Are your savings safe? article discussion

1969798100102

Comments

  • Patr100 said:
    refluxer said:
    pvturner said:
    Mango money market is offering above average interest rates,sounds to good to be true.Anyone know of them?
    I was just searching the FCA's site for another company and noticed they'd posted this on their unauthorised firms list, four days after I posted the previous message. Hopefully you didn't invest !

    Mango Money Markets

    Warnings First published: 13/11/2020 Last updated: 23/11/2020

    We believe this firm has been providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why to be especially wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself from scammers.

    Almost all firms and individuals offering, promoting or selling financial services or products in the UK have to be authorised by us.

    However, some firms act without our authorisation and some knowingly run investment scams. 

    This firm is not authorised by us and is targeting people in the UK. Based upon information we hold, we believe it is carrying on regulated activities which require authorisation.

    Not only are they not authorised, on their website they still explicitly say they're authorised:

    2.1 HOW SAFE IS THE MONEY I DEPOSIT THROUGH MANGO MONEY MARKETS ?
    Ensuring the funds belonging to our clients are secure is our number one priority. As a company authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and subject to the Payment Services Regulations we are required to safeguard client assets at all times, hold appropriate levels of regulatory capital and generally organise and manage our business to the high standards set by the FCA.

     

    You maybe need to read that through a lawyers eyes. FCA authorisation can be at a very low level, eg insurance, and then not apply to other offerings by the same company. The rest just states they operate to FCA standards, which is a subjective statement.
  • masonic
    masonic Posts: 22,898
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 29 November 2020 at 8:58AM
    Patr100 said:
    refluxer said:
    pvturner said:
    Mango money market is offering above average interest rates,sounds to good to be true.Anyone know of them?
    I was just searching the FCA's site for another company and noticed they'd posted this on their unauthorised firms list, four days after I posted the previous message. Hopefully you didn't invest !

    Mango Money Markets

    Warnings First published: 13/11/2020 Last updated: 23/11/2020

    We believe this firm has been providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why to be especially wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself from scammers.

    Almost all firms and individuals offering, promoting or selling financial services or products in the UK have to be authorised by us.

    However, some firms act without our authorisation and some knowingly run investment scams. 

    This firm is not authorised by us and is targeting people in the UK. Based upon information we hold, we believe it is carrying on regulated activities which require authorisation.

    Not only are they not authorised, on their website they still explicitly say they're authorised:

    2.1 HOW SAFE IS THE MONEY I DEPOSIT THROUGH MANGO MONEY MARKETS ?
    Ensuring the funds belonging to our clients are secure is our number one priority. As a company authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and subject to the Payment Services Regulations we are required to safeguard client assets at all times, hold appropriate levels of regulatory capital and generally organise and manage our business to the high standards set by the FCA.

     

    You maybe need to read that through a lawyers eyes. FCA authorisation can be at a very low level, eg insurance, and then not apply to other offerings by the same company. The rest just states they operate to FCA standards, which is a subjective statement.
    In this case the statement about being authorised is false, as the only Mango Money Markets known to the FCA holds no authorisation at all: https://register.fca.org.uk/s/unauthorised-firm?id=0014G00002Zc6UBQAZ
    You should never take what is written on the firm's own website about FCA authorisation, especially as the FCA maintains a searchable register.
  • NottinghamKnight
    NottinghamKnight Posts: 1,083
    First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    edited 29 November 2020 at 9:02AM
    masonic said:
    Patr100 said:
    refluxer said:
    pvturner said:
    Mango money market is offering above average interest rates,sounds to good to be true.Anyone know of them?
    I was just searching the FCA's site for another company and noticed they'd posted this on their unauthorised firms list, four days after I posted the previous message. Hopefully you didn't invest !

    Mango Money Markets

    Warnings First published: 13/11/2020 Last updated: 23/11/2020

    We believe this firm has been providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why to be especially wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself from scammers.

    Almost all firms and individuals offering, promoting or selling financial services or products in the UK have to be authorised by us.

    However, some firms act without our authorisation and some knowingly run investment scams. 

    This firm is not authorised by us and is targeting people in the UK. Based upon information we hold, we believe it is carrying on regulated activities which require authorisation.

    Not only are they not authorised, on their website they still explicitly say they're authorised:

    2.1 HOW SAFE IS THE MONEY I DEPOSIT THROUGH MANGO MONEY MARKETS ?
    Ensuring the funds belonging to our clients are secure is our number one priority. As a company authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and subject to the Payment Services Regulations we are required to safeguard client assets at all times, hold appropriate levels of regulatory capital and generally organise and manage our business to the high standards set by the FCA.

     

    You maybe need to read that through a lawyers eyes. FCA authorisation can be at a very low level, eg insurance, and then not apply to other offerings by the same company. The rest just states they operate to FCA standards, which is a subjective statement.
    In this case the statement is false, as the only Mango Money Markets known to the FCA holds no authorisation at all: https://register.fca.org.uk/s/unauthorised-firm?id=0014G00002Zc6UBQAZ
    You should never take what is written on the firm's own website about FCA authorisation, especially as the FCA maintains a searchable register.
    I don't dispute that, my point is that people don't understand what  may be stated and dishonest people will write things that the average person will take as indicating authorisation, or a guarantee, without realising this isn't true, people need be wary and question any financial interaction, especially with little known counterparties. 
  • masonic
    masonic Posts: 22,898
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 29 November 2020 at 9:28AM
    I don't dispute that, my point is that people don't understand what  may be stated and dishonest people will write things that the average person will take as indicating authorisation, or a guarantee, without realising this isn't true, people need be wary and question any financial interaction, especially with little known counterparties. 
    Indeed, many scam sites claim to be properly authorised and may give convincing guarantees that turn out to be completely worthless when they disappear with the money they've collected some weeks or months later.
    I posted a thread a couple of years ago explaining how to verify whether you are saving into an FSCS protected deposit account, or investing into an FSCS protected investment account: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5892874/when-fscs-protection-does-not-apply
    If you have verified that a firm is authorised and holds the appropriate permissions, it is safe to rely on what you are being told about the specific account you are opening, and since some firms my offer a mixture of regulated and unregulated products, it is worth confirming FSCS protection does apply to the product you are opening and whether it is the protection for deposits or investments if this is in any doubt. Obviously protection for investments does not protect you from losing some or all of your capital due to your investments losing value.
    It is safe to rely on what the authorised firm is telling you, because even if they tell you that you are putting your money in a savings account with FSCS protection for savings and this turns out to be true, while you won't have that protection, you will have a complaints route through which to claim compensation via the Financial Ombudsman Service if required, which can be referred to the FSCS if the firm cannot pay and goes into administration.
    In the case of Mango Money Markets, no FCA authorisation means no access to the Financial Ombudsman Service and virtually no hope of getting any money back.

  • masonic said:
    I don't dispute that, my point is that people don't understand what  may be stated and dishonest people will write things that the average person will take as indicating authorisation, or a guarantee, without realising this isn't true, people need be wary and question any financial interaction, especially with little known counterparties. 
    Indeed, many scam sites claim to be properly authorised and may give convincing guarantees that turn out to be completely worthless when they disappear with the money they've collected some weeks or months later.
    I posted a thread a couple of years ago explaining how to verify whether you are saving into an FSCS protected deposit account, or investing into an FSCS protected investment account: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5892874/when-fscs-protection-does-not-apply
    If you have verified that a firm is authorised and holds the appropriate permissions, it is safe to rely on what you are being told about the specific account you are opening, and since some firms my offer a mixture of regulated and unregulated products, it is worth confirming FSCS protection does apply to the product you are opening and whether it is the protection for deposits or investments if this is in any doubt. Obviously protection for investments does not protect you from losing some or all of your capital due to your investments losing value.
    It is safe to rely on what the authorised firm is telling you, because even if they tell you that you are putting your money in a savings account with FSCS protection for savings and this turns out to be true, while you won't have that protection, you will have a complaints route through which to claim compensation via the Financial Ombudsman Service if required, which can be referred to the FSCS if the firm cannot pay and goes into administration.
    In the case of Mango Money Markets, no FCA authorisation means no access to the Financial Ombudsman Service and virtually no hope of getting any money back.

    If only it were that simple. A firm can be authorised and be acting outside it's remit, there may be the ability to complain but there's no guarantee of any compensation or restitution. Many people have invested in bonds that implied FSCS protection which wasn't the case and have lost their money as a result, and the whole LCF debacle. I still have a small but not insignificant amount tied up in Collateral P2P which was authorised according to the register, but the FCA subsequently denied this (good reason to take screenshots before the regulator can change it's own website, let alone dodgy companies). My point is that don't think that a firm which may be regulated provides any guarantees, it's all managing risk and reducing that risk exposure where possible, and FCA regulated can mean simply being able to sell basic insurance policies rather than being covered for full and wide ranging financial advice.
  • Patr100
    Patr100 Posts: 2,552
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    masonic said:
    I don't dispute that, my point is that people don't understand what  may be stated and dishonest people will write things that the average person will take as indicating authorisation, or a guarantee, without realising this isn't true, people need be wary and question any financial interaction, especially with little known counterparties. 
    Indeed, many scam sites claim to be properly authorised and may give convincing guarantees that turn out to be completely worthless when they disappear with the money they've collected some weeks or months later.
    I posted a thread a couple of years ago explaining how to verify whether you are saving into an FSCS protected deposit account, or investing into an FSCS protected investment account: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5892874/when-fscs-protection-does-not-apply
    If you have verified that a firm is authorised and holds the appropriate permissions, it is safe to rely on what you are being told about the specific account you are opening, and since some firms my offer a mixture of regulated and unregulated products, it is worth confirming FSCS protection does apply to the product you are opening and whether it is the protection for deposits or investments if this is in any doubt. Obviously protection for investments does not protect you from losing some or all of your capital due to your investments losing value.
    It is safe to rely on what the authorised firm is telling you, because even if they tell you that you are putting your money in a savings account with FSCS protection for savings and this turns out to be true, while you won't have that protection, you will have a complaints route through which to claim compensation via the Financial Ombudsman Service if required, which can be referred to the FSCS if the firm cannot pay and goes into administration.
    In the case of Mango Money Markets, no FCA authorisation means no access to the Financial Ombudsman Service and virtually no hope of getting any money back.

    If only it were that simple. A firm can be authorised and be acting outside it's remit, there may be the ability to complain but there's no guarantee of any compensation or restitution. Many people have invested in bonds that implied FSCS protection which wasn't the case and have lost their money as a result, and the whole LCF debacle. I still have a small but not insignificant amount tied up in Collateral P2P which was authorised according to the register, but the FCA subsequently denied this (good reason to take screenshots before the regulator can change it's own website, let alone dodgy companies). My point is that don't think that a firm which may be regulated provides any guarantees, it's all managing risk and reducing that risk exposure where possible, and FCA regulated can mean simply being able to sell basic insurance policies rather than being covered for full and wide ranging financial advice.
    This is what they also say. However "exactly the same as if you placed the deposit directly" implies they are a "middleman".
    2.3 DO I MAINTAIN FSCS PROTECTION WITH DEPOSITS MADE THROUGH MANGO MONEY MARKETS ?
    Yes. The level of protection is exactly the same as if you placed the deposit directly. In the event that one of the banks on the platform goes into administration, assuming the bank in question was a member of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), then our client (if eligible) would have a single claim under the FSCS limited to the deposit compensation limit of £85,000.¹
    Equivalent compensation rules would apply for any EU Bank on the platform going into administration, under the deposit protection arrangements in their “home” EU member state.
    ¹FSCS deposit protection is £85,000 per depositor per bank (as at 15 November 2018). For more information please refer to fscs.org.uk

     

  • masonic
    masonic Posts: 22,898
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 29 November 2020 at 3:21PM
    masonic said:
    I don't dispute that, my point is that people don't understand what  may be stated and dishonest people will write things that the average person will take as indicating authorisation, or a guarantee, without realising this isn't true, people need be wary and question any financial interaction, especially with little known counterparties. 
    Indeed, many scam sites claim to be properly authorised and may give convincing guarantees that turn out to be completely worthless when they disappear with the money they've collected some weeks or months later.
    I posted a thread a couple of years ago explaining how to verify whether you are saving into an FSCS protected deposit account, or investing into an FSCS protected investment account: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5892874/when-fscs-protection-does-not-apply
    If you have verified that a firm is authorised and holds the appropriate permissions, it is safe to rely on what you are being told about the specific account you are opening, and since some firms my offer a mixture of regulated and unregulated products, it is worth confirming FSCS protection does apply to the product you are opening and whether it is the protection for deposits or investments if this is in any doubt. Obviously protection for investments does not protect you from losing some or all of your capital due to your investments losing value.
    It is safe to rely on what the authorised firm is telling you, because even if they tell you that you are putting your money in a savings account with FSCS protection for savings and this turns out to be true, while you won't have that protection, you will have a complaints route through which to claim compensation via the Financial Ombudsman Service if required, which can be referred to the FSCS if the firm cannot pay and goes into administration.
    In the case of Mango Money Markets, no FCA authorisation means no access to the Financial Ombudsman Service and virtually no hope of getting any money back.

