Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error

Beaufort
andy mac
Posted: 07 March 2018 17:23:13(UTC)
#1

Joined: 12/02/2016(UTC)
Posts: 219

Thanks: 131 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 103 post(s)
I was on holiday last week so missed all the white stuff

I read somewhere the Beaufort had problems
I used to get a daily email from them emails usually about a buying opportunity

Never did any business but if I had where would I be left now

It just goes to show that you cannot be too careful
Hope not many of you got caught in the situation

1 user thanked andy mac for this post.
Tony Peterson on 08/03/2018(UTC)
Tony Peterson
Posted: 08 March 2018 10:47:44(UTC)
#2

Joined: 10/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,252

Thanks: 775 times
Was thanked: 1580 time(s) in 649 post(s)
andy

You have to ask yourself about the motives of everyone offering you a sure fire buying opportunity.

"Pump and dump" is a lucrative sales technique for unscrupulous operators. I would be interested to know if any of their clients (victims?) made anything from their "buying opportunities".

1 user thanked Tony Peterson for this post.
andy mac on 08/03/2018(UTC)
Nigel G
Posted: 08 May 2018 07:39:13(UTC)
#3

Joined: 03/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 46

Thanks: 18 times
Was thanked: 61 time(s) in 30 post(s)
ShareSoc denounces injustice for Beaufort clients

"The liquidation of Beaufort Securities on the FCA's instruction is targeting the ring-fenced property of thousands of UK private investors, many of whom are now facing losses of up to 40% of the value of their holdings. The liquidator's proposals, which would breach the safety of ring-fenced assets, bring into question the whole system of regulatory and legal protection of investors in the UK."

https://www.sharesoc.org...eaufort-client-campaign/
2 users thanked Nigel G for this post.
Tony Peterson on 08/05/2018(UTC), dyfed on 08/05/2018(UTC)
Tony Peterson
Posted: 08 May 2018 07:57:27(UTC)
#4

Joined: 10/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,252

Thanks: 775 times
Was thanked: 1580 time(s) in 649 post(s)
This could easily be a test case for the safety of all our nominee-held investments.

Although I had never heard of Beaufort before this thread commenced I will be contributing to ShareSoc's fighting fund.

3 users thanked Tony Peterson for this post.
dyfed on 08/05/2018(UTC), Sara G on 18/05/2018(UTC), Tim D on 20/05/2018(UTC)
ShareSocUK
Posted: 13 May 2018 15:15:31(UTC)
#5

Joined: 13/05/2018(UTC)
Posts: 4

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Take a look at our latest Beaufort Client Campaign: Update 1 here: https://www.sharesoc.org...lient-campaign-update-1/
1 user thanked ShareSocUK for this post.
Sara G on 18/05/2018(UTC)
Alan Selwood
Posted: 18 May 2018 19:35:53(UTC)
#6

Joined: 17/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,735

Thanks: 561 times
Was thanked: 4568 time(s) in 1643 post(s)
Write to your MP, as I did, highlighting the huge discrepancy between the government's stated stance on consumer protection and the legal realities that Rule 135 of the Act allows administrators to take advantage of, despite so-called ring-fencing.

It is a public disgrace that should have all the newspapers hounding ministers until the law is changed.

If 5 million UK investors wrote to their MP, to the newspapers and to Which?, and kicked up a big fuss, you can be pretty sure that the law would be changed.

We need legal ownership rather than beneficial ownership of our holdings, and we need it to be compulsory for all brokers to offer Crest accounts (and on equal financial terms as non-Crest accounts), and for it to be legal to hold ISA and SIPP assets in Crest accounts too.

Kick up a stink! It's for your own good!!
7 users thanked Alan Selwood for this post.
Sara G on 18/05/2018(UTC), Tony Peterson on 18/05/2018(UTC), Nigel G on 18/05/2018(UTC), JohnW on 18/05/2018(UTC), Tim D on 20/05/2018(UTC), Andrew Richardson on 21/05/2018(UTC), c brown on 12/06/2018(UTC)
kWIKSAVE
Posted: 18 May 2018 22:01:13(UTC)
#7

Joined: 14/08/2013(UTC)
Posts: 435

Thanks: 133 times
Was thanked: 382 time(s) in 238 post(s)
Pump and Dump or Ramping was prevalent in the early 1990's

Who remembers the huge marketing effort Royal Life put into a new fund launch.

The new fund would buy a huge of amount of shares in say a couple of equity holdings (amongst others).

Then shortly after the old existing fund would then buy a massive amount of those particular two equities , resulting in an sharp increase in the share price of each share.

The new fund would benefit accordingly designed to lure investors in at the beginning by stating look how well the new fund is doing.
2 users thanked kWIKSAVE for this post.
Tony Peterson on 19/05/2018(UTC), Tim D on 20/05/2018(UTC)
Tony Peterson
Posted: 19 May 2018 05:52:01(UTC)
#8

Joined: 10/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,252

Thanks: 775 times
Was thanked: 1580 time(s) in 649 post(s)
The weakness this case has exposed in the security of supposedly "ring fenced" investments does reinforce an argument I have put forward previously.

Apart from SIPPs and ISAs it is safest to hold stock in certificated form.

I put my hands up, in that we do both hold some of our equity in a nominee dealing account - largely so that we can trade cheaply in March to mop up the balance of our unused CGT allowance for the year, and to have proceeds available for the new April ISA contribution.

But the bulk of our out-of-ISA investments are certificated holdings which are hardly ever touched.

By the way, kWIKKY, I don't think that dark practices ended at the millenium - I'm sure you don't either.

2 users thanked Tony Peterson for this post.
kWIKSAVE on 19/05/2018(UTC), Tim D on 20/05/2018(UTC)
kWIKSAVE
Posted: 19 May 2018 06:42:25(UTC)
#9

Joined: 14/08/2013(UTC)
Posts: 435

Thanks: 133 times
Was thanked: 382 time(s) in 238 post(s)
Yes it does worry me sometimes that about 73% of my shareholdings etc are in a nominee account even if HL.

Although we had to deal with a family situation where some of the certificates had been lost and proved expensive and time consuming to provide indemnities etc, I would much rather have the certificates even though I do not have a fire-proof safe !

Some of the dividends come by post as I like to see the colour of the cheques.
A bit old fashioned I know !
1 user thanked kWIKSAVE for this post.
c brown on 12/06/2018(UTC)
Nigel G
Posted: 19 May 2018 09:18:38(UTC)
#10

Joined: 03/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 46

Thanks: 18 times
Was thanked: 61 time(s) in 30 post(s)
Like most I have little choice but to keep my ISA and SIPP holdings in nominee accounts, although I have spread them across a number of providers.

The bulk of the remainder is in a Crest personal account administered by Charles Stanley. Dealing fees are comparable to those of a nominee account and, provided I have at least one transaction per month, there are no platform fees. Other than topping-up or rebalancing I hardly touch these holdings, and the dividends now form much of my income.

1 user thanked Nigel G for this post.
c brown on 12/06/2018(UTC)
retired investor 2
Posted: 19 May 2018 17:32:33(UTC)
#11

Joined: 26/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I gather EU has a Euro500K protection level compared to UK £50K. This would be a big improvement as a first step. It would put up costs but maybe the insurers would do better job of regulating the industry if the amount to be paid out was more realistic.

I asked Hargreaves why they wanted clients to consolidate all savings with them and they poo pooed the higher risk. They should be required to tell investors of increased risk of substantial loss of consolidation, it feels like mis selling not to do so, in fact all marketing by brokers should be obliged to advise tgheir clients of the small risk of a massive loss.
6 users thanked retired investor 2 for this post.
Keith Cobby on 19/05/2018(UTC), JohnW on 19/05/2018(UTC), Tim D on 20/05/2018(UTC), Alan Selwood on 21/05/2018(UTC), Stephen Garsed on 12/06/2018(UTC), c brown on 12/06/2018(UTC)
Keith Cobby
Posted: 19 May 2018 17:39:08(UTC)
#12

Joined: 07/03/2012(UTC)
Posts: 597

Thanks: 384 times
Was thanked: 942 time(s) in 379 post(s)
The FCA need to get a grip on this and I agree with RI2 that a much higher protection level would do the job and be easy to understand by the investor.
axus
Posted: 21 May 2018 09:30:15(UTC)
#13

Joined: 21/05/2018(UTC)
Posts: 1

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Might I suggest that several of us submit formal complaints to the Metropolitan Fraud Squad with regards this fiasco.

1) The number of senior staff that have left the FCA to join PWC making an unhealthy relationship between the two.
2) That the FCA knew about Beauforts potential collapse for 9 months and did nothing.
3) PWC were given the the contract as Beaufort's Administrator without seeking a a better contract with other companies.
4) PWC have been approached by around ten Brokers to take over the the investors ring-fenced investors and refused them.
5) PWC are projecting costs of £100 million over a 4 year period whereas if they had transferred the ring-fenced investors to another broker, it could have been done in a few weeks for little relative costs.
6) The FCA appear to have ignored PWC's recent history in the courts ( see below )
7) The FCA appear to be happy with the fact that not only will investors likely to lose a large amount of money, the government will also have to pay out a huge sum of money to investors losing upto £50,000 in their guarantee against losses.

