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

[Deleted User]

Genuine questions folks. Looking into iWeb I was considering transferring over some stock from x-o some funds from a % fee platform at the end of the tax year in specie.

I was also going to advise a family member to transfer over some company shares to avoid fees elsewhere.

I am assuming as nothing is bought and sold neither of us would pay fees?

It does make me wonder, surely we would both be costing iWeb money? Bringing the money in and no fees ongoing?

Any chance they could get funny? Ought to be fine as genuine one off transfers?

[Deleted User]

Missing an "and" in the first para

ColdIron

Yes it's fine, I and many others have done it

Do check that IWeb offer the exact same stock/funds that you want to transfer (e.g. same class OIECs)

PS are you sure you want to wait until 2026 before you do this?

wmb194

Niv said:

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).

Yes but you’d have to ‘bed and Isa’ if the shares are in a GIA, you cannot directly transfer shares from a GIA into an ISA.

Defunct shares are a real problem and many brokers won’t accept them. You’d need to ask iWeb. You might need to do a partial transfer to iWeb and end up with an ii account holding the Laura Ashley shares…

Hoenir

wmb194 said:

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.

Where's the value to a buyer ? The bigger platforms have changed their business models to meet the new regulatory environment.  Not least by either introducing account fees or increasing the levels charged ( i.e. Vanguard). The days of earning interest on customer deposits are gone. That was around 30% to 40% of total income for the platforms. The lack of IPO's and share placings has likewise reduced revenue streams. In a highly cost competitive market. 

[Deleted User]

ColdIron said:

Yes it's fine, I and many others have done it

Do check that IWeb offer the exact same stock/funds that you want to transfer (e.g. same class OIECs)

PS are you sure you want to wait until 2026 before you do this?

For the shares I would crack on 

For the funds I meant at the end of the year as I'm contributing once a month - if that makes sense?

[Deleted User]

Not sure how to edit a comment - the funds are held elsewhere I was thinking of moving two different things to iWeb 

Partners thing is also separate

Thanks

IanManc

Yaladala2 said:

Not sure how to edit a comment - the funds are held elsewhere I was thinking of moving two different things to iWeb 

Partners thing is also separate

Thanks

You can edit your post by clicking in the little circle with dots in it at the top right of your post. This produces a drop down menu from which you can choose to edit or delete your post. HTH.

wmb194

Hoenir said:

wmb194 said:

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.

Where's the value to a buyer ? The bigger platforms have changed their business models to meet the new regulatory environment.  Not least by either introducing account fees or increasing the levels charged ( i.e. Vanguard). The days of earning interest on customer deposits are gone. That was around 30% to 40% of total income for the platforms. The lack of IPO's and share placings has likewise reduced revenue streams. In a highly cost competitive market. 

There’s no value because it has these FCA compliance issues hanging over it that have taken millions of pounds and 2.5 years not to fix. We’re talking about the corporate side, not the retail side, which it has been sold for £11m.

”The days of earning interest on customer deposits are gone. ” incorrect. Due to the new fair dealing rules they cannot make as much as they used to but they can make some.* IIRC even Jarvis’ most recent results stated that interest earned on customer balances saved its results from being worse.

*iWeb doesn’t pay interest on balances but its argument is that zero account fees compensate for this so it is fair.

wmb194

Yaladala2 said:

Genuine questions folks. Looking into iWeb I was considering transferring over some stock from x-o some funds from a % fee platform at the end of the tax year in specie.

I was also going to advise a family member to transfer over some company shares to avoid fees elsewhere.

I am assuming as nothing is bought and sold neither of us would pay fees?

It does make me wonder, surely we would both be costing iWeb money? Bringing the money in and no fees ongoing?

Any chance they could get funny? Ought to be fine as genuine one off transfers?

Don’t worry about it. The same as banks, these brokers operate on the ‘long tail’ i.e. lots of customers occasionally spend £5 on a trade and they make a living.

If you feel really bad about not paying an ongoing fee to iWeb  you can open an account with its sister brand Halifax Share Dealing and pay one.