kim

8 Comments

  1. bryan jones
    July 12, 2018 @ 8:54 pm

    i have a very similar (if not verbatim) response to a written complaint, my question is “if seb are not responsible for any of my losses, why are they all detailed on documents year after year from seb and why were no questions asked?” My second question is, as seb do not offer investment advice, only life insurance, why then am I now an seb client when my original fact find signed by both myself and my financial adviser stated “that as I have no dependents I do not need life insurance”

    Reply

    • Angie
      July 12, 2018 @ 10:49 pm

      This is exactly why the Spanish Supreme Court has deemed life bonds used for investments to be illegal and invalid. The nature of insurance is that the insurer takes a risk – which, of course, SEB (and all the other bogus life insurance providers such as RL360, Generali, Friends Provident International etc) avoid doing. SEB is trotting out these nonsensical rebuttals but doesn’t really think them through at all.

      Reply

  2. Mike Chandler
    July 15, 2018 @ 6:08 pm

    Hi Angie

    The 371k of losses you include are the exact values I sent you when I registered with PL early this year. You say here that the claim has not been accepted

    I know nothing about that having heard nothing from since registration.

    Please clarify

    Registered

    Reply

  3. John Doe
    July 16, 2018 @ 2:23 pm

    This reads like the ramblings of a conspiracy nut, I fear your judgement in relation to these issues are born more from your misunderstanding of their operations than genuine knowledge.
    As far as my understanding goes (of which I am happy to admit has a limit), SEB operate purely on an execution only basis, to claim they “sit and watch” the proverbial fire that is clients’ pensions burn up into dust is purely comical. They are not authorized to make trades they believe are in the best interest of the client, they are only allowed to action the signed instructions sent through by the advisers (hence the use of dealing instructions and statements of understanding, forms that must be independently dated and signed by the underlying client).

    If it as you claim and their “dodgy” financial advisers are deliberately putting clients in to terrible products with large backhand commission, then bring on their comeuppance in the courts – something I believe we can both be in agreement with.

    However I question the validity of the suggestions as to the use of forged signatures. Most clients I remember from my internship days pre-sign forms and give them to their adviser to fill as they please (something I believe to be the fault of the client). It is easy to cry foul and robbery when one leaves their doors wide open as such!
    As you seem to be a fan of metaphors, in these cases the clients are handing their advisers a struck match having let them build a pallet throne doused in petrol, and then complain when they get burned.

    On a side note, might I ask why you are still avoiding to acknowledge/refute the claims that you are in cahoots with Devere (a relatively large financial consultancy firm somehow still evading your qualified and registered checks – even after having instances of policy devaluations and absurd commissions being paid to the advisers!)

    If the rumor-mill is to be believed that alongside being in the pockets of Devere you are truly charging people for this “service” of chasing the regulators and ombudsmen in the interest of client reparations, I fear that I hold you in lesser regard than these crooked advisers you have such a vendetta against.

    Kindest regards,
    John Doe

    Reply

  4. Wilson Philips
    July 17, 2018 @ 10:29 am

    These are not Insurance Bonds …. they are ASSURANCE products and completely different in all aspects.
    Where does it state that ‘these’ products are illegal and invalid – not true.
    As explained – the Life Companies provide a product, which in this case has been abused, to blame them makes as much sense as blaming a car manufacturer for a drunken drivers actions – in both cases the results are horrible, in both cases the manufacturer is not at fault.
    Double check your CWM to Inter-Alliance to Trafalgar links – you are mis informed.
    AGAIN ….

    Reply

    • LOL
      July 22, 2018 @ 3:19 pm

      The funniest thing I have read for ages. They are termed insurance bonds, but they provide assurance such as payment in the event of death. Therein lies the issue as there is no actuarial risk applied to the insurance, and that is why the Spanish don’t accept them, from what I have just read, as there is no real insurance at all. Within a pension, they provide no taxation advantages that they might otherwise do for non-pension trusts and for wealthy investors that can plan where and when they pay tax.

      Get onto Google and search for Antonio Flores to find the answer to the question of whether there is an issue with the sale of these insurance bonds in Spain. It would seem one life company has been fighting hard not to have the case heard in a Spanish court.

      I think the issue, for me at least reading this, is that there ought to have been some alarm bells ringing at these life companies. The allegation about forgery is serious and so should not the life companies be joining in with the action against the advisors? This goes beyond a matter of regulation. I am sure the investors will know if they have or have not signed something!

      The internet archive shows up the links with CWM and Inter-Alliance in the past and Trafalgar(who appear to have inherited the problem), and there is nothing in this blog that contradicts anything I have found. Enlighten us then!

      Reply

  5. James
    July 18, 2018 @ 10:59 am

    Hi Angie, how come CWM’s emails said they were regulated by Trafalgar?

    Continental Wealth Trust S.L. is regulated by Trafalgar International GmbH, Authorised and Regulated in Germany by the Deutsche Industrie Handelskammer (IHK) Insurance Broker registration number: 34(d): D-FE9C-BELBQ-24 & Provision of Investment Advice via D-IHK 34(f) license: D-F-125-KXGB-53

    Reply

  6. Ian
    July 19, 2018 @ 9:54 am

    In response to Wilson Philips above.

    It doesn’t matter whether we call these bonds ‘Insurance Bonds,’ ‘Assurance Bonds,’ ‘Single Premium Investment Bonds,’ ‘Bond Wrappers’ or whatever……IT IS ALL THE SAME THING. They have been available in the UK for several decades and many have given clients good results. They can be tax efficient for the right clients but not all……professional advice should be sought. Whilst they may be a good investment for trustees (trustees of settlements etc.) they should NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be held by pension funds. This rule should apply regardless of whether we are discussing UK or offshore bonds, UK pensions or QROPS. Warning lights should flash when a bond is held in a pension as it is will almost certainly only be there to generate commission and facilitate shameful ‘double dipping.’

    People do dire and evil things in the UK. ‘Fast Pensions’ is a shocking example. However, across the board things are much better in the UK than most other countries. At the moment a few UK SIPP providers are wetting themselves because they have allowed UCIS (toxic unregulated crap) to be purchased for clients through their platforms. One or two have gone bust due to the weight of claims and it looks like there will be more to come. The outcome of court cases is awaited. A number of SIPP providers will now simply not allow ‘non-standard’ investments onto their platforms…..good on them.

    From the point of view of responsibility, fair practice, simple decency and ensuring a good outcome for clients then what can possibly be the difference between the UK SIPP providers and the offshore life companies? It is simply not good enough to say ‘execution only’ and allow the offshore life companies to facilitate the financial ruin of so many people. They have to take responsibility. They have to look at the suitability of investments and they have to refuse some instructions. They need rules, they need parameters, they need lists of ‘acceptable’ and ‘not acceptable’ investments. They also have to be sure they are not dealing with advisers and introducers with wooden legs and parrots on their shoulders.

    Angie is right in what she says about the practices of the offshore life companies. ‘Execution only therefore not guilty’ does not wash. They have a huge responsibility to their clients and sooner or later they will know this. Bit by bit the picture must change and it can’t happen soon enough.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *