Act Now to Protect Your Assets!

We hope that, by now, you have read about the threat to all your broker accounts, including ISAs and SIPPs, that the events at Beaufort Securities exposes, which has been widely reported in the press (e.g. see this article in the Sunday Telegraph: ). If not, please visit our campaign page for a full explanation.

Now is the time for you to act, to protect your own interests and remove the threat that an administrator could raid your accounts to recover their costs, in the event that your broker or platform became insolvent.

ShareSoc is asking you to write to you MP, informing them about this threat and asking them to take action to remove it.

A suggested letter follows, for you to send or email to your MP. For your letter to be truly effective, it is important that you personalise it, where indicated. Please explain why this threat concerns you and how you would be affected if your broker or platform became insolvent and how that threat impacts your saving and investment decisions. MPs will be less likely to act if they simply receive a series of identical letters.

You can find details of your MP’s name and email address at this webpage

Suggested letter or email
Dear [NAME OF MP],

I write to highlight my concerns over the special administration of Beaufort Securities, who were one of the largest private client stockbrokers in the UK regulated by the FCA. This case has broad and troubling implications for all UK investors in shares, including those held in ISAs and SIPPs. Over 14,000 clients are directly affected by this matter.

The administrators (PwC) have confirmed that the assets of Beaufort clients (shares and money) were ring-fenced as per FCA CASS requirements and were substantially complete apart from a few isolated deficiencies. Nevertheless, PWC has suggested that it may cost as much as £100 million over four years to wind up the company and return assets at the clients’ expense. Under growing pressure from clients, PwC has recently revised these estimates to £55 million over two years.



These estimates are totally disproportionate, given that they represent 10% of the approximately £550 million value of the ring-fenced client property held by Beaufort. Hundreds of clients may suffer substantial losses and hair-cuts, ring-fenced status notwithstanding.

By way of contrast, another broker, Fyshe Horton Finney, which had £300 million client assets was charged less than £3 million by its administrators (Harrisons) following its insolvency. It’s evident that PwC intends to treat this unfortunate incident as an opportunity to fleece 14,000 clients of £55,000,000!

There have apparently been 13 offers from third-party brokers to take over the client assets of Beaufort. A business transfer could resolve the matter quickly and at much lower cost, and such a solution has been used to good effect in previous broker failures.

Because this is a Special Administration under the very flawed 2011 Special Administration Rules, PwC can take its fees out of the client assets/funds held in “ring-fenced” nominee accounts – segregated accounts not available to be treated as assets of the failed business.

In just 2 months, PwC has already spent £6,000,000; That’s a run-rate of £3,000,000 per month to be funded from clients’ assets. There is a clear conflict of interest between the administrators’ duty of care in returning assets to clients in a timely fashion and their corporate motivation to generate fee income. It is very evident that PwC intends to treat this unfortunate incident as an opportunity to maximise its profits at the expense of Beaufort’s clients.

A review of any stockbroker’s terms and conditions shows that clients are not made aware that the cost of returning assets will be deducted from client assets and money in the case of broker insolvency. 14,000 clients invested their life-savings, including ISAs and SIPPs, through Beaufort under the reasonable assumption that ring-fencing provides an effective safeguard. The current debacle makes it clear that no investor is currently safe with any custody arrangement in the UK.

It is imperative that fairness prevails and these clients who entrusted the financial system with their hard-earned life savings have their asset and money holdings returned without cost or delay. The FSCS, which is funded by a levy on financial institutions, must cover any and all costs incurred in returning ‘ring-fenced’ assets to clients.

I request that you ask the FCA to address the following questions:

• What led the FCA to appoint PwC, was there any form of competitive tender process and did they review and agree the extraordinary cost estimates?
• Why have the offers of third party brokers to take over the client assets not been seriously considered?

I ask you urgently to raise this issue with the relevant ministers requesting a review and revision of the Special Administration Rules. The relevant rule is rule 135 of the Investment Bank Special Administration Rules (England and Wales) 2011 (Statutory Instrument 2011/1301).

I also request an enquiry into the conduct of the FCA in this matter, and whether they have acted in the best interest of investors.

Further information regarding this matter can be found here:

Yours sincerely


We thank you for your attention and support. Getting the Special Administration Rules changed and the FCA’s behaviour investigated and censured is in all our interests, as UK Individual Investors.

Mark Bentley

One comment
  1. […] The campaign has won its first success, but more can be done.  Costs could come down much further, and legislation needs to change for your protection.  If you hold any stockmarket assets, please write to your MP using this template letter. […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.