Intelligent Money
Discussion
visitinglondon said:
Well they did sponsor a race series and PH investors, bizarrely, seemed more interested in hospitality at race events rather than wondering how much they were paying in fees!!!
Private Client fees are very low. Less than 1%pa. I don't think I could have found anybody cheaper, but growth (incl of fees) is what matters.2Btoo said:
If the (amusing!) analogy is to be followed then I think you could leave that traction control off and still expect IM to pick up the pieces when you bin it expensively into the woodwork.
Julian/Adam, this is all far too complex than my meagre IQ will allow me to grapple with but it sounds like a s
tty situation. Sorry to hear it.
To complete the analogy, where IM have exposure is that the FCA are saying IM should have been vetting the instructors more, not allowing instructors access to the track without asking to see their instructors license on a frequent basis. And that is where the FCA have them by the curlies. If IM had a monitoring procedure for instructor qualifications, then they’d be on a much better footing.Julian/Adam, this is all far too complex than my meagre IQ will allow me to grapple with but it sounds like a s
tty situation. Sorry to hear it. Everyone wants to blame someone else for their stupidity. I can see why the FCA have set things up like this, forcing checks and balances at each step to avoid dodgy instructors binning cars, but it’s harsh to be asked to hold the baby if the music stops like this. Gutted for IM as this will be hitting the shareholder reserves they have clearly been working very very hard to accrue. It’s the instructor who ran off with the money, not IM, and IM are being asked to underwrite that loss.
superlightr said:
IM have a track !!??!! trackday !!! sounds great. 
traction control will remain firmly on. 
traction control will remain firmly on. Unfortunately not, but I organised a track day recently with a bunch of like minded individuals, and you can be included in the next one if you like!
It's on you if you crash, though...
pingu393 said:
visitinglondon said:
Well they did sponsor a race series and PH investors, bizarrely, seemed more interested in hospitality at race events rather than wondering how much they were paying in fees!!!
Private Client fees are very low. Less than 1%pa. I don't think I could have found anybody cheaper, but growth (incl of fees) is what matters.Their fees are very easy to understand…the hospitality was a welcome bonus, on quite a few occasions!
I haven't read all 91 pages of the determination, but 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.
Why doesn't the FCA have any responsibility?
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.
Why doesn't the FCA have any responsibility?
Rufus Stone said:
I haven't read all 91 pages of the determination, but 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.
Why doesn't the FCA have any responsibility?
I've read most of it but I don't work in the industry so wouldn't claim to understand the nuances of the article.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.
Why doesn't the FCA have any responsibility?
Seems to come down to the Ombudsman's view of due diligence.
I flicked through and a big chunk seemed to hinge on a missing email address.
After this, why would anyone be a SIPP provider?
Indeed why did firms ever do it - is there more to it than the (in this case) £150 fee? Mine (with Standard Life) is a few hundred but I recall asking my IFA why they do all the regulatory stuff for so little and I think he just shrugged.
After this, why would anyone be a SIPP provider?
Indeed why did firms ever do it - is there more to it than the (in this case) £150 fee? Mine (with Standard Life) is a few hundred but I recall asking my IFA why they do all the regulatory stuff for so little and I think he just shrugged.
Rufus Stone said:
I haven't read all 91 pages of the determination, but 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.
Why doesn't the FCA have any responsibility?
The FCA sets the rules all those parties have to play by. 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.
Why doesn't the FCA have any responsibility?
If someone doesn’t adhere to them, then is the job of the FCA to ensure they are dealt with accordingly.
Surely by doing this, the FCA is being responsible?
If anyone has done something wrong and if so who, is a whole other question, but all parties know the rules they have to play by.
Rufus Stone said:
I haven't read all 91 pages of the determination, but 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.
Why doesn't the FCA have any responsibility?
Quite simply because the FOS has now decided that IM has all responsibility. There really is nothing more to it than that.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.
Why doesn't the FCA have any responsibility?
IM does, of course, have responsibility for the business it accepts. We would never suggest otherwise.
The crux of the issue is that we considered that in ensuring all parties involved were authorised and regulated by the FCA to undertake their respective roles - and that all investments we accepted met the FCA's definition of 'Standard Assets' at the time - we had satisfied this responsibility. We were wrong.