As you will see from the above, I am not proficient at writing therefore our complaint would more productive if done by others.

http://citywire.co.uk/we...tenon-collapse/a1042110

http://citywire.co.uk/we...-sued-for-5-5bn/a942255

http://fortune.com/2017/...ers-pwc-scandals-oscars/
3 users thanked axus for this post.
Tony Peterson on 21/05/2018(UTC), Tim D on 21/05/2018(UTC), c brown on 12/06/2018(UTC)
Alan Selwood
Posted: 21 May 2018 13:54:06(UTC)
#14

Joined: 17/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,735

Thanks: 561 times
Was thanked: 4568 time(s) in 1643 post(s)
I can now report that I have had a reply from my own MP today.

Regretfully, it has done nothing to show that any practical steps have been taken to follow up my concerns about the clash between the payment to PwC under Rule 135 and the ring-fencing of client assets.

I have asked my MP to comment on the failure to respond to this part of my email, and have said that I found his response unsatisfactory.

The whole business has a very bad smell about it..........!

Keep up the moans to those who might bring pressure.
3 users thanked Alan Selwood for this post.
Jeff Liddiard on 21/05/2018(UTC), Sara G on 21/05/2018(UTC), c brown on 12/06/2018(UTC)
Jeff Liddiard
Posted: 21 May 2018 14:37:40(UTC)
#15

Joined: 20/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 491

Thanks: 1355 times
Was thanked: 320 time(s) in 173 post(s)
No reply from my MP as yet.
ShareSocUK
Posted: 23 May 2018 14:06:38(UTC)
#16

Joined: 13/05/2018(UTC)
Posts: 4

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 3 post(s)
We have our Beaufort Client Campaign: Update 2 available to read here: https://www.sharesoc.org...lient-campaign-update-2/
ShareSocUK
Posted: 29 May 2018 15:28:13(UTC)
#17

Joined: 13/05/2018(UTC)
Posts: 4

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 3 post(s)
1 user thanked ShareSocUK for this post.
Nigel G on 29/05/2018(UTC)
john brace
Posted: 29 May 2018 17:39:20(UTC)
#18

Joined: 03/02/2012(UTC)
Posts: 70

Thanks: 211 times
Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 22 post(s)
I understood that once your money is invested in funds etc. it leaves the remit of the broker? am I wrong?
I've read the following by Hargreaves Lansdown:-


Stock you hold with us is held in the name of or to the order of Hargreaves Lansdown Nominees Limited, or by an approved third party custodian. Hargreaves Lansdown Nominees Limited is a non-trading company so it cannot run up liabilities of its own and Hargreaves Lansdown accepts full liability for any default by our nominee company. We maintain detailed records of all your investments and assets for which you will at all times remain the beneficial owner. We do not lend stock held in the Vantage or PMS Services.
Our senior management and CASS Committee are responsible for periodic reviews of the nominees with which stock is deposited.
Sara G
Posted: 29 May 2018 18:18:25(UTC)
#19

Joined: 07/05/2015(UTC)
Posts: 673

Thanks: 1252 times
Was thanked: 1290 time(s) in 469 post(s)
John, unfortunately recent events would suggest that those assurances (and the concept of beneficial ownership) are pretty meaningless. If a broker goes bust it appears that the administrators can take a cut to cover their costs (and then some in the case of Beaufort). Hence the Share Society taking this action.
4 users thanked Sara G for this post.
john brace on 29/05/2018(UTC), Mostly Retired on 29/05/2018(UTC), Tim D on 29/05/2018(UTC), c brown on 12/06/2018(UTC)
JohnW
Posted: 29 May 2018 19:26:31(UTC)
#20

Joined: 14/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 207

Thanks: 162 times
Was thanked: 206 time(s) in 97 post(s)
It's something which we all need to take action about because it destroys our perceived security even in regards to SIPP's and ISA's (where shares and funds can ONLY be held in nominee accounts.) The Share Society has produced a form letter which people can copy and send to their MP. (Although I must admit I've added a little of my own to the letter) Whether parliament will take any action is another thing, but it might bring clarity to the situation.
2 Pages12Next page
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets