A variety of advisers have indicated concern that they may be held liable for unsatisfactory investment returns. That is understandable, given the wide interpretation that can be attached to the “due care and diligence” sabre which is frequently applied in slashing fashion in findings against them. The released Lombard case provides some guidance in this respect lately. This is done, despite the fact that the risk analysis indicated that the client was risk averse clearly.
Brandeaux controlled as a dual asset finance which was domiciled just offshore and structured as an UCIS, using its property allocated between pupil accommodation and surface rent properties. Brandeaux’s objectives, as noted in its fact sheet, were to provide long-term positive returns and capital appreciation. The Glanmore Property Fund, (Glanmore), a UCIS also, invested in commercial property.
Glanmore had a significant level of borrowing with a view to enhance investors’ returns. The truth, which is down-played about gearing always, is it tends to magnify traders’ losses, in the event asset ideals continue and drop to do so for a long period. Now how come that sound familiar? The investment commenced on 16 July 2007. The complainant regularly received detailed statements which however showed that the investment value depreciated substantially over time.
At the time of lodging the complaint in July 2013, the value was less than 50% of the original investment. By 27 February 2015, the worthiness of the investment got reduced by 84.2% of the initial capital. Charges, that your complainant stated weren’t disclosed, included a profile administration fee, preliminary service charge, annual management fee and an annual advice charge. The Complainant’s case against respondent would be that the second option offered him advice that was improper, given respondent’s knowledge of his personal circumstances.
- Prepare home for rent – Clean home and improve interior charm
- Your attitude toward dangers / doubt – how much short-term losses can you handle
- KLP Kapitalforvaltning AS
- Contributing your time and effort to charity
- 2 cups of relevant channels for context and analysis via comparison
His mandate to respondent was to reduce risk whilst trying for capital development and a high after tax come back. Of particular interest for purposes of this article is the Respondent’s view that a FSP is not responsible for investment performance, which, in his view, is the foundation of the issue.
He blamed the economic downturn and lower property valuations in the UK as the reason for the failing of the client’s investment. According to the Ombud, these two documents are central to this inquiry. The record of advice is a four paged record. Upon perusal, it becomes clear that the document lacked vital information such as immediately, complainant’s liabilities and assets, income and expenses and other relevant personal information that would have enabled respondent to raised appreciate complainant’s capacity and tolerance for risk.
Notwithstanding the info gathered by means of this risk profiling evaluation, respondent still went and spent complainant’s pension cost savings in an investment he understood nothing at all about, while persuading complainant that the investments were in reality low risk. I acknowledge that respondent cannot have foreseen that the money were going to fail or be closed down by the UK FCA. However, it was sufficient that respondent had not perused even publicly available information about the unregulated nature of the funds, the levels of gearing, and the implications for complainant.
I’m wondering if a connection with around 13% to 15% produce will probably be worth it? The connection that I’m looking at (presuming it still pays interest) is the Sears Roebuck Accept Corp 7% Note 07/15/2042. It was delisted and is trading on the Pink Sheets OTC greyish market under the ticker symbol SBCKP.
It is thinly traded and has a yield of around 13% to 15%. I’m wondering if this is worth it; or whether Sears Holdings stock is better. The problem I’ve with this (assuming I could buy it for a reasonable price) is its long maturity. I believe if it were due in the 2020’s, I would be okay with it (inflation risk is a large concern for such a long-dated bond).