We have examined this, and the question of proportionality, but to no avail. Whilst we could have pursued the matter though Judicial Review we took the decision that the uncertainty that would ensure over such a long process would not be in the best interests of our clients.
instead we did as you would hope and expect - put our client's best interests first - and as unfair as we consider this position to be, we have accepted it.
JulianPH said:
Quite simply because the FOS has now decided that IM has all responsibility. There really is nothing more to it than that.
IM does, of course, have responsibility for the business it accepts. We would never suggest otherwise.
The crux of the issue is that we considered that in ensuring all parties involved were authorised and regulated by the FCA to undertake their respective roles - and that all investments we accepted met the FCA's definition of 'Standard Assets' at the time - we had satisfied this responsibility. We were wrong.
We have examined this, and the question of proportionality, but to no avail. Whilst we could have pursued the matter though Judicial Review we took the decision that the uncertainty that would ensure over such a long process would not be in the best interests of our clients.
instead we did as you would hope and expect - put our client's best interests first - and as unfair as we consider this position to be, we have accepted it.
Does the determination state what the Ombudsman considers you should have done differently to avoid being held liable?IM does, of course, have responsibility for the business it accepts. We would never suggest otherwise.
The crux of the issue is that we considered that in ensuring all parties involved were authorised and regulated by the FCA to undertake their respective roles - and that all investments we accepted met the FCA's definition of 'Standard Assets' at the time - we had satisfied this responsibility. We were wrong.
We have examined this, and the question of proportionality, but to no avail. Whilst we could have pursued the matter though Judicial Review we took the decision that the uncertainty that would ensure over such a long process would not be in the best interests of our clients.
instead we did as you would hope and expect - put our client's best interests first - and as unfair as we consider this position to be, we have accepted it.
Rufus Stone said:
Does the determination state what the Ombudsman considers you should have done differently to avoid being held liable?
Start with around page 45 of the PDF.The Obudsman said:
The annex to the “Dear CEO” letter states, amongst other things, that the Thematic Review identified significant failings in due diligence procedures to assess non-standard investments and that:
“Principle 2 of the FCA’s Principles for Business requires all firms to conduct their business with due skill, care, and diligence. SIPP operators should ensure that they conduct and retain appropriate and sufficient due diligence, for example, assessing that assets allowed into a scheme are appropriate for a pension scheme. Our thematic review found that most SIPP operators failed to undertake adequate due diligence on high risk, speculative and non-standard investments...”
The annex also sets out how a SIPP operator might meet its obligations in relation to investment due diligence. Such obligations could be met by:
“Principle 2 of the FCA’s Principles for Business requires all firms to conduct their business with due skill, care, and diligence. SIPP operators should ensure that they conduct and retain appropriate and sufficient due diligence, for example, assessing that assets allowed into a scheme are appropriate for a pension scheme. Our thematic review found that most SIPP operators failed to undertake adequate due diligence on high risk, speculative and non-standard investments...”
The annex also sets out how a SIPP operator might meet its obligations in relation to investment due diligence. Such obligations could be met by:
- correctly establishing and understanding the nature of an investment
- ensuring that an investment is genuine and not a scam, or linked to fraudulent
- ensuring that an investment is safe/secure (meaning that custody of assets is through a reputable arrangement, and any contractual agreements are correctly drawn-up and legally enforceable)
- ensuring that an investment can be independently valued, both at point of purchase and subsequently, and
- ensuring that an investment is not impaired (for example that previous investors have received income if expected, or that any investment providers are credit worthyetc.)
JulianPH said:
Quite simply because the FOS has now decided that IM has all responsibility. There really is nothing more to it than that.
IM does, of course, have responsibility for the business it accepts. We would never suggest otherwise.
The crux of the issue is that we considered that in ensuring all parties involved were authorised and regulated by the FCA to undertake their respective roles - and that all investments we accepted met the FCA's definition of 'Standard Assets' at the time - we had satisfied this responsibility. We were wrong.
We have examined this, and the question of proportionality, but to no avail. Whilst we could have pursued the matter though Judicial Review we took the decision that the uncertainty that would ensure over such a long process would not be in the best interests of our clients.
instead we did as you would hope and expect - put our client's best interests first - and as unfair as we consider this position to be, we have accepted it.
I've mentioned earlier that I consider the FCA can sometimes be inclined to be over-zealous in order to find someone to blame, so I do have some sympathy for what has happened to IM.IM does, of course, have responsibility for the business it accepts. We would never suggest otherwise.
The crux of the issue is that we considered that in ensuring all parties involved were authorised and regulated by the FCA to undertake their respective roles - and that all investments we accepted met the FCA's definition of 'Standard Assets' at the time - we had satisfied this responsibility. We were wrong.
We have examined this, and the question of proportionality, but to no avail. Whilst we could have pursued the matter though Judicial Review we took the decision that the uncertainty that would ensure over such a long process would not be in the best interests of our clients.
instead we did as you would hope and expect - put our client's best interests first - and as unfair as we consider this position to be, we have accepted it.
But I did have a few questions I was wondering about - I'm not asking these to be salty or a smart-arse, but if I was interested in the logic as to why you accepted these companies, who turned out to be dodgy, onto your platform.
When you decided to allow these companies to offer their products/services on your SIPP platform, did you know anything about the reputation of the individuals running those companies? Was there any information in the public domain which would have suggested that they could turn out to be dodgy? And were the other big boys in the SIPP market allowing their customers to invest via these companies? If not, why was that? And I presume a firm needs to pay a fee or commission to gain access to your platform - were the fees these companies were offering higher than normal?
EddieSteadyGo said:
I've mentioned earlier that I consider the FCA can sometimes be inclined to be over-zealous in order to find someone to blame, so I do have some sympathy for what has happened to IM.
But I did have a few questions I was wondering about - I'm not asking these to be salty or a smart-arse, but if I was interested in the logic as to why you accepted these companies, who turned out to be dodgy, onto your platform.
When you decided to allow these companies to offer their products/services on your SIPP platform, did you know anything about the reputation of the individuals running those companies? Was there any information in the public domain which would have suggested that they could turn out to be dodgy? And were the other big boys in the SIPP market allowing their customers to invest via these companies? If not, why was that? And I presume a firm needs to pay a fee or commission to gain access to your platform - were the fees these companies were offering higher than normal?
If I were IM,I think my response to this would be to state that that's none of your business. Maybe there's a reason I don't work in public facing roles though. But I did have a few questions I was wondering about - I'm not asking these to be salty or a smart-arse, but if I was interested in the logic as to why you accepted these companies, who turned out to be dodgy, onto your platform.
When you decided to allow these companies to offer their products/services on your SIPP platform, did you know anything about the reputation of the individuals running those companies? Was there any information in the public domain which would have suggested that they could turn out to be dodgy? And were the other big boys in the SIPP market allowing their customers to invest via these companies? If not, why was that? And I presume a firm needs to pay a fee or commission to gain access to your platform - were the fees these companies were offering higher than normal?
JulianPH said:
Quite simply because the FOS has now decided that IM has all responsibility. There really is nothing more to it than that.
IM does, of course, have responsibility for the business it accepts. We would never suggest otherwise.
The crux of the issue is that we considered that in ensuring all parties involved were authorised and regulated by the FCA to undertake their respective roles - and that all investments we accepted met the FCA's definition of 'Standard Assets' at the time - we had satisfied this responsibility. We were wrong.
We have examined this, and the question of proportionality, but to no avail. Whilst we could have pursued the matter though Judicial Review we took the decision that the uncertainty that would ensure over such a long process would not be in the best interests of our clients.
instead we did as you would hope and expect - put our client's best interests first - and as unfair as we consider this position to be, we have accepted it.
I find it quite odd that anyone with responsibility for anything in a financial company would think this way, think that because a firm that you are dealing with is authorised for that business that this absolves you of your requirement to do your due diligence.IM does, of course, have responsibility for the business it accepts. We would never suggest otherwise.
The crux of the issue is that we considered that in ensuring all parties involved were authorised and regulated by the FCA to undertake their respective roles - and that all investments we accepted met the FCA's definition of 'Standard Assets' at the time - we had satisfied this responsibility. We were wrong.
