SIPP provider goes bust
Discussion
http://www.international-adviser.com/news/1030608/...
I have come across these people before, an absolute shower of s
te.
Client money safe though thankfully.
Hopefully their insurers will pick up the tab for the FOS awarded compensation payments.
I have come across these people before, an absolute shower of s
te.Client money safe though thankfully.
Hopefully their insurers will pick up the tab for the FOS awarded compensation payments.
Offered without comment..
https://www.finalytiq.co.uk/downloads/sipp-financi...
Eta: this might help!
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/issues/12-may-201...
https://www.finalytiq.co.uk/downloads/sipp-financi...
Eta: this might help!
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/issues/12-may-201...
Edited by Ginge R on Wednesday 10th August 16:08
More smoke and mirrors! "18 non-insured bespoke SIPP providers, who together account for more than 90% of the market"
Sounds like 90% of the crap, bottom of the heap, wide-boy providers, not 90% of the total SIPP market. Deliberately deceptive headline IMO.
Yet another good reason to stick with the big boys.
Sounds like 90% of the crap, bottom of the heap, wide-boy providers, not 90% of the total SIPP market. Deliberately deceptive headline IMO.
Yet another good reason to stick with the big boys.
I've never heard of them - or the company that bought them - so am guessing they are very small players.
To be fair though, they didn't go bust and I have never heard of one SIPP provider going bust. Whatever their other troubles they probably were not going to meet their new capital adequacy level so the FCA would insist they put themselves into Special Administration to enable a pre pack sale to another provider.
This has been happening a lot recently. Remember too that all client money/asset is held in trust and ring fenced from the SIPP provider itself.
Still, always use the big boys or ask for proof they hold sufficient capital adequacy.
To be fair though, they didn't go bust and I have never heard of one SIPP provider going bust. Whatever their other troubles they probably were not going to meet their new capital adequacy level so the FCA would insist they put themselves into Special Administration to enable a pre pack sale to another provider.
This has been happening a lot recently. Remember too that all client money/asset is held in trust and ring fenced from the SIPP provider itself.
Still, always use the big boys or ask for proof they hold sufficient capital adequacy.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Brooklands claim to have had over 5000 SIPP's, which is quite considerable.
They did go bust, they couldn't meet the substantial pending Ombdusman compensation awards against them.
I didn't realise that. That has got to be a monumental management f**k up to send a company with 5,000 clients paying repeat fees to the wall.They did go bust, they couldn't meet the substantial pending Ombdusman compensation awards against them.
I'm guessing they got involved in UCIS schemes that also went down if there were large compensation awards on them (but of course it could be anything).
At least the clients are safe and may perhaps get better service from the new provider.
A series of flawed investment decisions crippled it, the (initial?) FOS adjudication so won't have helped. LM investments was probably one of the most carcinogenic of all SIPP scandals. God knows how much business was placed there. I find it difficult to believe there were only a few isolated cases.
http://asic.gov.au/about-asic/media-centre/key-mat...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-high-cost-of...
http://www.internationalinvestment.net/products/re...
http://asic.gov.au/about-asic/media-centre/key-mat...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-high-cost-of...
http://www.internationalinvestment.net/products/re...
I see AJ Bell is changing its SIPP charging structure. The biggest winners are those with fund holdings of up to £50,000.
https://www.youinvest.co.uk/charges-and-rates
https://www.youinvest.co.uk/charges-and-rates
Thought provoking stuff from Laura.
"No less than five well-known names have significant exposure to Harlequin. Two, I’m told, do not have the requisite professional indemnity insurance to cover the likely claims."
http://www.ftadviser.com/2016/08/15/opinion/blogs/...
"No less than five well-known names have significant exposure to Harlequin. Two, I’m told, do not have the requisite professional indemnity insurance to cover the likely claims."
http://www.ftadviser.com/2016/08/15/opinion/blogs/...
Ginge R said:
Thought provoking stuff from Laura.
"No less than five well-known names have significant exposure to Harlequin. Two, I’m told, do not have the requisite professional indemnity insurance to cover the likely claims."
http://www.ftadviser.com/2016/08/15/opinion/blogs/...
That is very worrying... Does anyone have any idea who the five "well-known names" could be?"No less than five well-known names have significant exposure to Harlequin. Two, I’m told, do not have the requisite professional indemnity insurance to cover the likely claims."
http://www.ftadviser.com/2016/08/15/opinion/blogs/...
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff