REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Regarding interested parties - how about Ecopetrol taking on the Put blocks?
They have the money for a cash purchase and don't need to consult shareholders - add to that their recent $3bn partnership with Occidental to go fracking in the US. They would make an ideal partner as they could open all the doors for Occidental as regards fracking in Colombia - it would create a huge entity that would dwarf everyone else.
Yikes! Thanks for flagging.
The situation is a bit more complex and it is worth looking at the Beaufort scandal: investigations there (by PW) were undertaken at shareholders' expense (some statutory instrument passed enabling this). For the smaller investors, no loss was suffered. as the amounts were clawed back via the compensation scheme (as I understand).
I was appalled: it was an abuse of the nominee scheme, which should be no different from any other deposit holding entity such as a solicitor's client account. Without looking up the details, I think it was only because of the fraud and not just the administration/liquidation. The problem is, however, in my experience, entities going under are the most likely to commit fraud, the last ditch attempt to survive.
It is a pain, but more than one broker is the answer, the same as multiple bank accounts for large cash holdings.
Thanks, leas.
I’ve got less than £85k in cash but securities (in nominee accounts) with a total value of well over £1m and many individually well over £85k. I *think* I’m ok. I’m sure many other here are in a similar position.
Not sure I follow your capital gains point but will follow the link you suggest: thanks again. I do hope your broker situation gets sorted ASAP.
Apologies to all as I know this is well off-topic but it is highly relevant to many of us.
cautionYB, I can assure you that your shares have been 'ring fenced' in the nominee account. If they have been sold then the company would be acting fraudulently which is a criminal matter. As long as your investment does not exceed 85k then you will be fine if the broker goes into administration. What I would advise anyone to do is make sure that any capital gain on your shares (paper profit) do not exceed the 85k and if there is a likelihood of that happening then offload some and buy them back through another broker.
In my case, I know they have not been sold as I have 3 accounts and have received 3 letters from the Administrators acknowledging my holdings.
There is a discussion forum on moneysaving expert/svs securities which is quite useful should you have any concerns. Irony being, when I decided which broker to use, that website was the main reason for choosing that company.
I was the Interactive Investor guy, Jux. For now, it looks like Alliance Trust is maintaining independence from the Interactive operation though of course that makes no odds in the event of failure.
Could someone please reassure me that, in the event of broker failure, any shares held via nominee accounts (i.e. all off them) cannot be sequestered as part of a process of administration/receivership/bankruptcy? So the only loss portion is the cash above the FCA threshold, or so I believe. Clearly leas’ point about not being able to trade what you hold is also quite right, of course.
Thanks.
Stuckey shares are only part of my investments, properties being the greater proportion so pretty cool. In relation to AMER it may work to my advantage but if not then the minimum I walk away with is my original investment which is covered by the FCA.
My risk has been spread despite the frustration of not being able to sell any of my holding here. That said, I would not be looking to sell at this level even if I did have the option. The administrators have already confirmed my holdings and confirm that the shares will not form any part of loss recovery for the bond holders.
It is good to hear from posters here about online brokers.
I currently use three brokers, which is not cost effective if you infrequently trade.
HL for my SIPP which I am trying hard to take cash at 20% as quickly as possible and then dump into an ISA or ...... spend it before I f****** go senile! Cannot stand the thought of going into a home and they take all my paultry wealth. Have thought of holding up a post office with a banana under my blanket in a wheelchair just to have the comforts of prison.
I have isa’s In my and wife’s name with II and A J Bell. I agree with Jux about II messing about with fees. They are inducing more frequent trades to recoup these fees. Not aware of their vulnerability.
The problem with ISA’s is that idle cash cannot be put in and out at will.
The problem encountered by leas is extremely frustrating. There should be a speedy system for insured elements. Have the same problem with utility companies going tits up. I am still waiting after nearly a year for a refund from disreputable broking firms.
The western financial foundations are somewhat cracking .
Leas, I am afraid I am a bringer of not good news. I was a client of a stockbrokers in Bournemouth that went into administration. It took an age to sort out
Sorry
No worries Jux, covered up to 85k and shares held in my name and the current Mrs lea's name. Ideal scenario would be for the shares to be transferred to another broker. 30years of dealing via post and paper prior to last year and in my name (not nominee account) so perhaps that is something to consider when trading online too.
Im hoping that I can resume control of the shares post Ind -2 and more details of any offer(s) are disclosed.
It is not just about the due diligence.
Anyone making an offer will also have to sort out the finance to back any such offer.
Commiserations , Leas and thanks for sharing. More and more of these two bit organizations are going to close/be closed and it was a timely warning to spread risk. Someone mentioned Interactive Investors and I have to say that I would be quite worried about them after the collapse of their recruiting ground with the website debacle last year, closely followed by the hike in fees .
we are in the due diligence stage of a takeover....once an acceptable time has past... Amer will invite offers from the interested parties and will no doubt put a closing date for those offers...the sp will do what it will do...you can try and trade it or sit and watch the show
This hopefully means some competition & a take out price of mid 20s at least.
Patience will be rewarded soon , hopefully!
GL