We have examined this, and the question of proportionality, but to no avail. Whilst we could have pursued the matter though Judicial Review we took the decision that the uncertainty that would ensure over such a long process would not be in the best interests of our clients.
instead we did as you would hope and expect - put our client's best interests first - and as unfair as we consider this position to be, we have accepted it.
You seem to still be trying to suggest that your firm hasn’t done anything wrong here, and unwilling to learn from it.
Ken_Code said:
You seem to still be trying to suggest that your firm hasn’t done anything wrong here, and unwilling to learn from it.
I really have no idea how you reach this conclusion from Julian’s post?FFS, man. Give the guys a break. They’ve acknowledged they made a mistake, and they’re going to be massively out of pocket to put it right. 20-20 hindsight shows a bit of naivety in relying on FCA accreditation alone of people they worked with. They’ll clearly add extra process to not be in the same position going forwards.
stuthe said:
said: I really have no idea how you reach this conclusion from Julian’s post?
FFS, man. Give the guys a break. They’ve acknowledged they made a mistake, and they’re going to be massively out of pocket to put it right. 20-20 hindsight shows a bit of naivety in relying on FCA accreditation alone of people they worked with. They’ll clearly add extra process to not be in the same position going forwards.
He said that they assumed that the other firms being regulated absolved them of the need to carry out (or allowed reduced) their due diligence.FFS, man. Give the guys a break. They’ve acknowledged they made a mistake, and they’re going to be massively out of pocket to put it right. 20-20 hindsight shows a bit of naivety in relying on FCA accreditation alone of people they worked with. They’ll clearly add extra process to not be in the same position going forwards.
It doesn’t work like this, and I’m just saying that I’m surprised that management in any financial firm would think that it does.
Edited by Ken_Code on Sunday 26th May 10:54
Ken_Code said:
stuthe said:
said: I really have no idea how you reach this conclusion from Julian’s post?
FFS, man. Give the guys a break. They’ve acknowledged they made a mistake, and they’re going to be massively out of pocket to put it right. 20-20 hindsight shows a bit of naivety in relying on FCA accreditation alone of people they worked with. They’ll clearly add extra process to not be in the same position going forwards.
He said that they assumed that the other firms being regulated absolved them of the need to carry out (or allowed reduced) their due diligence.FFS, man. Give the guys a break. They’ve acknowledged they made a mistake, and they’re going to be massively out of pocket to put it right. 20-20 hindsight shows a bit of naivety in relying on FCA accreditation alone of people they worked with. They’ll clearly add extra process to not be in the same position going forwards.
It doesn’t work like this, and I’m just saying that I’m surprised that management in any financial firm would think that it does.
Edited by Ken_Code on Sunday 26th May 10:54
Odd to see a few low post count posters popping up to have a go. I guess the lurking IFAs are over moon.
Mr Pointy said:
He said "considered", you've used the more perjorative term "assumed". Why?
Odd to see a few low post count posters popping up to have a go. I guess the lurking IFAs are over moon.
It’s pejorative. If you want to try to be a smart-arse over which words to use maybe check how to spell them first.Odd to see a few low post count posters popping up to have a go. I guess the lurking IFAs are over moon.
They chose not to carry out sufficient due-diligence. A better-managed firm would not have done this.
Ken_Code said:
I find it quite odd that anyone with responsibility for anything in a financial company would think this way, think that because a firm that you are dealing with is authorised for that business that this absolves you of your requirement to do your due diligence.
You seem to still be trying to suggest that your firm hasn’t done anything wrong here, and unwilling to learn from it.
How would you suggest they do that? You seem to still be trying to suggest that your firm hasn’t done anything wrong here, and unwilling to learn from it.
Remember that the SIPP provider is not itself authorised to provide financial advice, and is therefore not considered an expert, so needs to rely on the advice of others that are.
In the recent Rowanmoor determination, the Ombudsman went to great lengths to stipulate that a professional trustee must seek appropriate expert advice on investments. Perhaps SIPP trustees will need to do so in future, and independent from the adviser for the SIPP member, adding a whole new level of costs and charges. But then, can they rely on that advice? The Ombudsman here had decided they couldn't rely on the regulated advice given to the member of the SIPP.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff