a respected platform that the FCA has forced xo to do this- the reason for the intervention is not mentioned? as to the fees 50 or 60 pounds per year is neither here not there if there is an opportunity to deal for less than 5 pounds which is cheaper than xo. some one has mentioned AJ bell as the preferred broker to transfer to and they are very good- iam interesd in your reponse to this please comment

I thought it was they had agreed with the FCA to close to new business given they are winding up and transferring the customers? Suspect it’s just to avoid anyone grumbling about miss selling and to protect consumers.

It’s been in trouble for the last couple of years. IIRC something do with asset safeguarding and not having competent, skilled people on the corporate side of its business - not the retail stockbroker, I don’t think.

It’s cost a lot of money not to fix the issues to the FCA’s satisfaction and quite a few of its corporate clients left and it couldn’t replace them so it appears to have decided the solution is to wind up the company. In these circumstances it makes sense you would close to new business.

Company founder is retiring. Probably been looking to sell the business for some time.  There's now a new generation of competitors. No one need buy the business to win new customers. 

Majority of SIPP accounts were transferred to AJ Bell last December. Probably some consideration for this. 

This might be the convenient excuse.

I'd be interested to know what your conspiracy theory is. 

I don't need a conspiracy theory, it's simple observation; after spending a lot of money on trying to fix these apparently insurmountable FCA issues raised 09/22* and losing corporate customers its business is toast. Just look at its chart and market cap. The announcement the other day states it's selling the retail brokerage side for up to £11m but the market cap is now c.£6m.

*Note the sudden, large drop on the chart from which it largely recovered initially but then began to fall as it reported it was spending a lot of money, it was losing corporate customers - Jarvis stated they wouldn't accept the risk of using a firm with these issues - and it was having a hard time resolving the FCA's concerns.

My understanding is it was to do with the onerous and ever increasing money laundering checks that financial institutions are supposed to do - like when you buy a house or open a bank account they have to make you prove the money is legit.  My understanding is Jarvis wen't doing enough of that to satisfy the regulator - they cut everything down to the bare bones to reduce costs and lower fees.  So they had to pay for a 'competent person' to check everything and in the meantime were barred from taking on new corporate clients.  I never heard any suggestion of fraud or impropriety on Jarvis part, and no suggestion that customers assets held were not safe, just that Jarvis weren't carrying out enough checks to satisfy the ever increasing requirements the FCA makes to check the source of funds they received.  Jarvis have always been clear that this would increase their costs and impact their profits to the detriment of shareholders.
You make the point that the money they may sell the platform for (subject to conditions) is less than the current market cap.  This reflects the cost of winding up the business - all these free transfers, staff redundancies etc with lower revenue coming in

wmb194

John464 said:

wmb194 said:

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

someone said:

ali1947fish said:

people here just comment about the monthly fee- you have to see things in the round-XO doest allow you to vote without a 20 pounds fee or ask questions at agms. in addition i have read on a respected platform that the FCA has forced xo to do this- the reason for the intervention is not mentioned? as to the fees 50 or 60 pounds per year is neither here not there if there is an opportunity to deal for less than 5 pounds which is cheaper than xo. some one has mentioned AJ bell as the preferred broker to transfer to and they are very good- iam interesd in your reponse to this please comment

I thought it was they had agreed with the FCA to close to new business given they are winding up and transferring the customers? Suspect it’s just to avoid anyone grumbling about miss selling and to protect consumers.

It’s been in trouble for the last couple of years. IIRC something do with asset safeguarding and not having competent, skilled people on the corporate side of its business - not the retail stockbroker, I don’t think.

It’s cost a lot of money not to fix the issues to the FCA’s satisfaction and quite a few of its corporate clients left and it couldn’t replace them so it appears to have decided the solution is to wind up the company. In these circumstances it makes sense you would close to new business.

Company founder is retiring. Probably been looking to sell the business for some time.  There's now a new generation of competitors. No one need buy the business to win new customers. 

Majority of SIPP accounts were transferred to AJ Bell last December. Probably some consideration for this. 

This might be the convenient excuse.

I'd be interested to know what your conspiracy theory is. 

I don't need a conspiracy theory, it's simple observation; after spending a lot of money on trying to fix these apparently insurmountable FCA issues raised 09/22* and losing corporate customers its business is toast. Just look at its chart and market cap. The announcement the other day states it's selling the retail brokerage side for up to £11m but the market cap is now c.£6m.

*Note the sudden, large drop on the chart from which it largely recovered initially but then began to fall as it reported it was spending a lot of money, it was losing corporate customers - Jarvis stated they wouldn't accept the risk of using a firm with these issues - and it was having a hard time resolving the FCA's concerns.

My understanding is it was to do with the onerous and ever increasing money laundering checks that financial institutions are supposed to do - like when you buy a house or open a bank account they have to make you prove the money is legit.  My understanding is Jarvis wen't doing enough of that to satisfy the regulator - they cut everything down to the bare bones to reduce costs and lower fees.  So they had to pay for a 'competent person' to check everything and in the meantime were barred from taking on new corporate clients.  I never heard any suggestion of fraud or impropriety on Jarvis part, and no suggestion that customers assets held were not safe, just that Jarvis weren't carrying out enough checks to satisfy the ever increasing requirements the FCA makes to check the source of funds they received.  Jarvis have always been clear that this would increase their costs and impact their profits to the detriment of shareholders.
You make the point that the money they may sell the platform for (subject to conditions) is less than the current market cap.  This reflects the cost of winding up the business - all these free transfers, staff redundancies etc with lower revenue coming in

Sure but the contention was that it was all to do with one man retiring. If the corporate business was a going concern why can’t that be sold as well? The problems appear to be far deeper and Jarvis isn’t the only small firm needing to contend with regulation.

Niv

I have a few (mainly rubbish but one or two I would like to keep) shares held in a x-o account. Not in an ISA, SIPP etc. 

Am I right in thinking that I can open an iweb account and transfer into that at no cost? Is it possible to transfer the shares from the x-o share dealing account into an iweb ISA?

I have a line in my x-o account for some 'defunct' shares (Laura Ashley if anyone is interested), does that just disappear when I transfer? (Not really sure why they still show tbh).