FCA permanently bolts empty stable with extended minibond ad ban

To nobody’s great surprise, the FCA announced last week that the temporary ban on marketing minibonds to retail investors would be extended indefinitely.

It would have been big news if the FCA had come up with any reasons why promotion of ultra high risk unregulated minibonds to retail investors should be allowed to start up again.

z-has-bolted

The FCA’s announcement glossed over the fact that even before the “ban”, high risk minibonds should never have been promoted to unsophisticated retail investors to start with.

To take the £230m potentially lost in London Capital and Finance as an example, the FCA had more than enough ammunition to stop LCF’s bonds being sold to retail investors without a general ban on minibonds, long before the scheme collapsed in late 2018.

LCF was systematically and brazenly promoted to UK retail investors via Google Ads and websites which misleadingly compared the bonds to FSCS-protected cash accounts. Its own website claimed at one point that it had “£685.3m assets held as security” to cover £215m of investor funds, which we now know from administrators’ reports was completely false.

The FCA’s Second Supervisory Notice in late 2018 belatedly confirmed this, at the same time the FCA sealed LCF’s fate by closing it to new investment. It could have done this at any time since 2014, when whistleblowers from the industry repeatedly tried to bring LCF to the FCA’s attention.

But the FCA did nothing. Not because there wasn’t a general minibond advertising ban in place. But because of the FCA’s belief that unsophisticated investors putting £230m they almost certainly can’t afford to lose in high-risk schemes doesn’t matter, on the grounds that it’s only £230m.

£1.4 billion still at risk

The FCA revealed that retail investors have £1.4 billion invested in “speculative illiquid securities”, a catch-all term for minibonds, bonds “listed” on backwater exchanges with almost no trading, and similar products. This is presumably even after £1 billion was lost from such schemes in 2019 alone.

The FCA acknowledged in December 2018 that its original temporary ban would result in some unregulated schemes collapsing due to new investment drying up.

To quote the Texas Chainsaw Masscare, who will survive and what will be left of them?

Meet the new boss

In other regulatory news, the Chancellor at last appointed a new permanent head of the FCA this week to replace the hapless Sir Andrew Bailey, appointing former civil servant and LSE head Nikhil Rathi.

Rathi is a lifelong mandarin, having been a private secretary to Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown from 2005 to 2008, then spending five years at the Treasury. He then spent 5 years at the London Stock Exchange, nominally a private company but in reality, being the gatekeeper between the private sector and retail investors, part of the UK financial regulatory skyline.

In his statement, Rathi listed his priorities as “vulnerable consumers, embracing new technology, playing our part in tackling climate change, enforcing high standards and ensuring the UK is a thought leader in international regulatory discussions”. Which, the nod to “vulnerable consumers” aside, is not what anyone hoping for a more active FCA to stem the tide of consumer losses and Financial Services Compensation Scheme levies wanted to hear.

Rathi’s belief that the priority of a country which makes up 3% of world GDP should be to become a “thought leader in international regulatory discussions” suggests we are in for more conferences about excellent sheep.

Earlier this year Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission chairman Ashley Alder was being widely linked with the job, but either he decided to stay in Hong Kong, or the UK Government decided that someone with a reputation for an activist and interventionist approach would scare the horses.

So the signs are that Rathi isn’t going to be picking up the six-shooters that Martin Wheatley left behind in 2015 any time soon.

2 thoughts on “FCA permanently bolts empty stable with extended minibond ad ban

  1. “The FCA acknowledged in December 2018 that its original temporary ban would result in some unregulated schemes collapsing due to new investment drying up.”

    Put another way … “a ponzi scheme must be allowed to continue or it will collapse due to new investment drying up …” On what planet does this logic make sense?

    The FCA should be more proactive. Nip these schemes in the bud; prosecute the offenders to deter new schemes.

    In 2016 I threatened to report the advisory firm that half-inched my pension, to Action Fraud and they replied (copying their lawyer): “That’s fine, Action Fraud are nobody and have no authority”. This is what the scammers think of our authorities. For scammers this is a low risk high reward business. It’s a no brainer. It’s easy money.

    Then you get companies following on behind claiming they can recover your losses – pay an upfront fee … which I think this site has reported on but don’t have a link to them right now …

    Or you get the person, exposed by Radio 4 You & Yours in March this year, alledgedly getting money from the perps to remove incriminating blog posts: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000gbhy (starts about 18 minutes in) although I will say the reporter, Sahri Vahl, when I asked her in an email, would not provide the evidence they claim to have obtained.

    However, I also paid £1500 (like one of those in the BBC report) but got didly-squat for it. This is what I was promised – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p1ptb-pjVSy7BgFq-cW3wGDDOW8MH8t2/view?usp=sharing – and in particular, 6,7 & 8 plus I believed the last para, but never saw any of it.

    In fact I managed my own (successful) Ombudsman complaint and had to manage my own campaign to get as much my money back from the receiving trustee as I could. The “useless” blogs being written were more detrimental than helpful and I had to request some were taken down as the receiving trustee was claiming they were hampering their efforts to get my money back from the scammers!

    They did in fact recover 92% and the remainder was recovered from my Ombudsman complaint. So I consider myself very lucky indeed. I know of only 1 other person who has successfully (or mostly anyway, as he wasn’t awarded solicitor costs) recovered his pension and that is Mr. N of PO-12763. I don’t know anyone else who has successfully recovered from a scam, most people are left in financial ruin.

    The very system designed to protect you, will let you down, then abandon you and the “ambulance chasers” will then try and squeeze out yet more money from you, that you can ill afford, with false hopes of recovery.

    The whole system is rotten to the core and will never change until the FCA grow a pair and tackle the problem head on!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s