Financial Conduct
Beaufort Securities and Beaufort Asset Clearing
RNS Number : 4726G
Financial Conduct Authority
02 March 2018

Beaufort Securities Limited (BSL) and Beaufort Asset Clearing Services Limited (BACSL) are placed into insolvency

Following an urgent application by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the High Court has appointed Messrs Russell Downs, Douglas Nigel Rackham and Dan Yoram Schwarzmann of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as joint administrators of BSL and joint special administrators of BACSL.

The FCA took this action following an assessment of the financial positions of BSL and BACSL (the Firms) which led the FCA to believe that both Firms are insolvent. The FCA also considers it necessary for insolvency practitioners to take over the running of the Firms in order to protect assets from dissipation and protect the customers of both Firms.

The FCA has also imposed requirements on the Firms, with immediate effect, using its own-initiative powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the Act), requiring the Firms to cease all regulatory activity and not to dispose of any firm or client assets without the FCA's consent.

The joint administrators / joint special administrators will contact all affected customers of the firms in due course. If customers of the Firms require more information about how they will be affected, they should contact PwC (contact details will be made available by PwC through the day).

You really could not make this one up.

THE PABLO PICASSO PAINTING “PERSONNAGES, PAINTED 11 APRIL 1965

Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New
York

Friday, March 2, 2018

Six Individuals and Four Corporate Defendants Indicted In $50 Million
International Securities Fraud And Money Laundering Schemes

Defendants Proposed that Undercover Law Enforcement Agent Purchase a
Pablo Picasso Painting to Launder Fraudulent Profits From Stock
Manipulation Scheme

A multi-⁠count indictment was unsealed yesterday, in federal court in
Brooklyn, against Panayiotis Kyriacou, Arvinsingh Canaye, Adrian Baron,
Linda Bullock, Matthew Green, and Aristos Aristodemou; Beaufort
Securities Ltd ("Beaufort Securities"), a brokerage firm located in
London, United Kingdom; Beaufort Management Services Ltd ("Beaufort
Management"), an off-⁠shore management company located in Mauritius;
Loyal Bank Ltd ("Loyal Bank"), an off-⁠shore bank with offices in
Budapest, Hungary and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; and Loyal Agency
and Trust Corp. ("Loyal Agency"), an off-⁠shore management company
located in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

The charges include conspiracy to commit securities fraud and money
laundering conspiracy. Canaye was arrested yesterday and is scheduled to
be arraigned this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge Vera
M. Scanlon at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn.

Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
New York, William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-⁠in-⁠Charge, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), and James D.
Robnett, Special Agent-⁠in-⁠Charge, Internal Revenue Service Criminal
Investigation, New York (IRS-⁠CI), announced the charges.

"As alleged in the indictment, the defendants engaged in an elaborate
multi-⁠year scheme to defraud the investing public of millions of dollars
through deceit and manipulative stock trading, and then worked to
launder the fraudulent proceeds through off-⁠shore bank accounts and the
art world, including the proposed purchase of a Picasso painting,"
stated United States Attorney Donoghue. "The charges announced today
reflect that this Office, together with our law enforcement partners, is
committed to holding accountable those who defraud investors, regardless
of the complex schemes they use to hide their ill-⁠gotten gains." Mr.
Donoghue thanked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), both
the New York Regional Office and the Washington, D.C. Office, the City
of London Police, the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority and the
Hungarian National Bureau of Investigation for their significant
cooperation and assistance during the investigation.

"As alleged, in a series of unscrupulous and illegal trading practices,
the defendants contrived a scheme to defraud investors of U.S. publicly
traded companies by manipulating stock prices and masking the true
ownership of their clients' financial interests," stated Assistant
Director-⁠in-⁠Charge Sweeney. "In order to discreetly receive their
illegal proceeds, the defendants focused their efforts on laundering the
money through a variety of means, including the art world, which they
believed was a market free from direct regulation. Bringing to justice
securities fraudsters and money laundering facilitators who engage in
these types of schemes is and will remain a priority for the FBI and our
law enforcement partners worldwide."

"Since the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act has been enacted, the
financial expertise of our criminal investigators is needed now more
than ever in this global economy," stated IRS-⁠CI Special Agent-⁠in-⁠Charge
Robnett. "These allegations outline an intricate scheme to obscure
beneficial ownership and launder illicit proceeds. This behavior harms
the financial world abroad and here at home."

Securities Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme

As alleged in the indictment, between March 2014 and February 2018,
Beaufort Securities, Beaufort Management, and managers Kyriacou and
Canaye, collectively the "Beaufort Defendants," together with their
co-⁠conspirators, engaged in a scheme to defraud investors and potential
investors in various U.S. publicly traded companies by concealing the
true ownership of various U.S. publicly traded companies and
manipulating the price and trading volume in the stocks of those
companies.

Beginning in or about October 2016, an Undercover Agent contacted
Kyriacou and stated that he was interested in opening brokerage accounts
at Beaufort Securities from which he could execute trades in several
multi-⁠million dollar stock manipulation deals.

In furtherance of the scheme, the Beaufort Defendants opened brokerage
accounts for their clients in the names of off-⁠shore shell companies
with nominee shareholders and directors, and then conducted manipulative
trading of stocks of U.S. publicly traded companies listed on U.S.
over-⁠the-⁠counter exchanges. Beaufort Securities facilitated at least ten
"pump and dump" schemes involving U.S. publicly traded stocks,
generating over $50 million in proceeds for its clients. Notably,
Beaufort Securities had affirmed to the Financial Conduct Authority
("FCA") in the United Kingdom in July 2016 that it had taken remedial
measures to correct deficiencies in the firm's financial crime controls
and anti-⁠money laundering processes.

Additionally, between January 2011 and February 2018, the Beaufort
Defendants; Loyal Bank; Loyal Agency; Baron, the Chief Business Officer
of Loyal Bank and a Director of Loyal Agency; and Bullock, the Chief
Executive Officer of Loyal Bank and a Director of Loyal Agency, together
with their co-⁠conspirators, devised and engaged in a scheme to launder
securities fraud proceeds for their clients. To facilitate this scheme,
Beaufort Securities transferred funds to corporate bank accounts at
Loyal Bank opened in the names of off-⁠shore shell companies that were
controlled by the bank's clients. Loyal Bank then provided debit cards
to its clients to withdraw funds from those accounts in an untraceable
manner to hide the source of the money and facilitate ongoing securities
fraud.

Money Laundering Through Purchase and Sale of Art

Separately, between October 2017 and February 2018, Kyriacou;
Aristodemou, the uncle of Kyriacou; and Green, the owner of an art
gallery in London, United Kingdom, together with their co-⁠conspirators,
agreed to launder £6.7 million, the equivalent of over $9 million
dollars, which the Undercover Agent represented to be the proceeds of
securities fraud. After initially proposing the use of real estate
investments to launder the funds, the co-⁠conspirators devised a scheme
to "clean up the money" through the purchase and subsequent sale of art.
Aristodemou described the art business as the "only market that is
unregulated," and that art was a profitable investment because of "money
laundering." The defendants proposed the Undercover Agent could purchase
from Green a painting by Pablo Picasso entitled "Personnages, Painted 11
April 1965," and provided paperwork for the painting's purchase. The
money laundering scheme was halted prior to the transfer of ownership of
the painting.

The FCA also took regulatory action yesterday against Beaufort
Securities and a related clearing firm, including halting all regulated
activities and initiating insolvency proceedings against both firms. The
SEC filed a civil complaint today against Beaufort Securities and
Kyriacou

The charges in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendants
are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The Defendants:

PANAYIOTIS KYRIACOU, also known as "Peter Kyriacou" Age: 26 Residence:
London, England

ARVINSIGH CANAYE, also known as "Vinesh Canaye" Age: 30 Residence:
Mauritius

ADRIAN BARON Age: 63 Residence: Budapest, Hungary

LINDA BULLOCK Age: 57 Residence: St. Vincent/⁠Grenadines

ARISTOS ARISTODEMOU Age: 49 Residence: London, England

MATTHEW GREEN Age: 50 Residence: London, England

BEAUFORT SECURITIES LTD London, England

BEAUFORT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD Mauritius

LOYAL BANK LTD Budapest, Hungary and St. Vincent/⁠Grenadines

LOYAL AGENCY AND TRUST CORP. St. Vincent/⁠Grenadines

US Justice link to above story :
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/six-individuals-and-four-corporate-defendants-indicted-50-million-international
[1]

US Justice to the above indictment:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1040471/download
[2]

THE UNDERCOVER FBI STING INDICTMENT FROM THE SEC:

Charges U.K. Brokerage Firm, Investment Manager, CEO, and Others for
Manipulative Trading in U.S. Microcap Stocks

Washington D.C., March 2, 2018 -⁠-⁠

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced securities fraud
charges against a U.K.-⁠based broker-⁠dealer and its investment manager in
connection with manipulative trading in the securities of HD View 360
Inc., a U.S.-⁠based microcap issuer. The SEC also announced charges
against HD View's CEO, another individual, and three entities they
control for manipulating HD View's securities as well as the securities
of another microcap issuer, West Coast Ventures Group Corp. The SEC
further announced the institution of an order suspending trading in the
securities of HD View.

These charges arise in part from an undercover operation by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, which also resulted in related criminal
prosecutions against these defendants by the Office of the United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, the SEC alleges that Beaufort Securities Ltd. and Peter
Kyriacou, an investment manager at Beaufort, manipulated the market for
HD View's common stock. The scheme involved an undercover FBI agent who
described his business as manipulating U.S. stocks through pump-⁠and-⁠dump
schemes. Kyriacou and the agent discussed depositing large blocks of
microcap stock in Beaufort accounts, driving up the price of the stock
through promotions, manipulating the stock's price and volume through
matched trades, and then selling the shares for a large profit.

The SEC's complaint against Beaufort and Kyriacou alleges that they:

opened brokerage accounts for the undercover agent in the names of
nominees in order to conceal his identity and his connection to the
anticipated trading activity in the accounts

suggested that the undercover agent could create the false appearance
that HD View's stock was liquid in advance of a pump-⁠and-⁠dump by
"gam[ing] the market" through matched trades

executed multiple purchase orders of HD View shares with the
understanding that Beaufort's client had arranged for an associate to
simultaneously offer an equivalent number of shares at the same price

A second complaint filed by the SEC in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York alleges that in a series of recorded
telephone conversations with the undercover agent, HD View CEO Dennis
Mancino and William T. Hirschy agreed to manipulate HD View's common
stock by using the agent's network of brokers to generate fraudulent
retail demand for the stock in exchange for a kickback from the trading
proceeds. According to the complaint, the three men agreed that Mancino
and Hirschy would manipulate HD View stock to a higher price before
using the agent's brokers to liquidate their positions at an
artificially inflated price. The SEC's complaint also alleges that
Mancino and Hirschy executed a "test trade" on Jan. 31, 2018,
coordinated by the agent, consisting of a sell order placed by the
defendants filled by an opposing purchase order placed by a broker into
an account at Beaufort. Unbeknownst to Mancino and Hirschy, the Beaufort
account used for this trade was a nominal account that was opened and
funded by the agent. The SEC's complaint also alleges that, prior to
their contact with the undercover agent, Mancino and Hirschy manipulated
the market for HD View and for West Coast by using brokerage accounts
that they owned, controlled, or were associated with -⁠including TJM
Investments Inc., DJK Investments 10 Inc., WT Consulting Group LLC -⁠ to
effect manipulative "matched trades."

"We allege that Kyriacou engaged in a scheme to manipulate the market of
HD View stock by matching trades to create a false appearance of
liquidity for unwitting investors. The SEC and its law enforcement
partners will continue to aggressively work together to root out such
manipulation, wherever the alleged perpetrators and their brokerage
firms reside, and despite their best efforts to conceal and disguise
their methods," said Marc P. Berger, Regional Director of the SEC's New
York office.

"This action demonstrates that we will continue to be vigilant in
policing microcap markets and will continue to take action as
appropriate against those that undermine the integrity of the market
with manipulative practices, like matched trading, as alleged in our
complaint," said Antonia Chion, Associate Director of the SEC's
Enforcement Division.

The SEC's complaint against Beaufort and Kyriacou charges the defendants
with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-⁠5 thereunder. The SEC also charged Hirschy, Mancino, and their
corporate entities with violating Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act
of 1933, Sections 9(a)(1), 9(a)(2), and 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 10b-⁠5(a) and (c) thereunder. The SEC is seeking injunctions,
disgorgement, prejudgment interest, penalties, and penny stock bars from
Beaufort and Kyriacou. With respect to Hirschy, Mancino, and their
corporate entities, the SEC is seeking injunctions, disgorgement,
prejudgment interest, penalties, penny stock bars, and an
officer-⁠and-⁠director bar against Mancino.

The investigation was conducted in the SEC's New York Regional Office by
Tejal Shah and Joseph Darragh, Lorraine Collazo, and Michael D. Paley of
the Microcap Fraud Task Force and supervised by Lara S. Mehraban, and in
Washington, D.C. by Patrick L. Feeney, Robert Nesbitt, and Kevin
Guerrero, and supervised by Antonia Chion. Preethi Krishnamurthy and Ms.
Shah will lead the SEC's litigation against Beaufort and Kyriacou. Ann
H. Petalas and Mr. Feeney, under the supervision of Cheryl Crumpton,
will handle the SEC's litigation against Mancino, Hirschy, and their
entities. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Office of the United
States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Alberta Securities
Commission, the Ontario Securities Commission, the Financial Conduct
Authority of the United Kingdom, and the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority.

The Commission's investigation in this matter is continuing.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-28 [3]

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-28-beaufort.pdf
[4]

Mike



Links:
-⁠-⁠-⁠-⁠-⁠-⁠
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/six-individuals-and-four-corporate-defendants-indicted-50-million-international
[2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1040471/download
[3] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-28
[4] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-28-beaufort.pdf

The actions of a few causing the jobs of many at BSL & BACSL leaving all but the most astute with little or nothing.

I expect there will be numerous claims being made to the FCA for losses incurred but those claims are limited to max out at £85k I believe.

This is likely the tip of the iceberg. The FCA has long been not fit for purpose. It has taken the US to drag these ratbags out into daylight, while the FCA are on their third G &Ts. Manipulation, insider trading and nods, tweets and winks are symptomatic of the LSE. It could learn a lot from the US and Canadian stock exchanges but refuses to do so or just can't be bothered

Agreed iturama, even when presented strong evidence the FCA and LSE fudge every issue concerning small cap stocks and loads of AIM stocks that Brokers pump and dump and then later on get de-listed and then wound-up for the benefit of the the mob, and to wipe clean the trail of fraud, which the SFO will not look into because they cannot see the value of less than £20m, when in fact they might have scammed many more millions that that even, though insider and pals act trading.

Pump and Dump even by these so called regulated firms, and the LSE AIM regulators giving the impression that they regulate the companies to protect Private Investors, when it is just the opposite in fact.

Clocktower, the FSCS limit is £50k for investment products (£85k is for bank/savings accounts)

Another Wolf outfit?

commervan, my apologises you are of course correct. I wonder which investors will take a hit and be left for the FSCS to pick up? My guess is that small investors will be the ones that will on the basis - they can claim from the FSCS even though it will take them time, and some will not even claim through lack of knowledge.

In truth small investors should be protected by the FSCS - who should then pick up the bill directly with the administrators.

I'm tied up in this mess in a small way. Told wont hear anything until April.

Claret Dragon, Hopefully, you did not leave them holding much cash, as its seems PwC fees will be taken from the cash pile.

I also had a very small amount of stock with them as I hold several accounts with different brokers in case of these sort of events or website issues with other on-line brokers occur. Due to the issues they were having when they set up the new website there were trading problems that flagged cash handling issues. Fortunately, I had withdrawn funds and only left a negligible cash balance with them.

I cannot see PcW being able to transfer any portfolios for some months, and I doubt they will be ready to do so in April.

Hold one stock with Beaufort. Only loose change lying around. Cant sell my holding as I have asked last week. April was the earliest date given, However the person I spoke to was vague. Doubt if they have any idea how long the process will last. Very frustrating.

i was with hoodless for many years the previous name of Beaufort..i rang them up once to sell my shares in ridge mining and my broker said " sorry mr ******* i cant sell them because they have been lent out..

Didnt know what he meant at the time but i do now...they were naked shorting ridge mining before ultimate takeover which happened

maestro, you could have forced the issue and not allowed them to brush you off with that excuse.

yeah i know but i was abit green at the time..should have informed the FSA straight away..think this practice is still rife and ascent resources is one being targeted now and ultimate takeover

Agreed maestro, this may well be one of the problems that PcW are having to deal with, hopefully the records have not been destroyed but I noticed they stated on their latest update that they were having to sort out "a number of open positions and transactions which need to be resolved and concluded. This may impact the total once a finial reconciliation takes place"

However, the position looks better than what was stated on 2nd March:
” It is clear given the better information now recovered that entitlements will be closer in magnitude, if not exceeding, the amounts identified above of £50m and £850m."

Wolf tactics maestro.

I also got Beaufort by default when HB turned to custard.

Wish I had changed at the time to alternative.

Lets see how long this one stretches out for.

Claret Dragon, Have you filled out and sent your claim form yet?

For those that have not the form can be found at the foot of the page that I have posted the link below.

https://www.pwc.co.uk/beaufort

Not filled out form yet.

Will send it off once back in the UK this weekend.

Thanks

Clocktower.

Clock, have you received a communication from pwc inviting you to complete this form? I ask because to me it looks more like a claim form to be completed by suppliers to beaufort who have not been paid for their services.

There is a note on the PWC statement to the effect that Beaufort clients should wait to be contacted.

Beaufort had a dealer in charge called Scott who often refused to buy or sell for clients
because no security was done. But there was never any answer on the phone lines for those who did the security so if you cannot sell online and nobody is answering the phones to do security and the dealers refused to do the security then you were basically fecked. The FCA should have shut this outfit down a long time ago. The simply stockbroking side of the business was fine until they merged with crooks Hoodless Brennan.

We have safeguarded the Firms’ IT and data systems as well as securing approximately £50million in segregated client money accounts and approximately £850million in client securities. We are pleased to be able to confirm that the monies and securities that we have secured are held appropriately in accordance with FCA requirements.

We are mindful that a continuing inability to access your portfolios will be a source of uncertainty and concern. We are doing everything we can to minimise the disruption that this process will cause. We do not anticipate any returns before mid-April at the earliest and many returns will likely take longer. We have had a number of meetings with the Financial Services Compensation Scheme ("FSCS"). The FSCS has declared the Firms to be in default under its rules and as a consequence compensation of up to £50,000 may be available to clients who are eligible under FSCS’s rules. We will provide further guidance in that regard when we are able. General guidance may be found on the FSCS website www.fscs.org.uk.

PcW have posted a updated info page:
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/business-recovery/administrations/beaufort/beaufort-faqs.html

OK, this could be fun. Potential takeover at HMSO. Guess where my HMSO shares are.

Received update from this carve up.

More complicated than first thought.



Stratton Oakmont comes to mind.

Claret; I hope those who had cash or shares lodged with them get everything or close to everything back.

•we do, however, estimate around 700 clients with client money and client assets together valued in excess of approximately £150,000 may experience a loss on their entitlements in excess of the FSCS’s £50,000 compensation limit.

•clients who do not fulfil the FSCS eligibility criteria will not be entitled to receive FSCS compensation and will, regrettably, face a loss on their client money and assets.

And nobody's getting anything until September (except for the few who have under £2000 in cash only).

The other problem is at what value and date are the securities being valued at, if they are not all being returned to the holders, which they first advised would be, on their question page. How do they deal with price movements?

I guess the liquidators are just milking it as usual.

commervan, I think they are still acting on any corporate action on stocks they hold by what I read but how they handle any cash bid situation is another matter, and where the greater problem mat arise, is if they accept the cash in a bid situation and it leaves you witha portfolio over the £50k you will see b all of the excess from what I understand.

Not happy

I am wondering if this is just the first of many brokerages.

Is there anywhere safe to put your money these days?

Under the bed

Down the allotment.

No wonder many don't trust the financial sector and prefer to own Property.

Gold Bars are less trouble CD.

I guess we need to spread our portfolios across several brokerages.

The takeover of HMSO by a French outfit was called off yesterday, so no risk of my suddenly acquiring a load of cash which PWC could raid. On the minus side, the shares plummeted almost back to where they were, without my having the opportunity to sell.

There are a couple of other shares I would like to have banked some profits on too. Actually, being forced to leave them alone has probably worked out in my favour (as long as i do eventually get the shares back, obviously).

My thought too. Got open another couple of accounts at least. The time line before we get access to our stock is a worry.

The lack of trading opportunity is one of the major problems plus as PwC are raiding the stocks as well, the problem also arises on the day they set the bar!

So, how much they will take by payment by selling stocks that may have plunged but could rapidly rise in between is another matter. In addition it seems they have a lot that are next to worthless to trade at the time the bar maybe set, and how they deal with these that even a week later could be well worth a reasonable amount is questionable.

At first they said all securities would be returned around mid April/May, now we have the situation where they will feed on them until they have nothing worthwhile left, so leaving claims to the FSCS. Would the FSCS not be better just picking up the bill up to £50k and getting them to return stocks to designated brokers, in the same manner as they are returning up to £2k in cash.

How does the system ensure that the administration is expedited?

Not good reading.

CD

".....as PwC are raiding the stocks as well......"

on what authority exactly?

There must be a clear distinction between Beaufort's own assets and the assets of the clients, whether held on an execution-only or on a discretionary basis.

One does wonder what has occurred since PWC's first statement and the latest one to account for the change of approach, especially as they had already stated that Beaufort's systems had appeared to have been functioning in a satisfactory manner.

The first formal client meeting will no doubt be interesting, not to mention any subsequent court proceedings......

55011 - they will get the Court to rubber stamp their raids on clients assets, regardless how held - that's what professionals do, and that is what the courts are there to do, help themselves to others funds, and wow betide anybody that challenges them - they land you with huge costs as they sit in Court at anything from £400 - £1000.00 an hour each.

The parasite system operates in this way, and they are all party to seeing anyone go broke on the back of it. All done under the name of the Crown of course.

If you were a supplier of a retailer that went broke and could prove that the goods were yours and had not been paid for by the company, you could claim them, if you left goods to be repaired, you could also claim the goods but it seems that unless they face a challenge in court they can raid your assets in Beaufort as they wish.

Seems to me there is no incentive for anyone to act smartly, quickly or with common sense here.

Lots of very expensive people can drag it out as long as they wish, at our expense, and (inasmuch as we are covered by FSCS) that of the taxpayer. And at the end of it all, when they (and we) are all old and grey, they can all pat each other on the back saying how thoroughly they complied with their compliance policy in terms of compliance and their thoroughly complying with same, and how much they are looking forward to a secure retirement.

I bet if they were paid on a lump sum fee basis, it'd be sorted by now, and very few people would have lost anything.

This country, and its "system" needs a jolly good boot up the arse.

Those with assets above 50k seem likely at best to get only 60% back. See info dated 20.04.18

https://www.pwc.co.uk/business-recovery/administrations/assets/beafort_noticeofproposalsandmeeting_20180420.pdf

Tear up at the meeting on the 10th May.

We should learn more on Wednesday when they publish their draft proposals, including their suggested 'sliding scale' whereby larger portfolios are raided at a lower % rate than small ones, but still suffer a higher absolute ££ withholding.

Unless their proposals are totally unreasonable, or affect me very adversely, I will likely vote in favour as I suspect a 'no' vote could delay things for many more months.

The "proposals" to be published on Wednesday may well be further developed - for better or worse - by the time of the meeting. No less important will be what is formally stated at that meeting and the responses to any matters raised.

Without belittling the work necessarily to be done - it does look at this stage as though the slowest ship is going to be dictating the pace of the whole convoy....

Active execution-only clients may especially feel this way and be very keen to point to past precedents whereby such accounts were simply transferred quite swiftly to another broker. What is the point of the supposed "ring fencing" of client holdings/funds otherwise?

I am expecting PWC/FCA to be called upon for a lot of explanations in public on the day - if not informally taking place already.

It would be quicker and cheaper for the FSCS to cover the costs of transferring execution only client accounts that are valued below 50k to other brokers without delay, than assisting PwC to drag the the process out. All they have to do is agree a figure with PwC and allow clients to get on with the accounts that they have said were ring fenced., and as you say what is the purpose of ring fencing if the FCA rules allow this sort of abuse of clients assets.

Hopefully, those clients will turn up to the meeting when held and make there presence felt, and contact the FCA/FSCS before hand to make their position clear.

Far too sensible, clock.

We know they do not do sensible commervan, as they all seem part and parcel of the same parasitic group that are hell bent on ensuring that they and the so called "professionals" (including lawyers and accountants) are richly rewarded through the criminal actions and abuse of others, leaving those who have, so called protected assets high and dry, and then they stop you getting your hands these securities, so they can milk the situation for an extended period of time, keeping themselves all in highly paid jobs for a longer period of time.

How long before the legals turn up touting for a class action? On the info so far I reckon they'd hook a fair few....

Proposals on the website this morning as promosed. A rather long read, but actually not much in the way of new info.

As you say commervan, a long read but they seem to be on top of the situation now.

Although it is going to take time, there are positives for those with securities under £50k and it seems these should at least be sorted by September, without the need to formally claim through the FSCS for the bulk of clients, as it appears these will be dealt with through PwC , having just had a brief quick read of the document.

https://www.pwc.co.uk/business-recovery/administrations/assets/beaufort_proposals_20180424.pdf

Hopefully clients will be able to see their portfolios some time in May, and be able to check if they have been secured correctly.

May. I have not had time to read updated proposal. Hope its true about sorting this mess out.

Thursday meeting will help get a better idea of how this is going to pan out.

https://www.sharesoc.org/sharesoc-news/sharesoc-demands-fair-treatment-for-beaufort-clients/

Part of the article.

On 15th March, PwC confirmed that the ringfenced property of the Group’s clients was held appropriately in accordance with FCA requirements, being approximately £50million in segregated client money accounts and around £850million in client-owned securities. On the 12th April, PwC noted that client money and client assets were, as at the date of administration, substantially complete save for a very small number of isolated deficiencies. However, the initial estimate of £850 million client assets was reduced to £500m as a result of illiquid / nil value positions. The special administrator stated that the majority of client asset returns will commence September 2018 at the earliest and that around 700 clients with assets valued over £150,000 may experience a loss up-to a maximum of 40% on their ring-fenced assets!

PwC is proposing to charge an incredible £100 million for the wind-down over a period of 4 years. They have provided no justification of either the amount or timeframe for the simple task of transferring an electronic registry of client assets/money to one or more replacement brokers.

ShareSoc has launched a campaign with the primary purposes of mounting a legal challenge to the current administration proposals, specifically:

Refuting the Special Administrator’s right to seize ringfenced client property
Ensuring proper separation of the liabilities of BSL from those of BACSL
Questioning the Special Administrator’s cost and time estimates in relation to the wind-down of BACSL
Seeking a transfer of the business of BACSL to an alternative custodian
Reviewing the actions and motivations of the FCA in this matter
Lobbying for legislative change to ensure that assets in custody are properly protected

Good Luck to Sharesoc, and hopefully they will receive a huge amount of support from all those that have funds tied up in Beaufort, be it in cash of any other securities. The FCA have acted in a a deplorable manner and have not ensured that so called protected assets are transferred expediently to their rightful owners, when falling below their £50k warranted figure, and just reimbursing PwC for sanctioning the transactions. Further more to allow PwC to rip off ringed fence stocks regardless of value is disgraceful, when as Sharesoc states could easily be transferred to another custodian with ease.

Liquidators will not generally resign even when asked to do so, and the courts support them even when asked to remove them, and allow them to get paid for fighting them.

It is well worth reading a few judgement where cases have been brought to the Courts, as the Courts consider them to be their own:

“Moreover, the court does not lightly remove its own officer and will, amongst other considerations, pay a due regard to the impact of a removal on his professional standing and reputation.”

In AMP Ordinary Type Music Box Enterprises Limited v Hoffman (2003) 1 BCLC 319

"On the other hand, if a liquidator has been generally effective and honest, the court must think carefully before deciding to remove him and replace him. It should not be seen to be easy to remove a liquidator merely because it can be shown that in one, or possibly more than one, respect his conduct has fallen short of ideal. So to hold would encourage applications under section 108(2) by creditors who have not had their preferred liquidator appointed, or who are for some other reason disgruntled. Once a liquidation has been conducted for a time, no doubt there can almost always be criticism of the conduct, in the sense that one can identify things that could have been done better, or things that could have been done earlier. It is all too easy for an insolvency practitioner, who has not been involved in a particular liquidation, to say, with the benefit of the wisdom of hindsight, how he could have done better. It would plainly be undesirable to encourage an application to remove a liquidator on such grounds. It would mean that any liquidator who was appointed, in circumstances where there was support for another possible liquidator, would spend much of his time looking over his shoulder, and there would be a risk of the court being flooded with applications of this sort. Further, the court has to bear in mind that in almost any case where it orders a liquidator to stand down, and replaces him with another liquidator, there will be undesirable consequences in terms of costs and in terms of delay.”


https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreported/Pages/[2012]JRC021.aspx

See emails from PwC.

Haven’t had anything from them yet this week, but on Friday i got access details to the portal, and was able to go in and confirm my cash balance and share holdings are present and correct. Apparently they will be in touch with me again in due course. How nice.

I also logged on. All got a bit messy last Thursday. So much for ringfencing.

I have not tried getting into the Portal yet CD, as I am traveling and have intermittent connections but can you explain why it is messy before I try logging in please?

.....or was CD talking about the meeting on Thursday?

I wasn't able to attend, and haven't seen/heard anything about how it went, although the write-up on the website suggests resolutions were passed, thereby approving their proposed plans. It also seems they were on the defensive regarding their costs, suggesting there was a strong challenge during the session.

Amongst all the other unfairnesses about this whole fiasco, it stuns me that the government are rubbing salt into our wounds by charging VAT on the already outrageous costs of sorting out the mess which THEY (through the FCA) should have prevented. A chunk of the money paid out by individuals who lost money, and by the FSCS, will be going back into government coffers.

Beaufort Securities’ clients in angry clashes with PwC
Administrator of collapsed broker rejects proposal to cap its fees

Kate Beioley

May 10,

Customers of collapsed UK stockbroker Beaufort Securities clashed with administrators PwC on Thursday over its plans to use client funds to pay the insolvency bill, which could top £100m.

At a fiery meeting in London, PwC rejected a proposal from customers and creditors to cap administration and legal fees at £35m.

PwC held to its contentious worst-case estimate of £100m in costs to return the £550m in assets and cash to Beaufort clients, although it forecast the likely eventual cost to be in the tens of millions. Client assets will be used to cover the cost of insolvency proceedings and irate investors have criticised the scale of the bill.

The rejection angered many of the 200-300 people at the meeting, convened to vote on PwC’s proposals to wind down the former broker closed down by the UK regulator in March.

Hours after it was put into insolvency, the US Department of Justice brought criminal charges against Beaufort and several employees for allegedly manipulating US penny stocks via so-called “pump-and-dump” schemes and orchestrating money laundering.

PwC said no former Beaufort directors were at the meeting, and revealed £6m had been spent so far on the administration. It estimated costs were likely to be £20m by September, when PwC may distribute some funds, according to two people present.

“People were furious,” said Beaufort customer Anthony Breton. “It was very hard to find anyone in the room who was voting for the proposals but people are confused too. They were very frightened by PwC telling them it could take longer and cost more if we rejected them.”

The results of the vote are expected on Friday. It could result in a return to the courts to appoint a new administrator if PwC’s proposals are rejected. Customers have until June 8 to confirm their claims to assets, via an online portal.

PwC has written down the value of the assets recoverable from £800m to £500m, after discovering a “number of highly illiquid and potentially nil value positions”.

Some 700 clients with larger portfolios of more than £150,000 in cash and assets could lose up to 40 per cent of their ringfenced assets. Customers can claim from the UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme but only to a maximum value of £50,000.

The case has concerned customers of UK brokers who believed their money could not be used in the event their broker collapsed. Campaigners and high-profile critics, including Lord Lee of Trafford, have railed against PwC’s plans. Lord Lee has tabled questions in parliament over the legal precedent of using customer funds in an insolvency.

“Customers are angry. They want to know how PwC was chosen and how the amount of £100m [for the administration cost] was reached,” he told the Financial Times earlier this week. “I think that’s an extraordinary figure. This isn’t Carillion, which had multimillion-pound contracts, it is a small stockbroking firm.”

Responding to Lord Lee’s question, Lord Bates pointed to powers granted to administrators after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

I watch this with interest. It seems to me that these large accountancy companies have no connection with the feelings of the general public. You would think given the pressure that is starting to mount they would ease back on their fees for 6 months and let it blow over. Yet instead they appear increasingly stubborn and are trying to push their fees higher and higher.

I hope the parliamentary select committee gets their teeth into them, takes them off a few tender list and starts routing business towards "Championship Teams" rather than "Premiership Teams".

I think the mood is changing here. A few FTSE250 companies booting the top 4 out as well would help.


I'd like to understand the £300m of illiquid nil value positions too. Are they illiquid on a forced sale or if the shares were transferred to a new broker where the clients were happy to hold them do they then hold a value. I wonder because liquidating them is hardly good value for clients.

Sorry to all that have holdings with this broker. I hope the action group makes a difference here.

"Are they illiquid on a forced sale or if the shares were transferred to a new broker where the clients were happy to hold them........."
It's my understanding that option (transfer them to another broker) is not possible in the event of insolvency. It's the job of the liquidators to value the assets (amongst many other duties) and to liquidate them.
It's a complicated situation for all and I feel sorry for all those caught up. As you say, PWC seem to be milking the system to the utmost.

The question of "liquidity" depends upon the scale.

Most stocks are pretty liquid, most of the time, at the levels of deals that an individual typically does. However, if a broker's vast nominee pool were to be liquidated over a short time (think fire-sale), then a lot more stocks would clearly become "illiquid". The variation between the initial and latest asset value estimates is probably simply due to a more "prudent" valuation.

PWC state that they are considering "worst case" scenarios. Their aim is to transfer most client portfolios to a new broker in due course. They have also stated that a liquidation of any holdings would be as a last resort.

The broker of course had several different lines of business - individual facing and corporate facing. They may have been "small" but their clientele wasn't solely individual investors and traders. I believe that this is where a lot of the claimed "complexity" of the siuation lies.

There is also some doubt that they were actually insolvent on the 1st March at the time of suspension, though it is said that problems ahead were foreseen.

It is still not clear exactly how the fees of the administration are actually going to be collected from clients. Said fees even at an individual level could be far from insignificant. It is to be hoped that the FSCS will do the necessary to minimise the messiness this potentially has....

I take your point guys but PwC are saying that out of £800m, £300m are illiquid and worthless. That's nearly half of every client's portfolio. That just doesn't seem likely, because some clients will have highly liquid stuff (FTSE250, funds, bonds etc.)

Also, the objective of the liquiditor is to maximise returns to creditors. It takes half a nano-second to work out that a transfer to another provider for all accounts under £50k is the best thing for clients. Even if PwC charged £10 per line of stock to transfer as an admin charge.

Clients over £50k, it takes about 5 seconds to come up with a proposal.

Or are we saying that the £50k FCA limit won't apply. I think it does even if PwC plunder those accounts.

I am applying for a job at PWC.

Legalised Mafia.

If they offer you share options as part of your remuneration package, think twice.

I have some ETFs in my portfolio at BS. I understand that some other brokers don’t deal in certain types of these, hence i wonder if they might be considered difficult to transfer and therefore illiquid?

"Lord Lee has tabled questions in parliament over the legal precedent of using customer funds in an insolvency."

This is all noise - window dressing - liquidators are given a license by the Courts to do as they please - the Courts then protect them as they become "Officers of the Court" and act with impunity against one and all with the blessings of the Court. The Lords are made up of these judges that in turn are protected by the Privy Counsel - and the Queens advisors.

Check out all the cases you can find when it comes to applications to remove liquidators and you will see how hard it is to get anything other than a very large legal bill for trying - they will never recuse themselves as it is another way they are allowed to increase costs.

The lesson, is not to keep anything above £50k in any account that is "REGULATED" by the FCA etc. Spread your funds around, and keep a stash of gold if you want security.

Still moving onto the Portal - it is easy to access and confirm your portfolio`s and they appear to have done a deal with the FSCS for clients with assets under £50k - by confirming your acceptance the claim with be automatically processed but how the assets are to be valued is the question that will be in dispute - for instance you have penny stocks that may be well underwater but in a month or two, or even a few hours could leave you with substantial profits if you were to have them transferred to another broker - on what basis will you get compensation ? It should be at cost if they are underwater and you have under £50k`s value in total but Hey Ho you have no chance I guess, as I notice the portfolio`s on the portal did not provide the cost of the stock or attribute any value to any of them, regardless of liquidity.

CD - was there any discussion at the meeting about how and when (date) the stocks would be valued by PwC?

September. Try plotting on the chart where your stocks might be then!!!!!!!

CD - Many would be well pissed off if it resulted in them being well in excess of £50k but in my case I had very little with Beaufort, as I had liquidated last year and only used them for penny stock punts as they were cheap and the site worked well before they upgraded it last year. It would be a miracle if the couple of lines I hold with them would reach anywhere near £50k by September.

Hopefully my main broker is more robust but it has since made me open up further accounts and distribute my holdings. Although it does increase costs and work but in view that ring-fencing does not mean what the FCA said it did on the can, it prevents total wipe-out.

Let us hope the likes of IG never suffer this type of fate.

Once I get weighed out. Will take the money and put it in my sock draw.

Or use Stratton Oakmont.

CD - Because my portfolio with Beaufort was very small - I decided to duplicate it in another account to see how I would be doing if I had access to the of stock and the very small amount of cash - over the past two months I am only down a fraction, due to costs. So it will be interesting to see where we are in September, with a mirrored portfolio.

https://www.allanswered.com/post/wrexn/join-the-beaufort-securities-campaign-campaign-updates/

The Ring Fence falsity:

"Answer:
Lord Bates:

The legal basis for the payment of administrators’ expenses from client assets is contained within rule 135 of the Investment Bank Special Administration Rules (England and Wales) 2011 (Statutory Instrument 2011/1301).

The Investment Bank Special Administration Rules apply to a broad range of businesses which hold client assets and are authorised to carry on a regulated activity which relates to the dealing, safeguarding or administration of investments as agent or principal, including stockbrokers.

Rule 135 sets out that client assets may be used only to pay the expenses which administrators have properly incurred as a result of the work undertaken to ensure that client assets are returned as quickly as possible. The rule also sets out the order of priority for payment of those expenses.

Date and time of answer: 08 May 2018 at 12:57"

Tomorrow is the deadline (“bar date”) for confirming holdings and cash via the portal. Hopefully we have all done so.

Completed form.

Some better news it seems but I guess that is thanks to Sharesco

https://www.ft.com/content/eb265556-6b01-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec

"Most Beaufort Securities customers to be spared insolvency costs"

I'm not subscribed to FT, but I guess it's their interpretation of the following, which is indeed good news, and undoubtedly due in large part to ShareSoc as you say.


General update - Beaufort Asset Clearing Services Limited (BACSL) - in special administration – 8 June
Russell Downs, BACSL joint special administrator and PwC partner, said:

“The special administrators held a constructive and wide-ranging discussion with the creditors’ committee on Wednesday 6 June.

“The administration team, the creditors’ committee and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) have agreed a cost allocation that will see 94% of the costs for returning assets to approximately 17,500 retail and corporate clients* being covered by the FSCS.

“Fewer than ten retail clients will face any costs exposure at all.

“The remaining 6% of costs will be borne by corporate clients, although this percentage may reduce as the distribution plan evolves.

"This is based on a cost allocation that is a flat fee for securities, where maximum costs will be capped at £10,000 per client. The FSCS will cover this amount for all clients bar those who are not eligible (i.e. some of the corporate clients).

“The creditors’ committee support the development of the distribution plan, with the aim of receiving all necessary approvals in July before the intended block transfer of the majority of clients to a nominated broker in September.”



ENDS

News update is better than I expected.

Distrubution details - trust everyone has received the e-mail.

https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/business-recovery/administrations/beaufort/distributions.html

Yep. Roll on September.
I wonder which replacement broker we’ll end up with. Any guesses?
Whoever it is, i hope they’re in the brace position. They’ll have a very busy first few days with several months’ worth of pent up trades (mostly sells, i imadine), and probably folks closing their accounts early doors.

September date is a joke.

It might be a joke them holding onto everyone securities until September but at least it is a date that will allow choices to be made and look at lost oppotunities and things that might have been or a profit from fortune and lady luck.

I assume you have all received the lastest update from PwC that was dated 10 July 2018 but email today.

All set out clearly but we are yet to know which broker will receive our assets.

Although a date of 10 September has been mooted as the start of these assets being returned, I wonder when we will once again be able to be certain when they are with the new broker amd how quickly we will be able to trade them?

What a mess the FCA have made of it all but at least the FSCS is picking up the cost of fees, thanks to Sharesoc

.... and how long will it take to go though all the "know your customer" etc etc etc before you could actually trade on the new acccount?

Not to mention having to arrange a hasty transfer out if the selected broker is not to your liking.......

Would be far better if PWC were willing to arrange - upon request - a transfer to an individual's already held broker account.

Agreed, 55011. Most of will have another broker even if we didn't before 1 March, so it would be good if they could just go straight there rather than go through all the BS with a new company only to (probably) move it on shortly after.

I think though, I would want to keep the ex-Beaufort holdings and cash ringfenced (where have I heard that word before?) in a separate account, even if it is with my existing other broker, until I have reconciled all the dividends, my original cash, FSCS compo, etc.

Presumably we will NOT have Beaufort's usual £1 fee deducted from dividends paid since their demise.

Trust you have all seen the latest email fron PwC Re; Distribution Pln dated 25.07.18

The Addendum sheets all 1808 of them could take a bit of time to check.

Indeed! It shouldn't be rocket science to send out a personalised extract to each client surely?

Nominated broker
The Administrators are pleased to announce that they have chosen the principal broker, The
Share Centre Limited (“TSC”) for the transfer of client money and assets. TSC is authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) under reference 146768. Further
information about TSC and the transfer of client assets is available on the following websites:
https://www.share.com/ and www.share.com/beaufortsecurities/.

Anyone use them now?

I considered them in the past and decided against. Looking at their current charges, I see no reason to change that view.

I wonder if AJ Bell was ever in the frame?

The last date was 10 september now its the end of September - what a joke after all this time

I note on the share.com website questions answered there is a note about not joining them: If you join them you are stuck with their charges

https://www.share.com/help-support/beaufort-securities
"
Don't want to join us?

If you wish to transfer to a broker of your choice or liquidate your client assets, please contact the client service desk at Beaufort who will be able to discuss the options with you."

The last date was 10 september now its the end of September - what a joke after all this time

I note on the share.com website questions answered there is a note about not joining them: If you join them you are stuck with their charges

https://www.share.com/help-support/beaufort-securities
"
Don't want to join us?

If you wish to transfer to a broker of your choice or liquidate your client assets, please contact the client service desk at Beaufort who will be able to discuss the options with you."

If you choose not to transfer to the sharecentre - there is no date available, it could be three months or even six months that your in limbo BUT the good news is that if you allow your stocks/cash to be transfered to them, there is a period of three months that you can transfer out from them to your broker of choice without being charged.

Clocktower,

Where did you see that, please?

.

55011 - If you contact the Client Services Team on 0800 063 9283 they will confirm it I believe, and if so, please post confirmation on this page.

"
.... BUT the good news is that if you allow your stocks/cash to be transfered to them, there is a period of three months that you can transfer out from them to your broker of choice without being charged. ......"

I have seen no mention of this in the PWC documentation, or on the Share Centre pages, or in the Share Centre "ex Beaufort welcome " letter.

55011 - I did not either but having contacted the Team, and discussed the options etc. as I had read on the sharecentre website seeing that you could contact the Team and opt out, so having been informed that one would be disavantage further, I expressed there was little choice but to accept the Sharecentre charges to transfer out of them to by broker of choice, I was advised that I would have the option of doing this for FREE for the first three months, once the shres were with Sharecentre.

Please contact them, and get this confirmed, and post the response please, so as to confirm this to others.

I am not surprised sharecentre have not put this up on their website, as they will not want new clients doing a runner, and missing the chance of extra fees.

Clocktower,

Fair enough. Thanks for the enlightenment.

It was in fact posted by PWC, back in the very early days of this whole sorry affair, that Beaufort clients could opt for their own choice of broker, but that there would likely be a greater delay in the transfer compared with taking the PWC preferred option. I note that they haven't referred to that since.

I did see the para you mention on the Share Centre "welcome" page, but did wonder if it had been put there with PWC's knowledge and approval, since today's PWC notifications made no such mention.

Hopefully they will clarify in the next few days. It will be a busy time for all concerned whichever way it goes, and I fear that will lead to further delay and dissatisfaction.

On balance I would rather go direct to one of my existing brokers in one step - much simpler, I would have thought, and surely less scope for errors to creep in.

My missus is with The Share Centre, and they seem competent, and I like the look and feel of the app and website. I will need to look at their charges though. In addition to the £1.80/month, she also pays a £24/quarter for a frequent dealing package with lower prices/deal (£7.50 instead of 1%). This strikes me as expensive.

.

OK, I've just done some sums, and for MY volume of trading, I get the following annual costs. This is based on monthly fees, 25x £3000 deals/year, 24 dividends per year.

Beaufort (for comparison only) £224
Hargreaves Lansdown £343.75
Halifax £312.50
Share.com £ 771.60
Share.com hi volume option £305.10

It is just a shame the company was destroyed because of less than £400k - and look at the cost to most stakeholders, throughlack of access - My reckoning it has to date cost me around £25k in losses due to share spikes alone.

Up until they put their new website on-line, offer a great self service for £8 a shot be it on-line or telephone, and up until late 2017 I found the service very good indeed.

As soon as my stocks are with them, and they confirm I am able to trade, I will move the account but it is good to know some are very satisfied with them.

I contacted share.com today, as they offer free trial accounts - if you fancy giving them a go when your stocks have been transfered from PwC`s control. However, they cannot open this if you are not a resident on UK Mainland, why beats me, as it is only a trial account, hence the need to phone them.

First, the time they took to answer the phone and this does not inspire one.

Secondly, I was advised that when they get handed your accounts, they will post a temporary password to you, and they do not know how long this will take them to send it to you from the time they receive your stocks. Once you have it though you will hopefully be able to set up your own and trade without to much delay - We shall see if that is true.

God information. Thanks Clocktower

New e-mail from PwC today about the transfer - and letter from The Share Centre.

Transfers to start end Sept but there will then be a verification process - so heaven knows how slow that will be.

To date I estimate the lack of access to my assets in Beaufort have already cost me a least £30k from loss of oppotuinty to take profits and losses.

If this debacle had been handled efficently and expeditiously, there would I expect be fewrer that have suffered what to some might be serious losses.

Any others like to disclose if they would have been better or worse off had this not occured?

Worse off for the same reason. Stuck in stocks you cant move in and out of.

No contact made yet. :(

Until a month ago i would have said I have been better off without access to my shares. Being forced to leave them alone has meant I have been forced 'run my winners'. SBRY in particular has outperformed and my ETFs have done well. This month though, these have plateaud(sp??), while SSE have plummeted, dragging NG with them. My BS portfolio is now 4.7% better than in March, largely thanks to the dividends I just found out about, which is probably where I would've been anyway.

This has dragged on too long.

I was contacted by one of the scamming firms last week, saying they were the share centre, and then introducing another company name. I was aware they were scammers, and suggested they put everything down in an email, as if they were whom they tried to suggest they were, they would have my e-mail asddress. Guess what NO Email as expected.

Beware of the scams!!

They are breaking the law making cold calls also.

Now, I reckon it has cost me in excess of £30k

I’ve had three calls from people claiming to be the “Pension Report Service”. This is, or was, a real company, now dissolved according Companies’ House. I wish they’d phone again so i can waste more of their time (i can give as good as i get in that regard), but alas no calls recently.

Wake me up, when September ends.

Whens our Green Day to start trading again?

Claret Dragon, The Green Day may not start then, The sharecentre, told me that they will be sending out letters, as you will need a new password and in some cases ( a lot I guess) further info from you. Bank Details etc etc I guess.

So I cannot see being able to trade them till mid/late Oct at best.

I don't see why it should take too long (unless of course they WANT it to because time is money). When I first opened accounts with Beaufort and Halifax, I was able to start trading the same day. That was a big part of their promotions/ advertising. Hargreaves took a bit longer because that was an ISA and they needed my NI number etc., but still only a few days.

According to a letter I received (by email) on 31.08.18 transfers were due to to commence today - has anyone heard or had any notification today?

No contact at all since last update on 31st August.

Shambles.

It is a disgrace and all over £300k - excessive costs leved by PwC - assests should have been transfered without all this delay, which has deprived investors, and is still causing damage.

Are we now to suffer a shambles from the Share Centre?

I phoned the BS/PWC helpline yesterday, and a rather docile chap said my account had indeed been transferred, and to wait for today's (tuesdays') post and then call TSC.

That is at least something positive, I have had nothing in the post today from TSC, please let us know when you have, and then I`ll chase them up if my letter has not arrived.

Thanks
CT

My letter, temporary password etc arrived today. Am logged in and placed my first trade.
Hopefully this is the end of a torrid saga.

I am out of the country until Saturday. So wont know if I have received anything until then.

Thanks commervan for the uodate, hopefully mine will arrive tomorrow.

How do you find the website for trading?

So far so good. Much better than BS (although BS's was fine before they screwed it up with the new platform). Nice bright 'look & feel' to the website. Still finding my way around.

The phone/iPad app seems slightly limited, but again, I probably just haven't found everything yet.

Contacted PwC - stock transfered but nothing from SC, so I contacted them, and they have confirmed they have the stock/cash but say they sent out a welcome pack on 20.09.18 - Nothing received - they say they will send another one, so we will see when or if that arrives. The shambles continues.

Thanks for your views on the site commervan.

..... and The Share Centre has stated on its website that it is already levying its fees....

So much for three months grace.

What Fees are they?

The three month grace is I assume, is if you notify them that you have arranged to move your stock/cash to another broker, and do not trade. However, well worth checking with them, as the answer the phone pretty quickly: Ring 01296 414673 which is the section dealing with Beaufort transfers.

Please let us know how the respond.

In summary, their fees are £1.80 per month, trades are 1% (minimum £7.50).

There is an optional £24 per quarter charge if you opt in to their frequent dealing option. The latter reduces trading costs from 1% to a flat £7.50. I have done a few trades and saved this quarter's £24 (and some) already.

If you buy (i think) 500 shares in the company (SHRE), your dealing costs are even lower. Their shares have been fairly flat and illiquid, however.

Thanks for update. I will have a look this weekend when I get back to Angleterre.

Even after telephone them three days ago, and they said the would sent out a second welcome pack and password, on the same day, it still has not arrived.

So far they have not responded to emails either.

Not a happy bunny and a poor start for them but glad to hear your getting on well with them commervan.

Not a good start.

Sorry, we were unable to sign you in as the details you entered did not match our records.

Oh well. Phone calls tomorrow to get this nailed down.

At least you have your welcome pack CD and password - i am still waiting. Maybe you got my pack with my passord. :-)

Update: I have now received the welcome pack - set it all up, all working and have done a trade. Messing around with the site as time allows - seems ok in general, it will just take a little getting used to and seeing if it as good as others that I use.

Good Luck CD - They were very helpful when I called today.