Intelligent Money

[Forester1965]

As they appear to be a Pistonhead's sponsor, worth mentioning that the financial press are reporting that they have 80 complaints against them with the Financial Ombudsman and the FCA have placed restrictions on the firm disposing of or withdrawing any of its own assets.

[guyvert1]

Links to articles ?

[Forester1965]

You might need a login.

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

FCA Register entry showing restrictions on the firm:

https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000Mf...

Edited by Forester1965 on Wednesday 22 May 15:43

[-Cappo-]

There was a previous issue with IM being cloned as a company - is their any clarity on whether this refers to that clone?

The IM guys are usually pretty active on PH so hopefully someone will clarify shortly.

[pilotoscot]

Good luck with that! I don’t think this is a case of mistaken identity. It’s the FCA and highly lawyered up. I’ve taken up off we so through this site before only to see the people involved to be highly dubious. It’s much better as a car enthusiast site than a sales forum in my view b

[Forester1965]

-Cappo- said:

There was a previous issue with IM being cloned as a company - is their any clarity on whether this refers to that clone?

The IM guys are usually pretty active on PH so hopefully someone will clarify shortly.

This is the firm itself rather than the clone.

[JulianPH]

I am going to be posing on this on the main thread tomorrow, but to address it here - this is indeed IM, not the clone, and is in relation to complaints being made relating to financial adviser SIPP business, not Private Clients.

Also, we have not had anything forced on us, we have entered into a voluntary asset restriction for our own assets (not clients), whilst we address this.

Cheers

Julian

[Forester1965]

JulianPH said:

we have entered into a voluntary asset restriction for our own assets (not clients)

Just on this point. The FCA have said this about Intelligent Money regards your asset restrictions (my bold): "For the avoidance of doubt, this requirement is an assets requirement pursuant to section 55P(4)(a) of FSMA."

If we look at that section (my emphasis);

FSMA 200 said:

55P Prohibitions and restrictions

(1) This section applies if—

(a) on a person being given a Part 4A permission, either regulator imposes an assets requirement on that person,
(b) an assets requirement is imposed on an authorised person, or
(c) an assets requirement previously imposed on such a person is varied.

The regulator says it's imposed this on Intelligent Money, as does the legislation. Choosing not to fight an imposition is not the same as volunteering one.

[JulianPH]

Forester1965 said:

The regulator says it's imposed this on Intelligent Money, as does the legislation. Choosing not to fight an imposition is not the same as volunteering one.

Hi Forester1965

You perhaps ought to read up on Voluntary Asset Restrictions (VREQs - voluntary requirements agreed between the FCA and the firm) before commenting further...

[Rufus Stone]

JulianPH said:

I am going to be posing on this on the main thread tomorrow, but to address it here - this is indeed IM, not the clone, and is in relation to complaints being made relating to financial adviser SIPP business, not Private Clients.

Also, we have not had anything forced on us, we have entered into a voluntary asset restriction for our own assets (not clients), whilst we address this.

Cheers

Julian

Hope it all turns out well Julian. The recent Ombudsman's determination against Rowanmoor frightens the life out of me.

[Forester1965]

If you had not agreed to the requirement, what would the FCA have done?

[bitchstewie]

So what does this mean in plain English?

[TownIdiot]

bhstewie said:

So what does this mean in plain English?

It doesn't have an impact on client funds and day to day operation

There seems to be an issue with a group of financial advisor sipps.

This stops the company transferring their own assets other than in the course of day to day business. Basically the directors and shareholders can't transfer all the cash out in case they lose the FCA complaints.

[EddieSteadyGo]

Forester1965 said:

You might need a login.

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

FCA Register entry showing restrictions on the firm:
....

Thanks for the link - interesting info.

I hope you don't mind, but this is a non-paywalled version of the webpage you provided.

https://archive.ph/gNQwu

[pilotoscot]

I don’t know the full details but the SIPP provider has to do due diligence on the investments. Clearly the FOS and FCA have their doubts. As for the “voluntary” nature of the restrictions. My understanding is, take the voluntary restrictions or we go to court and impose it.

[TownIdiot]

pilotoscot said:

I don’t know the full details but the SIPP provider has to do due diligence on the investments. Clearly the FOS and FCA have their doubts. As for the “voluntary” nature of the restrictions. My understanding is, take the voluntary restrictions or we go to court and impose it.

I really don't think it's an issue with the nature of the investments within the sipp.

I only know what's in the papers but there are articles out there about issues with IFAs and if it was about the actual investments they wouldn't have allowed continued trading

Edited to add - I was clearly wrong about this but didn't think it right to delete it. Apologies

Edited by TownIdiot on Wednesday 22 May 19:03

[Martin315]

Forester1965 said:

As they appear to be a Pistonhead's sponsor, worth mentioning that the financial press are reporting that they have 80 complaints against them with the Financial Ombudsman and the FCA have placed restrictions on the firm disposing of or withdrawing any of its own assets.

Interesting …

[EddieSteadyGo]

TownIdiot said:

I really don't think it's an issue with the nature of the investments within the sipp.

I only know what's in the papers but there are articles out there about issues with IFAs

Based on the article, I think the issue is precisely the nature of the investments which were allowed within the SIPP.

(edited for accuracy)

Edited by EddieSteadyGo on Wednesday 22 May 18:58

[TownIdiot]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Based on the article, I think the issue is precisely the nature of the investments within the SIPP.

Shows that I need to zip it then.

Always find it bemusing that people can elect to use a non-advised platform and complain about the advice. Hence why I got out of this line many years ago.

[Forester1965]

Feel I ought to add, I've no axe to grind with IM and haven't done any business with them. It came across my desk and I remembered they're a sponsor here.

There have been numerous large-scale, systemic failures in this sector in recent years. Hopefully IM isn't one of them, but I thought it worth highlighting because these things often don't hit public consciousnesses until things are too late.