Intelligent Money

[JulianPH]

bhstewie said:

For what it's worth Julian as a layman I can see both sides of this.

I read the Ombudsman's ruling and I think it's plain English enough that I can see how and why they came to the conclusion that they did.

From what I think I understand of your obligations I can also see how and why you might have taken the view you did.

Guess that's why there's an Ombudsman

Thanks, that is both fair and objective.

We genuinely thought we had gone above and beyond and in the industry are known for our stance. However, it evidently was not enough and we have been held liable.

I also believe it is perfectly fair that where we may have been lacking in any way we should be held to account for it - the rules are the rules.

What I do not consider to be fiar is that we are being held solely responsible for it all (in some cases having to put people back to the position they would have been in had they never met the financial adviser - which happend long before IM's involvement.

Having said this, we are being held liable for it all and we have to accept this whether we like it or not.

The key and most important point here is not whether IM should or should not have been found liable for it all, it is that the impact of this sits with the directors and shareholders of IM and not with its clients.

[JulianPH]

mikeiow said:

Just as an aside here….I imagine most people have investments outside of IM.

Have a Google of how many complaints were raised against them. Quick check on Hargreaves Lansdowne shows several thousand in the last half of last year!

Then think how often the Head of those firms have replied to your questions. I imagine you don’t even know who they are!

IM is quite a unique kind of firm to deal with.

I appreciate that makes me something of a fanboi, & fully expect a branded mug to arrive at my door forthwith

Hi Mike, you raise a valid point here.

We are extraordinarily accessible, clear and transparent, having chosen to answer every question thrown at us over many years in public on this forum. I have always been completely frank and open about everything.

Unfortunately this can come back and bite you at times like this, but we have tried to break out of the mould in our approach and interaction and I do know that most people appreciate this.

[Forester1965]

Without wanting to sound overly antagonistic, the Ombudsman found Intelligent Money responsible for a client losing a lot of money. The press are reporting a high volume of cases in the pipeline.

It'd surely be of comfort to your existing and potential clients if you explained what your firm now does differently to avoid it happening again?

[pingu393]

Rufus Stone said:

...it appears:

The IFA was regulated by the FCA.
The fund platform provider was regulated by the FCA.
The dedicated fund manager was regulated by the FCA.
The SIPP provider was regulated by the FCA.

Only the SIPP provider is being held liable for the individuals losses.

As a total layperson, does each of the professionals in the chain receive a full, unredacted pack from the one above, and the SIPP provider has a full, unredacted picture of the investor, their expectations and what they have been advised?

If so, it sounds like SIPP providers are taking massive risks by assuming the professionals before them are competent, as it would be impractical to read each pack before investing.

[kiethton]

Forester1965 said:

What does IM do differently now following the FOS ruling to avoid future liabilities?

If it's anything like other parts of the FS industry it's trying to get ahead of the next delusional judgement they decide to make and then backdate...

A friend's company specialised in transferring out defined benefit pensions, with the rates as low as they were, for certain people this was a total no-brainer and appropriate independent advice was given to make sure.... despite this the powers that be effectively closed the business for 5 years

[JulianPH]

Forester1965 said:

Without wanting to sound overly antagonistic, the Ombudsman found Intelligent Money responsible for a client losing a lot of money. The press are reporting a high volume of cases in the pipeline.

It'd surely be of comfort to your existing and potential clients if you explained what your firm now does differently to avoid it happening again?

As already mentioned, we will be announcing that on Tuesday.

[Portia5]

qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent

[CharlesdeGaulle]

Forester1965 said:

Without wanting to sound overly antagonistic, the Ombudsman found Intelligent Money responsible for a client losing a lot of money. The press are reporting a high volume of cases in the pipeline.

It'd surely be of comfort to your existing and potential clients if you explained what your firm now does differently to avoid it happening again?

Give it a rest mate.

[dingg]

Portia5 said:

qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent

Quite, but most have been bitten by one without fault.

I reckon if the IFA had still been in business the claim would have stayed and fallen with his company and not progressed to IM.

[JulianPH]

pingu393 said:

As a total layperson, does each of the professionals in the chain receive a full, unredacted pack from the one above, and the SIPP provider has a full, unredacted picture of the investor, their expectations and what they have been advised?

If so, it sounds like SIPP providers are taking massive risks by assuming the professionals before them are competent, as it would be impractical to read each pack before investing.

Hi mate, the short answer is that no such 'packs' exist and this is why there is a regulated system whereby all regulated firms are able to rely on other regulated firms (unless they have any reason to consider they should not);




As I have said before though, all of this is academic now.

[Sheepshanks]

Forester1965 said:

Without wanting to sound overly antagonistic, the Ombudsman found Intelligent Money responsible for a client losing a lot of money. The press are reporting a high volume of cases in the pipeline.

It'd surely be of comfort to your existing and potential clients if you explained what your firm now does differently to avoid it happening again?

Different set of clients on here.

[pingu393]

JulianPH said:

pingu393 said:

As a total layperson, does each of the professionals in the chain receive a full, unredacted pack from the one above, and the SIPP provider has a full, unredacted picture of the investor, their expectations and what they have been advised?

If so, it sounds like SIPP providers are taking massive risks by assuming the professionals before them are competent, as it would be impractical to read each pack before investing.

Hi mate, the short answer is that no such 'packs' exist and this is why there is a regulated system whereby all regulated firms are able to rely on other regulated firms (unless they have any reason to consider they should not);




As I have said before though, all of this is academic now.

This is sort of how I imagined it would have worked.

What can you do going forward? The FCA document suggests that the information provided by everyone before you should be able to be trusted 100%. It's impossible to check everyone. I hope the FCA / Financial Ombusman can suggest what you can do to avoid this happening in the future.

Sampling would have to be based on a trustworthiness factor. We (MOD) used to do this for external contractors, and were warned that we were discouraging new customers, as we had a "preferred customer" list. It was just easier to deal with customers who we had already fully vetted, as new customers' work had to be 100% inspected.

I feel for you.

[Rufus Stone]

pingu393 said:

I feel for you.

+ 1

[Sheepshanks]

pingu393 said:

Sampling would have to be based on a trustworthiness factor. We (MOD) used to do this for external contractors, and were warned that we were discouraging new customers, as we had a "preferred customer" list. It was just easier to deal with customers who we had already fully vetted, as new customers' work had to be 100% inspected.

I guess you mean vendors rather than customers? I was thinking about the same sort of thing in our industry, a lot of the approval process gets skipped if suppliers have the relevant BSxxxx certification.


The thing that slightly (I was a bit aware of it, but not the extent) surprises me is how many different layers / companies there are in the SIPP investment process in question.

Edited by Sheepshanks on Monday 27th May 04:33

[mikeiow]

Forester1965 said:

Without wanting to sound overly antagonistic, the Ombudsman found Intelligent Money responsible for a client losing a lot of money. The press are reporting a high volume of cases in the pipeline.

It'd surely be of comfort to your existing and potential clients if you explained what your firm now does differently to avoid it happening again?

Without wanting to sound overly wearily of your random thoughts: you do sound overly antagonistic to me

What particular axe are you grinding?

The “existing and potential clients” on here are entirely separate to the ones being referenced.
You do understand that, right?

[pingu393]

Sheepshanks said:

I guess you mean vendors rather than customers?

Sorry, yes.

[Forester1965]

mikeiow said:

Without wanting to sound overly wearily of your random thoughts: you do sound overly antagonistic to me

What particular axe are you grinding?

The one where successive companies in financial services have failed consumers costing them collectively hundreds of millions of pounds and a happy future.

For example, the British Steel workers duped by Active Wealth to leave their DB scheme and invest it in high risk investments, facilitated in part by the failure of IM to do it's due diligence.

These aren't wealthy sophisticated investors. They're blue collar workers who needed that money to live in retirement. Pistonheads is sometimes unrepresentative of the wider population and this thread is one of those occasions, in my opinion.

[craig1912]

The whole BS pensions scandal is a mess and many “bodies” have and are implicated. I guess IM wished they had never taken on any of the business but they did. This mess has been going on for six/seven years with various parties being banned from doing business, fined etc.
In this case IM appear to have thought they were doing the right thing but there was some point (2019) when they decided to stop taking business from DB pension transfers and stop dealing with certain parties. I believe there was evidence of wrong doing with British Steel pensions around six years ago.
Wether IM have been treated harshly I couldn’t say but, they were involved and, given there is nobody else to compensate the customer, IM have been landed with the job of doing so.

Some background reading

https://henrytapper.com/2022/01/02/whatever-happen...

https://www.ftadviser.com/personal-pension/2019/05...

https://citywire.com/new-model-adviser/news/sipp-f...


I see IM also lost a court case on VAT fees recently

https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/cl...

[bitchstewie]

Woah I didn't realise Active Wealth was the company that was involved in the whole British Steel episode

FCA blasts financial adviser after British Steel pension scandal

British Steel: the story behind an advice rescue mission

Al Rush used to post on here and was quite heavily involved in trying to right that particular wrong I believe.

[craig1912]

bhstewie said:

Woah I didn't realise Active Wealth was the company that was involved in the whole British Steel episode

FCA blasts financial adviser after British Steel pension scandal

British Steel: the story behind an advice rescue mission

Al Rush used to post on here and was quite heavily involved in trying to right that particular wrong I believe.

Yep Fined £2m last year

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-tak...

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/beatthescammer...

Edited by craig1912 on Monday 27th May 11:21