Jump to content

Aendryr

Community Member
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Aendryr

  • Rank
    New Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I thought I flesh out the reasons for the petition a little bit more.PWC wanted to charge £100m over 4 years, and then brought it down to £55m over 2 years. According to me, this doesn't make any difference. It's the same as 100 * 2 / 4. And it's possible that the administration will drag on beyond 2 years. They just did this to quell all the bad press and anger from clients and creditors. The administration of Fyshe, Hoyton and Finney cost only £3m, and yet they had over £300m in assets!Beaufort had in fact correctly segregated all assets and money as per the ring-fencing rules.But the petiti
  2. Most of the members on this board might have heard about the Beaufort securities collapse in which the administrators PWC wanted to raid the shares / money of clients in order to recoup fees for administration. This has happened in the past with previous broker insolvencies such as Hartmann Capital, Fyshe Horton and Finney etcThis is legal and possible because of a certain unknown Rule 135 of the Special Administration Regime that allows administrators to use client shares / assets to fund the administration on the collapse of a stock broker or wealth management firm.Shares / cash within ISAs,
×
×
  • Create New...