    If only it were that simple. A firm can be authorised and be acting outside it's remit, there may be the ability to complain but there's no guarantee of any compensation or restitution. Many people have invested in bonds that implied FSCS protection which wasn't the case and have lost their money as a result, and the whole LCF debacle.
    In the case of LCF there were clear warnings both on the LCF website and the financial promotions stating that FSCS protection did not apply. The information memorandum document provided to investors stated: "The protections afforded by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 including recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service and compensation entitlements under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme do not apply. All prospective investors and Bond Holders are strongly recommended to seek advice on the suitability of this investment."
    A small number of LCF investors received something bordering on financial advice by a third party to invest in these bonds, and even though that third party was not authorised to give financial advice, they have been able to claim compensation from the FSCS. The rest came through retail channels many failed to check whether FSCS protection applied, while some have come forward to say they knew it did not. While I have sympathy for everyone caught out by this scam and have actively participated in the long-running LCF thread, it cannot be said that the information was not available. Even the most basic checks would have revealed that there was no FSCS protection on these bonds.
    There have also been other examples, such as Blackmore, each paying high commissions to a separate promoter, which used misleading comparison tables and other advertising, but anyone checking the Financial Services Register for the required permission ('Accepting Deposits') to operate FSCS protected savings accounts (or more recently, checking directly on the FSCS website) would see that these could not be savings accounts. (this is covered in the thread I linked)
    I still have a small but not insignificant amount tied up in Collateral P2P which was authorised according to the register, but the FCA subsequently denied this (good reason to take screenshots before the regulator can change it's own website, let alone dodgy companies).
    I also invested in Collateral - a high 4-figure sum - which I have written off some time ago. If you believe Collateral were ever authorised then I suggest you fundamentally misunderstand what went on there. One of the Collateral directors owned an entirely different company known as Regal Pawnbroker, that held a Consumer Credit licence. That other company was dormant and eventually dissolved. Meanwhile, someone used that CCL to obtain interim permissions for Regal when the FCA took over regulation from the OFT, then fraudulently altered the Interim Register entry for Regal Pawnbroker to make its company name, registered address and contact details match that of Collateral. The FCA was therefore correct in its statement about Collateral never holding Interim Permissions, but has been very quiet about why, even it previously believed Collateral held IP (and had correspondence with Collateral about obtaining full authorisation).
    What this revealed was the Interim Register could be modified by any company representative without oversight from the FCA. The interim register, unlike the full register, did not include a record of the company number, so it was impossible to cross check with Companies House. There could yet be a route to redress, or partial redress, for those of us who have held the FCA liable for this matter and raised complaints against the FCA. Fortunately the Interim Permissions regime is over, and the main Financial Services Register did not have these critical flaws that allowed the Collateral fraud to be committed.
    My point is that don't think that a firm which may be regulated provides any guarantees, it's all managing risk and reducing that risk exposure where possible, and FCA regulated can mean simply being able to sell basic insurance policies rather than being covered for full and wide ranging financial advice.
    If an FCA Authorised company holds the specific permissions mentioned in the thread I linked, then this does provide a guarantee with respect to financial services covered by those permissions, including access to the FOS and/or FSCS. But I do agree with you that if a firm authorised to sell insurance policies starts selling savings accounts without the 'Accepting Deposits' permission, or sells sharedealing accounts without the 'Client Money' permission, then your route to compensation is less assured and would rely on convincing the FOS you were materially misled about the products you took out.
  • masonic
    masonic Posts: 22,898
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 29 November 2020 at 2:36PM
    Patr100 said:
    This is what they also say. However "exactly the same as if you placed the deposit directly" implies they are a "middleman".
    2.3 DO I MAINTAIN FSCS PROTECTION WITH DEPOSITS MADE THROUGH MANGO MONEY MARKETS ?
    Yes. The level of protection is exactly the same as if you placed the deposit directly. In the event that one of the banks on the platform goes into administration, assuming the bank in question was a member of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), then our client (if eligible) would have a single claim under the FSCS limited to the deposit compensation limit of £85,000.¹
    Equivalent compensation rules would apply for any EU Bank on the platform going into administration, under the deposit protection arrangements in their “home” EU member state.
    ¹FSCS deposit protection is £85,000 per depositor per bank (as at 15 November 2018). For more information please refer to fscs.org.uk
    For the avoidance of doubt that is false, because to pass FSCS protections through to customers, an intermediary must be FCA authorised and hold the 'Client Money' regulatory permission.
  • naedanger
    naedanger Posts: 3,102
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Patr100 said:
    masonic said:
    I don't dispute that, my point is that people don't understand what  may be stated and dishonest people will write things that the average person will take as indicating authorisation, or a guarantee, without realising this isn't true, people need be wary and question any financial interaction, especially with little known counterparties. 
    Indeed, many scam sites claim to be properly authorised and may give convincing guarantees that turn out to be completely worthless when they disappear with the money they've collected some weeks or months later.
    I posted a thread a couple of years ago explaining how to verify whether you are saving into an FSCS protected deposit account, or investing into an FSCS protected investment account: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5892874/when-fscs-protection-does-not-apply
    If you have verified that a firm is authorised and holds the appropriate permissions, it is safe to rely on what you are being told about the specific account you are opening, and since some firms my offer a mixture of regulated and unregulated products, it is worth confirming FSCS protection does apply to the product you are opening and whether it is the protection for deposits or investments if this is in any doubt. Obviously protection for investments does not protect you from losing some or all of your capital due to your investments losing value.
    It is safe to rely on what the authorised firm is telling you, because even if they tell you that you are putting your money in a savings account with FSCS protection for savings and this turns out to be true, while you won't have that protection, you will have a complaints route through which to claim compensation via the Financial Ombudsman Service if required, which can be referred to the FSCS if the firm cannot pay and goes into administration.
    In the case of Mango Money Markets, no FCA authorisation means no access to the Financial Ombudsman Service and virtually no hope of getting any money back.

    If only it were that simple. A firm can be authorised and be acting outside it's remit, there may be the ability to complain but there's no guarantee of any compensation or restitution. Many people have invested in bonds that implied FSCS protection which wasn't the case and have lost their money as a result, and the whole LCF debacle. I still have a small but not insignificant amount tied up in Collateral P2P which was authorised according to the register, but the FCA subsequently denied this (good reason to take screenshots before the regulator can change it's own website, let alone dodgy companies). My point is that don't think that a firm which may be regulated provides any guarantees, it's all managing risk and reducing that risk exposure where possible, and FCA regulated can mean simply being able to sell basic insurance policies rather than being covered for full and wide ranging financial advice.
    This is what they also say. However "exactly the same as if you placed the deposit directly" implies they are a "middleman".
    2.3 DO I MAINTAIN FSCS PROTECTION WITH DEPOSITS MADE THROUGH MANGO MONEY MARKETS ?
    Yes. The level of protection is exactly the same as if you placed the deposit directly. In the event that one of the banks on the platform goes into administration, assuming the bank in question was a member of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), then our client (if eligible) would have a single claim under the FSCS limited to the deposit compensation limit of £85,000.¹
    Equivalent compensation rules would apply for any EU Bank on the platform going into administration, under the deposit protection arrangements in their “home” EU member state.
    ¹FSCS deposit protection is £85,000 per depositor per bank (as at 15 November 2018). For more information please refer to fscs.org.uk

     

    I have you are not thinking, even for a second, of giving them any money. The FCA warning is very clear.
  • Masonic - The issue around LCF, and similar schemes, is that it was being advertised in national newspapers to give the impression that deposits were safe when they were not, and were inappropriate when they attracted people whose understanding was that these 'bonds' were savings accounts. In a similar manner to P2P there was a much delayed acknowledgement that such schemes should be restricted to high net worth or self certificating experienced investors which is why we now have such tests on P2P sites.
    In relation to Collateral the mantra was to check the register, the fact there now appeared to have been multiple registers and that companies could change their own entries on the FCA register was a major failing; I believe it was the cause of much 'regret' from our BoE governor in his previous role.
    Bottom line is that inexperienced savers need to be careful in dealing with any unfamiliar firms and I'd personally advise against doing so given the typical minimal interest rate benefit that is generally on offer. 
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.5K Life & Family
  • 246.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards