POLL- Do you trust your money with a yacht Broker

[DAKA]

Typical politician, didn't answer my question.

Daka is the MP for where ever he lives and I claim my £5.

You can pay it straight into my client account.

You must be the only person in the whole country that thinks I have political correctness nestled in my heart or the sensitivity necessary to suck up to the electorate

We shouldnt joke about clients accounts really, someone at BA Peters under the supervision of Barclays admitted to 'borrowing ' £.84 Million from the clients account and the CPS didn't even question them about it.
I would love to know what happened to the area manger of Barclays, what do you think, early retirement with a cracking bonus ?

 

[jonic]

We shouldnt joke about clients accounts really, someone at BA Peters under the supervision of Barclays admitted to 'borrowing ' £.84 Million from the clients account and the CPS didn't even question them about it.
I would love to know what happened to the area manger of Barclays, what do you think, early retirement with a cracking bonus ?

Now that's another question entirely.

 

[Tranona]

You must be the only person in the whole country that thinks I have political correctness nestled in my heart or the sensitivity necessary to suck up to the electorate

We shouldnt joke about clients accounts really, someone at BA Peters under the supervision of Barclays admitted to 'borrowing ' £.84 Million from the clients account and the CPS didn't even question them about it.
I would love to know what happened to the area manger of Barclays, what do you think, early retirement with a cracking bonus ?

You see Pete, there you go again - jumping to a conclusion that is not necessarily correct. If that did indeed happen, then the trust would have been broken and the judge could never have made the comment that there was always enough funds in the account to meet the demands on it. So you see your conclusion that the money was actually withdrawn rather than just being countered against the overdraft to keep it within limits would mean that nobody could have claimed on the funds left in the account - because you would never have known whose money was in there and whose was not. So the court came to the logical conclusion that only those who could show that their money was paid into it directly could claim.

That was the issue of the case, not Barclays' offsetting policy. If it had been relevant, the judge would have made reference to it in his judgement - if he did I missed it! Your misunderstanding of this point is at the heart of your indefensible case.

Incidentally I fail to see how Barclays could have gained anything from such an action and there would be no benefit to the individual in the bank who condoned it unless he was getting a bung from Peters to prevent him from pulling the overdraft. Much more likely is that those responsible would have had their card marked.

So, although the offsetting of accounts did seem to take place, it had no impact on the outcome of the case. That depended solely on whether the funds were correctly deposited and accounted for. Of course we don't know what might have happened if the failure of the company had occured on a day when the offsetting took place, or indeed whether the offsetting actually resulted in funds moving from one account to another. After all offsetting is common in some types of mortgages, but the funds do not move between the accounts.

You seem to want to see this aspect as "proving" that money is not secure in client trust accounts, but it does nothing of the sort - and is unlikely to be an issue in the future as the new wording for trust accounts specifically excludes this practice. So a paper demon, I think.

Just go back to the person who lost the money on the Bavaria deal. The loss came about because of the incompetence of a new boat salesperson and a failure to manage the funds in the way that was promised - not a failure of the running of the account itself. A fine distinction, but one that needs to be made if you are going to avoid such situations in the future.

 

[DAKA]

You see Pete, there you go again - jumping to a conclusion that is not necessarily correct. If that did indeed happen, then the trust would have been broken and the judge could never have made the comment that there was always enough funds in the account to meet the demands on it.this is the bit where we remain at variance, the only reason there were adequate funds is because the 'borrowing ' had stopped 3 months before they went bust So you see your conclusion that the money was actually withdrawn rather than just being countered against the overdraft to keep it within limits would mean that nobody could have claimed on the funds left in the account - because you would never have known whose money was in there and whose was not. So the court came to the logical conclusion that only those who could show that their money was paid into it directly could claim. unfortunately some money was not paid as such and they lost out

That was the issue of the case, not Barclays' offsetting policy. If it had been relevant, the judge would have made reference to it in his judgement - if he did I missed it! Your misunderstanding of this point is at the heart of your indefensible case.

Incidentally I fail to see how Barclays could have gained anything from such an action now we are in very dangerous ground as no convictions have not been made. so lets move away from barclays, away from ba peters and take about ANYBANK in general. At local level bms have a free hand within boundaries, they are allowed set amounts to lend and sooner or later a company may exceed the agreed over draught and the bank area manager has to approach ho for authorisation to increase the over draught, plenty of time a bank manager will realize he has stuffed up and shouldnt have loaned as much for so long and risks a real 8 ollocking, by offsetting an overdraught he can extend the amount of overdraught and balance his books, there has been cases where bank managers have paid their own money into the pot in order to save clients from going bust for just a few more weeks and there would be no benefit to the individual in the bank who condoned it unless he was getting a bung from Peters to prevent him from pulling the overdraft. Much more likely is that those responsible would have had their card marked.as above, but who knows

i cant be bothered to read the last bit, I assume I have replied to you before several times, please have a look how I last replied to you because everything I have posted in the thread is a repeat and evidenced in the BA peters case save the last bit about ANYBANK , but I do know that goes on, 100% sure !

 

[DAKA]

please dont bother to reply to me.
I already know you dont agree with me.
you knew you werent going to agree with me before I wrote it never mind you reading it !

so lets just agree to disagree.

start you own poll and move on.

Its the weekend, go shooting, golfing, fishing , horse riding,clubbing, even sailing has to be more exciting than this !
cheers
Pete

 

[Richard Shead]

please dont bother to reply to me.
I already know you dont agree with me.
you knew you werent going to agree with me before I wrote it never mind you reading it !

so lets just agree to disagree.

start you own poll and move on.

Its the weekend, go shooting, golfing, fishing , horse riding,clubbing, even sailing has to be more exciting than this !
cheers
Pete

But how do you buy a horse? do you trust your money with the broker?

 

[DAKA]

But how do you buy a horse? do you trust your money with the broker?

I was 15 when I did my first bloodstock deal 2345 Friday night , with a pi 55ed up Irishman never forget his voice drop /sober as he entrusted £250 000 with me

Different sort of Broker you see, authorised and regulated...............


oh now look what you have done

 

[Tranona]

i cant be bothered to read the last bit, I assume I have replied to you before several times, please have a look how I last replied to you because everything I have posted in the thread is a repeat and evidenced in the BA peters case save the last bit about ANYBANK , but I do know that goes on, 100% sure !

You do not KNOW that the money moved out of the account, you only assume that is what happened. I would suggest that this practice, if it ever was widespread, is not now. It will not only have been the ABYA, but other bodies that use client accounts that would have modified their account conditions - and the banks themselves as a result of this case. If it had been judged to have been illegal or have influenced what happened in the case, it would have been dealt with. It was not, so you can only guess why. The people who lost money did not lose because of Barclays actions in this respect, nor a failure of the client account, but a failure of people to do what they said they were going to do (for some) and because for others they were unsecured creditors anyway, irrespective of what went on with the client account.

For what it is worth, Peters was not typical of the brokerage business. Brokerage was a very small part of their activities. We have concentrated on this small part because it got caught up in the failure of the business as a whole. While there are a small number of firms that operate on the same scale and complexity, I have no doubt this case was a wake up call to them and they will have looked very carefully at their internal control procedures. However, most brokers are not like that - they are more like John - one man or partnerships serving a small market and get nowhere near the type of activities that have brought down firms like Peters, Tarquin etc. - never mind all the failed builders from the past who taken clients' deposits and dreams with them.

 

[jonic]

I was 15 when I did my first bloodstock deal 2345 Friday night , with a pi 55ed up Irishman never forget his voice drop /sober as he entrusted £250 000 with me

Different sort of Broker you see, authorised and regulated...............

Oops

 

[Tranona]

Nice one!

 

[DAKA]

Oops Bloodstock broker fraud

For what it is worth, they were not typical of the brokerage business. Brokerage was a very small part of their activities. We have concentrated on this small part because it got caught up in the failure of the business as a whole. While there are a small number of firms that operate on the same scale and complexity, I have no doubt this case was a wake up call to them and they will have looked very carefully at their internal control procedures. However, most brokers are not like that - they are more like John - one man or partnerships serving a small market and get nowhere near the type of activities that have brought down firms like them . - never mind all the failed builders from the past who taken clients' dreams with them.

Since then the industry has altered their structure so it cant possibly ever happen again.

 

[Tranona]

Oops

And today's Telegraph has a barrister specialising in prosecuting fraud cases accused of stealing £80k from his own chambers, and an accountant found guilty of a fraud involving his wealthy clients and the revenue amounting to £4.5M To add insult to injury the accountant was an ex HMRC man!

So you can see what some members of the two most regulated professions (apart from medics) can get up to. Although the barrister is small beer compared with the one last month accused of defrauding clients of over £1M through false expense claims over a period of several years.

 

[DAKA]

And today's Telegraph has a barrister specialising in prosecuting fraud cases accused of stealing £80k from his own chambers, and an accountant found guilty of a fraud involving his wealthy clients and the revenue amounting to £4.5M To add insult to injury the accountant was an ex HMRC man!

So you can see what some members of the two most regulated professions (apart from medics) can get up to. Although the barrister is small beer compared with the one last month accused of defrauding clients of over £1M through false expense claims over a period of several years.

Im not entirely sure where you and jonic are heading with this

Are you suggesting that because some are worse then others it makes everything alright

I expect the guy convicted of murder thinks he is alright compared to the bloke in the cell next to him who killed his own mother

 

[Tranona]

No just a gentle reminder that the demons are not where you are looking for them - and definitely "regulation" does not eliminate wrongdoing.

Fraud occurs when there is opportunity, large sums (particularly for professionals) and poor controls - that is the fraud can be hidden by the fraudster. Does not take a genius to work out that a yachtbroker particularly a small one does not fit well with that. Yes, large sums of money are involved, but only for very short periods before he has to account to the owner for them, so it is sort of self regulating.

Where it does get dodgy, as your favourite case shows is when brokerage gets mixed up with trading under the same management, without the internal controls to keep it under control - or more likely the controls are there, but overridden or ignored by individuals.

Almost always the fraudster in an organisation is somebody in a position to hide what they are doing, so even an annual audit may not catch them until it is too late. Fraud connected with boat buying often occurs because of the long delay between taking money such as deposits and having to deliver the goods - not unique to this business.

So, not really going anywhere as this is all old hat and well understood, but just putting the "problem" in the context of the professional/business world in general. And I have not even mentioned Financial Advisers yet!

 

[DAKA]

. And I have not even mentioned Financial Advisers yet!

There you go again.

You dont submit any proof of wrong doing by Financial Advisers (as you always demand from me) not that it has any place on this thread anyway.
Although you imply because others are acting wrongly then it is acceptBLE FOR HONEST YACHT bROKERS AND THEIR ASSOCIATIONS to allow it to continue within the less honourable yacht brokers , sorry but I dont agree with you and unless you start your own poll , you have no option other than to accept the results of the above poll which very clearly shout out to all (save bigots)that I am not alone with my concerns .

 

[jonic]

There you go again.

You dont submit any proof of wrong doing by Financial Advisers (as you always demand from me) not that it has any place on this thread anyway.
Although you imply because others are acting wrongly then it is acceptBLE FOR HONEST YACHT bROKERS AND THEIR ASSOCIATIONS to allow it to continue within the less honourable yacht brokers , sorry but I dont agree with you and unless you start your own poll , you have no option other than to accept the results of the above poll which very clearly shout out to all (save bigots)that I am not alone with my concerns .

DAKA you are without doubt a very interesting fellow.

 

[Tranona]

There you go again.

You dont submit any proof of wrong doing by Financial Advisers (as you always demand from me) not that it has any place on this thread anyway.
Although you imply because others are acting wrongly then it is acceptBLE FOR HONEST YACHT bROKERS AND THEIR ASSOCIATIONS to allow it to continue within the less honourable yacht brokers , sorry but I dont agree with you and unless you start your own poll , you have no option other than to accept the results of the above poll which very clearly shout out to all (save bigots)that I am not alone with my concerns .

Very confusing! Not sure why you are obsessed with "polls" - so far 37 people! barely half of those who have shown any interest in the subject. I expect if I had the time and energy to back over these interminable threads I will find at least that number of people who have taken the bother to post about their satisfaction with their dealings with brokers.

Why do you think the other "professions" who handle large amounts of clients' money are regulated? Because there is a NEED - just illustrating that despite the regulation fraud still occurs for the reasons I suggested - summed up in the word temptation.

 

[jonic]

Im not entirely sure where you and jonic are heading with this

Are you suggesting that because some are worse then others it makes everything alright

I expect the guy convicted of murder thinks he is alright compared to the bloke in the cell next to him who killed his own mother

Well we weren't heading anywhere until you told us how compared to a yachtbroker bloodstock is a..."Different sort of Broker you see, authorised and regulated"...............

We would never have known about this and this and then this if you hadn't have raised it as some sort of comparison to aspire too!

This thread is now daft.

 

[rubberduck]

I wouldn't trust anyone in business or boat buying unless they can put sufficient safeguards in place to make me feel comfortable. It is not my job to finance anyone else's business unless they are a customer, in which case they are given a limit which the insurance company I use sets.

 

[DAKA]

Well we weren't heading anywhere until you told us how compared to a yachtbroker bloodstock is a..."Different sort of Broker you see, authorised and regulated"...............

We would never have known about this and this and then this if you hadn't have raised it as some sort of comparison to aspire too!

This thread is now daft.

Ive not actually read the links Jonic, I enjoyed your amusing interlude thank you, however you jumped to the wrong conclusion and I dont see any point in the continuance of slagging another profession off in an attempt to show another in a better light.