A number of advisers have indicated concern that they may be held responsible for unsatisfactory investment earnings. That is understandable, given the wide interpretation that can be mounted on the “due treatment and diligence” table which are frequently applied in slashing fashion in findings against them. The published Lombard case provides some guidance in this regard recently. This is done, despite the fact that the risk analysis indicated that the client was risk averse clearly.
Brandeaux managed as a dual asset finance that was domiciled offshore and structured as a UCIS, with its property allocated between student surface and accommodation 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), also a UCIS, invested in commercial property.
Glanmore had a significant level of borrowing with a view to enhance investors’ returns. The truth, which is always down-played about gearing, is it tends to magnify investors’ losses, in the case asset beliefs continue and decline to do so for a long period. Why does that sound familiar Now? The investment commenced on 16 July 2007. The complainant regularly received detailed statements which unfortunately showed that the investment value depreciated substantially over time.
At enough 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 had reduced by 84.2% of the initial capital. Charges, that your complainant stated weren’t disclosed, included a portfolio administration fee, the initial service charge, the annual management fee and an annual advice charge. The Complainant’s case against respondent is that he was given by the second option advice that was unacceptable, given respondent’s understanding of his personal circumstances.
- Prepare home for rent – Clean home and optimize interior appeal
- Your attitude toward risks / doubt – how much short-term deficits can you handle
- KLP Kapitalforvaltning AS
- Contributing your time and effort to charity
- 2 mugs of relevant channels for framework and analysis via assessment
His mandate to respondent was to minimize risk whilst trying for capital growth and a higher after tax come back. Of particular interest for purposes of the article is the Respondent’s view that an FSP is not accountable for investment performance, which, in his view, is the foundation of the complaint.
He blamed the economic downturn and lower property valuations in the UK as the explanation for the failure of the client’s investment. According to the Ombud, both of these documents are central to the inquiry. The record of advice is a four paged document. Upon perusal, it becomes clear that the document lacked essential information such as immediately, the complainant’s liabilities and assets, income and expenditure and other relevant private information that could have enabled the respondents to raise appreciate complainant’s capacity and tolerance for risk.
Notwithstanding the info gathered through this risk profiling evaluation, respondent still proceeded to go and invested complainant’s retirement savings in an investment he understood nothing about, while persuading the complainant that the investments were in reality low risk. I acknowledge that respondent could not have foreseen that the money we’re heading to fail or be shut down by the UK FCA. However, it was sufficient that the respondent had not perused publicly available information about the unregulated nature of the funds even, the known degrees of gearing, and the implications for the complainant.
I’m thinking if a bond with around 13% to 15% yield will probably be worth it? The bond that I’m looking at (supposing it still will pay interest) is the Sears Roebuck Accept Corp 7% Note 07/15/2042. It had been delisted and is trading on the Pink Sheets OTC gray market under the ticker sign SBCKP.
It is thinly exchanged and has a yield of around 13% to 15%. I’m wondering if this is worth it; or whether Sears Holdings stock better is. The problem I’ve with this (assuming I could buy it for a reasonable price) is its long maturity. I believe if it was credited in the 2020’s, I would be ok with it (inflation risk is a huge concern for such a long-dated relationship).