SIPP providers going pop
Discussion
I notice that GPC has gone this week. What caught my attention is that the FCA have decided to lob other people’s money at the problem via the FSCS but my immediate assumption was that client assets/investments would all be secure and simply transferred to another provider.
Obviously this isn’t the case, hence the FSCS, but what’s the loss to the client accounts in this example?
On a secondary note, it seems that a few providers have been s
tting down. Are they all linked in a similar way to a particular type of ‘practice’? Or is this just a clearing out after years of racing to the bottom on fees and reaching the point that the standard industry charges no longer cover the standard industry costs?
Obviously this isn’t the case, hence the FSCS, but what’s the loss to the client accounts in this example?
On a secondary note, it seems that a few providers have been s
tting down. Are they all linked in a similar way to a particular type of ‘practice’? Or is this just a clearing out after years of racing to the bottom on fees and reaching the point that the standard industry charges no longer cover the standard industry costs?Looks like another unregulated investment take down.
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/gpc-sipp-...
Post Berkeley Burke, I bet this SIPP provider won't be the last.
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/gpc-sipp-...
Post Berkeley Burke, I bet this SIPP provider won't be the last.
Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Thursday 13th June 09:08
Along with consumers being encouraged to exit DB schemes when it might not be in their interest, investing pension monies into unregulated products via SIPPs has got to be something the regulator needs to address.
Pattern seems to be unregulated investment, marketing company, financial advisor. Same characters have fingers in each. Punter approached by marketing co, advised by advisor and funds dumped intodirector's pockets unregulated hotel development on Cape Verde. Seems to be a widespread problem.
I also imagine loads of the cash ends up offshore and so, even with a couple of years gaining Her Majesty's Sewing Badge, the perps can enjoy the spoils once they can roam freely again.
The public purse picks up the bill.
System is broken.
Pattern seems to be unregulated investment, marketing company, financial advisor. Same characters have fingers in each. Punter approached by marketing co, advised by advisor and funds dumped into
I also imagine loads of the cash ends up offshore and so, even with a couple of years gaining Her Majesty's Sewing Badge, the perps can enjoy the spoils once they can roam freely again.
The public purse picks up the bill.
System is broken.
janesmith1950 said:
Along with consumers being encouraged to exit DB schemes when it might not be in their interest, investing pension monies into unregulated products via SIPPs has got to be something the regulator needs to address.
Pattern seems to be unregulated investment, marketing company, financial advisor. Same characters have fingers in each. Punter approached by marketing co, advised by advisor and funds dumped intodirector's pockets unregulated hotel development on Cape Verde. Seems to be a widespread problem.
I also imagine loads of the cash ends up offshore and so, even with a couple of years gaining Her Majesty's Sewing Badge, the perps can enjoy the spoils once they can roam freely again.
The public purse picks up the bill.
System is broken.
I agree entirely.Pattern seems to be unregulated investment, marketing company, financial advisor. Same characters have fingers in each. Punter approached by marketing co, advised by advisor and funds dumped into
I also imagine loads of the cash ends up offshore and so, even with a couple of years gaining Her Majesty's Sewing Badge, the perps can enjoy the spoils once they can roam freely again.
The public purse picks up the bill.
System is broken.
Reading about this case it is dodgy financial advisers pushing unregulated funds through a SIPP provider that was stupid enough to accept any old investment.
Both the advisers and SIPP providers concerned need to be dealt with accordingly.
JulianPH said:
Stay in Bed Instead said:
I bet lawyers are just queuing up.
I got a letter this week from Wright Hassall touting for business on the Greyfriars/Best investments.
I've always loved this firms name - Right Hassle!!!I got a letter this week from Wright Hassall touting for business on the Greyfriars/Best investments.
With the rose-tinted Norfolk & Chance Pension Advisors
JulianPH said:
DonkeyApple said:
Bloody Hell! That seems to suggest that all they did was invest in 100% junk. That can’t be true?!!
I can't believe it either, but it does seem strange these are the only investments listed on this page...
In the whole it does look like an entire network of advisors, administrators and junk investments has been created to simply rape the bejesus out of these poor people under the old number 6 routine!
https://youtu.be/SkQ8_Xr_zVY
I did some looking into this this morning.
They have 3200 SIPP's and 50 SSAS's.
2700 SIPP's have investments in these unregulated investments. They were effected 2009-2012.
Some SIPP members have got their money back via the FSCS, but that appears to be due to non compliant transfer advice to the SIPP rather than the subsequent unregulated investment.
Others are now taking legal action and some have complained to the Ombudsman.
Wonder how much the Administrator wants for the SSAS's?
They have 3200 SIPP's and 50 SSAS's.
2700 SIPP's have investments in these unregulated investments. They were effected 2009-2012.
Some SIPP members have got their money back via the FSCS, but that appears to be due to non compliant transfer advice to the SIPP rather than the subsequent unregulated investment.
Others are now taking legal action and some have complained to the Ombudsman.
Wonder how much the Administrator wants for the SSAS's?
Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Friday 14th June 13:29
Stay in Bed Instead said:
I did some looking into this this morning.
They have 3200 SIPP's and 50 SSAS's.
2700 SIPP's have investments in these unregulated investments. They were effected 2009-2012.
Some SIPP members have got their money back via the FSCS, but that appears to be due to non compliant transfer advice to the SIPP rather than the subsequent unregulated investment.
Others are now taking legal action and some have complained to the Ombudsman.
Wonder how much the Administrator wants for the SSAS's?
You are pretty much spot on with your numbers, I was approached by Smith & Williamson to see if I was interested in buying this "opportunity"!They have 3200 SIPP's and 50 SSAS's.
2700 SIPP's have investments in these unregulated investments. They were effected 2009-2012.
Some SIPP members have got their money back via the FSCS, but that appears to be due to non compliant transfer advice to the SIPP rather than the subsequent unregulated investment.
Others are now taking legal action and some have complained to the Ombudsman.
Wonder how much the Administrator wants for the SSAS's?
Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Friday 14th June 13:29
Needless to say I have absolutely no interest whatsoever.
I would love to know the FSA timeline in these. The articles on Lifetime seem to give the impression that the first time the FSA knew about Lifetime was post administration.
What’s worse is that despite us all knowing that on the day the pension rules changed gangs of professional, organised vultures would sweep down on these people and rip them a new one, what we also know is that right now the second wave of vultures will be sweeping in as ‘white knights’ to save the day and giving the victims a second going over and that the Regulator who did nothing the first time will do nothing this time despite everyone knowing and understanding exactly how this all works.
When large numbers of inexperienced people get handed the keys to their fortunes it is an absolute given that they will he swooped upon by every single thieving little chiseler in the market place. What absolutely baffles me about this situation is that knowing this the FSA said that these people needed to involve an Advisor to move their money thus forcing the very people are duty bound to protect into the arms of the gangsters. Gangsters that the FSA knew they would never actually be regulating but just turning a blind eye to create an entire structural network designed specifically to harvest every last penny from its victims.
Some of these enterprises really need to be considered organised crime and frankly the FSA cannot have been as incompetent as it has been and one really must begin to wonder given just how much money has been being ripped out who else has been complicit in some of these ventures?
What’s worse is that despite us all knowing that on the day the pension rules changed gangs of professional, organised vultures would sweep down on these people and rip them a new one, what we also know is that right now the second wave of vultures will be sweeping in as ‘white knights’ to save the day and giving the victims a second going over and that the Regulator who did nothing the first time will do nothing this time despite everyone knowing and understanding exactly how this all works.
When large numbers of inexperienced people get handed the keys to their fortunes it is an absolute given that they will he swooped upon by every single thieving little chiseler in the market place. What absolutely baffles me about this situation is that knowing this the FSA said that these people needed to involve an Advisor to move their money thus forcing the very people are duty bound to protect into the arms of the gangsters. Gangsters that the FSA knew they would never actually be regulating but just turning a blind eye to create an entire structural network designed specifically to harvest every last penny from its victims.
Some of these enterprises really need to be considered organised crime and frankly the FSA cannot have been as incompetent as it has been and one really must begin to wonder given just how much money has been being ripped out who else has been complicit in some of these ventures?
Edited by DonkeyApple on Sunday 16th June 09:48
Bit worrying isn't it. In short, when you are investing your money / setting up SIPPs etc, how do you know you are in safe hands? And how do these (dodgy) companies convince people to trust them? It's this bit that confuses me - how do they get away with it for so long? I mean are they actually doing anything wrong or simply taking too-high risks which are only just coming to light?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff