Tag: Pension Scams

TailorMade International – gets a tailor-made fine reduction

Victims of the unregulated property scheme Harlequin, may be disheartened to know that Alistair Burns has escaped with a reduced fine for his role as chief executive of TailorMade International.

The FCA originally proposed Burns should face a fine of £233,600, along with a ban back in December 2016. However, the Upper Tribunal, whilst upholding the ban, has chosen to lower this to £60,000.

FCA executive director of enforcement and market oversight Mark Steward said: “Mr Burns failed to ensure that TailorMade International managed its conflicts of interest, benefiting financially from his role as shareholder and director at an unregulated introducer alongside his regulated role, to the detriment of his customers.”

Burns co-owned and co-directed the unregulated introducer company operating as ‘TailorMade’. For three years TailorMade provided advice to 1,661 customers transferring them into the unregulated property scheme Harlequin.

Burns received “significant amounts of commission” from Harlequin for the customers that were advised into the scheme through TailorMade. It was found that pension holders were offered totally unsuitable advice to enter into the SIPPS scheme, which lined Burns´ pockets but saw victims´ funds invested into risky overseas property.

The FCA stated “Our action sends a strong message that failing to manage conflicts of interest fairly and disclose them clearly is completely unacceptable.“

To date, compensation totaling more than £55.6m has been paid by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) in relation to claims upheld against TailorMade. This does not cover all the losses suffered by investors, which the FSCS assesses at more than £106.5m.”

This is a welcome prosecution in the battle against unregulated pension scammers. However, this does beg the question as to why the Upper Tribunal reduced Burns´fine. It does seem that Burns has got off lightly, given the compensation being paid out by the FSCS and the enormity of his crime.

Here in the Pension Life office, we believe scammers should be locked up for their crimes and the keys thrown away. A light sentence seems to spell out to scammers that they may get caught but will get off with a slap on the wrist – leaving these criminals free to scam again and again.

August 14, 2018
Robusto Asset Management – qualified and registered?

If you have been following Pension Life´s blogs, you will know that we have been conducting a series of investigations into qualified and registered financial advisers in various firms. Today I am investigating Robusto Asset Management – qualified and registered?

IFAs and their clients are invited to add to it, correct it, improve it. Here’s a link to the three registers if you want to double check:

http://www.cii.co.uk/web/app/membersearch/MemberSearch.aspx

https://www.cisi.org/cisiweb2/cisi-website/join-us/cisi-member-directory

https://www.libf.ac.uk/members-and-alumni/sps-and-cpd-register – Claim to a DipFA

Please note that this data is correct as of 19/07/2018

Robusto Asset Management are part of the Woodbrook Group, Pension Life investigated Woodbrook group a few weeks ago. Woodbrook had just 1/26 – 3.8% of their team members who were qualified to give financial advice. So are Robusto Asset Management – qualified and registered? Can they beat their partner company?

Robusto Asset Management has a website very similar to Woodbrook Group, so when you click on the ´Team´ button on the menu, you are taken to a page which does not give you ANY information about the team. Instead, you get their German address and a few paragraphs:

´With over 100 years industry experience, our team is focused on partnering with you to develop financial strength, which ultimately protects you and your family and delivers a lasting legacy. We aim to understand our clients absolutely and in so doing provide objective, tailored solutions that enhance their lives.

Our in depth knowledge and experience in the international financial services sector provides us with a unique proposition and skill set that together make us leaders in the field. We would welcome the opportunity to speak with you today.´

A quick search on Linkedin, and there are three staff listed. Here is Robusto Asset Management – qualified and registered?

Trevor Byrne – Senior Wealth Manager Malaga

Past employment includes:

Vice President International Pensions – Holborn Assets

Wealth Manager – Blacktower Financial Management

Claims a host of CII qualifications and Certificate for Financial Advisers License A111063 – but DOES NOT appear on the register

John Geddis – Maritime Financial Consultant Palma Area

No claim to any financial qualifications

Matthias S

Director at Robusto Asset Management GmbH

Claims to be a member of the CISI, however, he is not on the register.

Robusto Asset Management – qualified and registered? 0%

August 14, 2018
STM Group Plc – announces trading update

STM Group has announced the following trading updates for the first half of this year.

STM state that the first half of the year has progressed in line with management´s expectations. They refer to this with particular emphasis on their SIPPS program. For those readers who are unfamiliar with STM’s past investment scams, here is a little bit of background information:

STM Fidecs scammed hundreds of victims out of their pensions. STM Fidecs took business from unlicensed scammer XXXX XXXX of Global Partners Limited (only had an insurance license with Marcus Groombridge’s firm Joseph Oliver) and then invested 100% of the victims’ funds into an illegal UCIS fund – run by XXXX XXXX. This fund was called the Trafalgar Multi-Asset Fund.

One of the updates is that STM Group have appointed a Group Internal Auditor. I wonder if this is going to make their trading any more honest. One can only hope that their future auditing will be considerably better than their past.

STM Group accepted hundreds of transfers from UK residents in whose interests it was NOT to swap their British pension arrangements for an expensive QROPS. STM Group then allowed these victims to have funds invested in XXXX XXXX’s own fund – Trafalgar Multi-Asset (a UCIS which is illegal to promote to UK residents). There didn´t seem to be much in-house auditing going on then.

What makes this more hard to swallow is that:

Neither STM Fidecs nor the Gibraltar FSC has said a word about redress for the Trafalgar Multi-Asset Fund victims.

Instead, in March of this year, STM Group’s Alan Kentish, was delighted to deliver reports of record profits for 2017. This was after he was arrested in October 2017. Unfortunately (for the Trafalgar Multi-Asset Fund victims), he was released without charge and was fully backed by the STM Group board.

We are still wondering what the hell the Gibraltar FSC is going to do about this fraud. Leaving STM Group to commit further fraud does not seem to be a viable option.

August 13, 2018
Trustees Must Block Transfers to Pension Scams
Trustees have the power to block pension transfers if they suspect a scam – they must use it! Now the Ombudsman has upheld a complaint against the Police trustee, there is hope for further justice against negligent pension trustees.

In the Royal London v Hughes case, Royal London suspected an attempted transfer was destined to go into a scam and blocked it. The member, Ms Hughes, complained to the Pensions Ombudsman – but he did not uphold her complaint. He said that Royal London was quite right to block the transfer. But Ms Hughes appealed the matter to the High Court and the judge overturned the Ombudsman’s determination.

The industry was, naturally, appalled. But this matter left many questions unanswered:
- Why was a singing teacher so desperate to transfer her £8,000 pension and have it invested in Cape Verde property? (Had she developed a passion for collapsible flats?)
- Where did she get the many thousands of pounds it must have cost her to have a barrister represent her in the High Court? (Considerably more than eight thousand quid I reckon).
- How come the mighty Fenner Moeran QC (for Royal London) got so soundly defeated by a public access barrister? (Was his sharp stick a bit blunt that day?)
- What happened to the several hundred people queuing up behind Ms Hughes to have their pensions invested in Cape Verde flats? (“Flat” being the operative word).
I could ask loads more pertinent and searching questions – like why did Ms Hughes’ public access barrister, Frances Ratcliffe of Radcliffe Chambers, think it was a good use of her considerable skills to defend an obvious pension scam? How drunk was the judge on the day? How many more people got scammed out of their pensions because of this abomination – and proof the law is not just an ass but a whole donkey farm?

Anyway, enough already. The damage was done in the Royal London v Hughes case. And now, hopefully, the door to justice has been opened in the Police Authority v Mr N case – as eloquently reported by Henry Tapper in his blog on 2.8.18. But there is a great deal more work to be done on this now: the scammers who organised and promoted the London Quantum scam need to be prosecuted and jailed; and the FCA-regulated firm – Gerard Associates – which gave the advice to the police officer (Mr N) needs to be sanctioned by the FCA. Gerard Associates – run by Stephen Ward’s associate Gary Barlow – also needs to refund the £5k they charged Mr N – and indeed all of the £220k they charged the 98 London Quantum victims.

Now is the time to bring to justice not only the pension scammers, but also the negligent ceding pension trustees who allowed the scammers to succeed – and facilitated financial crime.

At the time Mr N was scammed by Stephen Ward; Viva Costa International (the “introducers”); and FCA-regulated advisers Gerard Associates, the Pensions Regulator’s “Scorpion” campaign was in full flow. But it was unbelievably inept. It only really talked about liberation and ignored the many other kinds of fraud being perpetrated at the time – i.e. investment fraud.

The London Quantum pension scam came hard on the heels of the Capita Oak and Henley scams – which straddled the Scorpion watershed of February 2013. The transfer administration for Capita Oak was done by Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions (Spain) and Premier Pension Transfers (Worsley, Manchester). Ward knew from first-hand experience how ceding trustees were starting – albeit agonisingly slowly and gradually – to resist transfer requests.

Here is evidence of the first tentative – and very inconsistent – moves to do some long-overdue diligence on pension transfer requests – as reported by Stephen Ward’s team of transfer administration scammers:

24.4.2013 – ReAssure Pensions – “The scheme now want the client’s application and new-dated screenshot emailed to Alan (Fowler – Ward’s pension lawyer chum) – on hold at Tom’s (Biggar – XXXX XXXX’s mate) request”.

11.4.2013 – Prudential – “Transfer canceled as per XXXX (XXXX XXXX’s wife)”

26.4.2013 – Zurich – “Unwilling to process – not sure why – need to cancel”

11.7.2013 – Zurich – “On hold as there may be an issue with Scorpion”

26.4.2013 – Friends Life – “Awaiting trust scheme rules – with Anthony (Salih – Ward’s mate) – need to cancel”

30.5.2013 – Aviva, NHS, Co-op, Friends Life – “Schemes are refusing to transfer”

11.6.2013 – Scottish Life – “Scheme contacting client – believed not transferring”

However, during this same period, there were plenty of transfers being made in defiance or ignorance of Scorpion. These included ceding schemes NHS (£43k), Scottish Widows (£25k), LGPS Newham (£47k), Aviva (£54k), Xerox £92k, Zurich (£21k), Prudential (£25k) and Standard Life (£53k).

But the most worrying was the Firefighters Pension Scheme: £69K after the following notes were made:

“Advised that the trustees committee are meeting to discuss cases and we are awaiting a call back next week. Transfer sent today 2.7.13 and paid on 16.8.13. Statement sent to XXXX and Tom (Biggar)”.

So the Firefighters were no better than the Police Authority in terms of ignoring the Scorpion warning.

And here is what the Scorpion warning was saying from 2013 onwards – and, indeed, was still saying in 2016 when the last couple of hundred Continental Wealth Management victims were in the process of being scammed:

Predators Stalk Your Pension

Companies are singling out savers like you and claiming that they can help you cash in your pension early. If you agree to this you could face a tax bill of more than half your pension savings.

Don’t let your pension become prey.

Pension loans or cash incentives are being used alongside misleading information to entice savers as the number of pension scams increases. This activity is known as ‘pension liberation fraud’ and it’s on the increase in the UK.

In rare cases – such as terminal illness – it is possible to access funds before age 55 from your current pension scheme. But for the majority, promises of early cash will be bogus and are likely to result in serious tax consequences.

What to watch out for?
1. Being approached out of the blue, over the phone or via text message
2. Pushy advisers or ‘introducers’ who offer upfront cash incentives
3. Companies that offer a ‘loan’, ‘savings advance’ or cash back’ from your pension
4. Not being informed about the potential tax consequences
Five steps to avoid becoming a victim
1. Never give out financial or personal information to a cold caller
2. Find out about the company’s background through information online. Any financial advisers should be registered with the FCA
3. Ask for a statement showing how your pension will be paid at retirement and question who will look after your money until then
4. Speak to an adviser that is not associated with the proposal you’ve received, for unbiased advice
5. Never be rushed into agreeing to a pension transfer
If you think you may have been made an offer, contact Action Fraud.

But, the Scorpion warning failed tragically in so many different ways:
- The warning only talked about liberation. Many victims thought this warning didn’t apply to them as they had no intention of liberating their pension fund
- No information was given on how to find out about a company’s background – and how to establish whether it was regulated
- The warning talked about advisers being FCA regulated – but ignored the question of offshore advisers who obviously wouldn’t be FCA regulated
- The public was advised to contact Action Fraud – but did not disclose that Action Fraud would do absolutely nothing
In 2015, we went to see the Pensions Regulator to talk about the failings of the Scorpion campaign – as well as the failings of the Regulator. Two Ark victims and I met the then Executive Director for Regulatory Policy – Tinky Winky. Our intention was to explain to him how the Scorpion campaign had failed and how it needed to be made more robust and comprehensive.

Tinky Winky, flanked by two lawyers and a paralegal, told us to “hop it” – and warned us that if we tried to interfere with the authority of the powers of the regulator, our arse would be grass and he’d be a lawnmower. A year later the Scorpion warning had still not been updated or improved and hundreds more victims lost their life savings.

The Pensions Ombudsman is, naturally, the hero of the hour in the Mr N v Police Authority case. And hopefully, he will find for the rest of the victims if they all now bring complaints against their negligent ceding trustees in the London Quantum case. But we must remember that, contrary to what the Ombudsman’s service has said for the past few years, the industry did know about pension scams long before the Scorpion Campaign in February 2013.

In fact, a clear warning had been given in 2010. The Pensions Regulator had been fully aware that since 1999 pension scams were on the increase, and yet did not make it clear to ceding pension trustees what their statutory obligations were in respect of transferring victims into scams. On 13.7.2010, tPR Chair David Norgrove stated that: “Any administrator who simply ticks a box and allows the transfer, post July 2010, is failing in their duty as a trustee and as such are liable to compensate the beneficiary.”

But pension trustees claim they never read that message (let alone heeded it) and that it was neither publicised nor distributed. Further, in the same year Tony King, the Pensions Ombudsman, reported that he had “found that pension trustees failed in carrying out serious fiduciary responsibilities to others in circumstances in which the law specifically states that they should not be protected from liability.” And still tPR did nothing. And the Pension Schemes Act 1993 was not amended to reflect the urgent need to protect the public.

The Pensions Regulator’s predecessor – OPRA (Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority) had warned about the dangers of pension scams years before 2013 – as had HMRC. The last thing I want to do is criticise the Ombudsman – as this must be his hour of glory and we must all be hugely grateful to him. Especially Mr N and his fellow London Quantum victims. But we must remember that the industry in general, and pension trustees in particular, should have been alert to pension scams long before Scorpion.

Now is the time to bring to justice not only the pension scammers, but also the negligent ceding pension trustees who allowed the scammers to succeed – and facilitated financial crime.
August 7, 2018
Generali, an utter disgrace, merging with Utmost Wealth

Utmost Wealth and Generali PanEurope are set to merge with the help of Life Company Consolidation Group (LCCG). The plan is to re-brand as Utmost PanEurope. I wonder if this merger will do its utmost to ensure they manage and mitigate their future victims´ – sorry clients´ – risks, and protect their investments – as they certainly didn´t do so for their victims who suffered at the hands of CWM.

GPE chief executive Paul Gillett added: “We are proud of our performance over the last 20 years and have grown into one of the largest international companies in Ireland, with assets under management of over €10bn.

What a disgrace that Gillett can announce that he is “proud” of their performance over the last 20 years – proud of the misery and stress caused to the victims of the CWM pension scam? Proud of the fact that Generali have refused to take ANY responsibility for their victims´ losses.

Gillett goes on to say:

“The sale of the business to LCCG marks a very important step in our future development. Together, we represent one of the leading European providers of cross border wealth and corporate risk solutions with the potential to grow further across both current and new markets.”

With the responsibility of Generali being passed over to LCCG, here at Pension Life, we wonder if LCCG will be taking responsibility for Generali´s past victims as well. Will LCCG apply their corporate risk solutions to those who have already been put at risk? Generali on their own certainly didn´t apply a high standard of risk solutions when they placed CWM victims´ funds into high-risk, toxic, professional-investor-only structured notes.

Lets hope Utmost Wealth will do their utmost to sort out this utter disgrace caused by Generali´s negligence.

August 6, 2018
Scaremongering expats – paving the way for more scams

Independent News has written an article entitled – No-deal Brexit will make it ‘illegal’ to pay pensions to retired British expats living in EU, MPs told. In my opinion its just a move to scaremonger expats – paving the way for more scammers.

There are expats all over the world claiming their pensions. Why should Brexit make a difference to those in the EU?

The problem with scaremongering is like this: it paves the way for the pension vampires to strike with ease. Innocent expats, who hold private or occupational UK pensions, will read this kind of alarming report and could be sent into a flurry of panic – reaching for the nearest offshore deal. Or rather, offshore scam.

This type of report creates hordes of expats who don’t really understand what Brexit means (does anyone?) to their future. It creates an easy target for unqualified advisers working for the unregulated firms to strike while the iron is hot. A quick transfer, made in haste, the small print left unread – and the victim can spend the rest of their life regretting a bad decision.

Much in the same way as the scammers crowded outside the gates of British Steel factories – preying on the workers who really did not understand what was happening to their pension fund or what was the best decision to make, this report gives the scammers a new angle on which to work.

It would, however, seem that Huw Evans doesn’t know ‘who’ will be affected by this. His statement lacks any solid facts as to what countries in the EU could enforce this. Huw states there are 38 million people that could be affected. However, he fails to explain exactly why or how this would happen.

If you are an expat, with a UK pension, please do not rush into transferring your pension into an offshore arrangement. If you are interested in transferring your pension, be sure to consult a regulated advisory firm and take advice from a fully qualified and registered adviser.

Make sure you ask all the right questions, know all the details about where your pension will be going and above all, if in doubt, do not make the transfer. Pension scammers lurk all over the world – do not be their next victim.

What is a Pension Scam?

August 6, 2018
TV licence enforcement versus unlicensed advisers

Pension Life campaigns for awareness of corrupt financial advisers and advisory firms operating without the correct licences. Outing theses advisers and firms, in the hope that the authorities will do something about the state of it all, is one way of bringing these scammers to justice and warning the public. A recent article in the Irish News about an unpaid TV licence caught my eye. I feel I must highlight the injustice of the fact that a disabled woman was prosecuted for not having a TV licence while dozens of serial pension scammers get away with scamming their victims out of their hard-earned pension funds daily without ever getting punished.

Grandmother Anne Smith (left) from Poleglass with her friend and neighbour Marie Flynn. Picture by Mal McCann

IN reports –

Ill grandmother sent to jail for not paying TV licence fines

As we reside in Spain, we are fortunate enough not to have to pay for this licence, but readers who live in the UK and Ireland (and I believe Germany) will be well aware of the fees one MUST pay if they have a television in their home. For those that don’t live in a jurisdiction that requires a TV licence, here´s what Wikipedia states about an Irish TV licence:

In Ireland, a television licence is required for any address at which there is a television set. Since 2016, the annual licence fee is €160. Revenue is collected by An Post, the Irish postal service. The bulk of the fee is used to fund Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), the state broadcaster.

Television licensing in the Republic of Ireland – Wikipedia

Irish police found time to visit Anne Smith (59 – who suffers from the debilitating lung condition COPD, as well as osteoporosis and is waiting for a double hip replacement, several times to issue a warrant for her arrest and later to take her into custody. Anne’s TV licence had been left unpaid for quite some time due to her poor health.

Non payment of a TV licence (when a television set is used within a house) is a criminal offence, and non-payment results in a police warrant being issued. Furthermore, men with vans are employed to visit all households on their database that do not pay their TV licence and basically harass them into proving they do not have a TV. It is just assumed that anyone without a TV licence is guilty, and so a campaign of harassment begins by letters and visits to intimidate people into buying a licence.

The Journal.ie reported earlier this year that there had been a rise in the purchase of TV licences in Ireland by * 8,000:

‘In a bid to clamp down on those who do not have a licence, the minister rolled out a raft of measures, including a communications campaign, as well issuing a new tender for a new TV licence agent tasked with carrying out TV licence inspections.

A spokesperson for the department said their research shows that the public campaign gave a definite push in the number of TV licences purchased. One tagline used in the ads where it highlights that buying a TV licence “is the law” resulted in a definite spike in take-up rates, they added.’

Can you imagine if this much effort was put into ensuring that financial advisers were fully licensed and qualified? And if the police chased after all the pension scammers? In my opinion, it is far more important to ensure that the financial services industry is operating in a fully legal and licensed manner. However, it is not so and the priority is obviously TV licence defaulters rather than pension scammers.

Serial pension scammers manage to create scam after scam after scam, posing as licensed advisers – convincing victims that they work for regulated firms – these scammers con millions out of innocent, hard-working victims every year!

And the problem is that the authorities, the FCA, HMRC and even the police just sit idly by and let the unlicensed advisers scam time and time AND TIME AGAIN!

August 6, 2018
Seagate Wealth Management Spain – qualified and regulated?

If you have been following Pension Life´s blogs, you will know that we have been conducting a series of investigations into qualified and registered financial advisers in various firms. Today, I am investigating Seagate Wealth Management Spain – qualified and registered?

IFAs and their clients are invited to add to, correct and improve this blog. Here’s a link to the three registers if you want to double check:

http://www.cii.co.uk/web/app/membersearch/MemberSearch.aspx

https://www.cisi.org/cisiweb2/cisi-website/join-us/cisi-member-directory

https://www.libf.ac.uk/members-and-alumni/sps-and-cpd-register – Claim to a DipFA

Please note that this data is correct as at 17/07/2018

What Seagate Wealth Management Spain say on their website:

‘Seagate Wealth Management provides Independent Financial Advice working with a number of regulated companies offering a comprehensive range of services. However, we are very different to your typical Financial Adviser. The Seagate team has a wealth of experience in providing advice on all aspects of investments, savings and pensions options. We believe that providing various solutions for our clients is the key.’

Seagate Wealth Management Spain – qualified and registered? Meet the team:

Mark Harrison – Managing Partner – ‘..with over 20 years of experience in Financial Services’. However, no Mark Harrison appears on any register for Spain or Seagate Wealth Management. He states in his profile:

‘He is passionate about helping ex-pats reach their financial goals and believes the only way to achieve this is through regulated and transparent financial advice.’

However, it appears that Mark Harrison has no financial qualifications and is therefore unqualified to give advice to anyone about their financial goals.

Chris Shaw – Partner – ‘…career in financial services stretches back over the last 15 years’. However, there is no mention of any financial qualifications and he doesn’t appear on any of the three registers. He states in his profile:

‘Chris takes his UK ethics and expertise and advises ex-pats all around the Costa Blanca on making important financial decisions.’

Ethics? Being unqualified to advise on financial matters but openly advertising and working in the industry doesn’t seem very ethical to me.

Steve Higgins – Partner – ‘…has worked in the financial sector for all of his working life and that is a long time!’ No mention of any financial qualifications, he does not appear on any register. His profile states:

‘Steve is very passionate and sincere about ensuring ex-pats obtain their desired solutions to their investment and income criteria.’

Not sure how being an unqualified financial adviser can be sincere and during his long working life, you would have thought he would have studied for some exams.

Karen Palmer – Client Account Manager – ´…is fully qualified, holding the Financial Planning Certificate, CeMap Mortgage qualifications and the Advanced Financial Planning Certificate in Taxation and Trusts´. However, she does not appear on any register.

Robert Pearl – Relationship Manager – No claims to any financial qualifications and does not appear on any registers.

Arguably, if Mr Pearl is not giving financial advice, he doesn´t necessarily need qualifications. However, we are told he does give financial advice. Therefore, he is giving advice without being qualified to do so.

Seagate Wealth Management Spain – qualified and registered? 0/5 – 0%

Seagate Wealth Management Spain state on their website:

We deliver UK best practice in Spain

We always put our clients´ needs and priorities first

We only offer regulated financial advice using compliant products

We are completely transparent on our services, charges and terms

We have extensive experience in providing advice on investments and pension transfers

However, Seagate Wealth Management Spain do not have a single member of staff registered with any financial qualification.

On their website, Seagate Wealth Management Spain state:

We work in conjunction with fully regulated and authorised companies.

They ought to state who these allegedly regulated companies are – and explain how Seagate are regulated.

August 6, 2018
Waging War on Willy Wagglers
When I grow up, I want to be able to write blogs as eloquently as the Mighty Henry Tapper – the Pension Ploughman with a huge plough which furrows deeply through much of the bullshit on Twitter. He also tolerates Ros Altmann with grace and generosity – which is something I could never do no matter how grown up I get.

Henry´s recent blog is particularly pertinent as it draws attention to the small and irritating gaggle of willy wagglers who understand little but talk a lot about how knowledgeable they are. In fact, many of these know-alls grasp very little outside their own comfort zone – and some of them, like John Ralfe, have neither class nor manners. John and his fellow gaggle of wagglers are quick to belittle and insult, but slow to make the effort to understand complex matters in sufficient depth to be able to develop a balanced and intelligent view of the diverse details of human economics.

But first, let me talk a little about Henry. He is one of the small, elite group of professionals who have bothered to get their feet wet and their hands dirty and venture into my world: the arena of pension and investment scams and scammers. It takes a strong stomach to square up to the vile operators and facilitators of financial crime, and a lot of backbone to call out regulators and other authorities for their dismal failings.

Henry has taken time out of his busy schedule to meet victims and regulators, as well as attend last year’s High Court proceedings in the Ark case, as well as broker meetings with some of the players in the pension and investment scam industry (yes, Peter, I am talking about you!).

Señor Tapper, over the past five years, has generously given his time, effort and expertise to the plight of the scam victims. Victims who have also been very active in campaigning and representing other victims – including airline pilots, bus and taxi drivers, nurses and doctors, architects, research chemists, a carp breeder, a driving instructor and people dying of life-threatening illnesses.

Then you’ve got the so-called professionals in the UK who think – and say – that none of what goes on in the scamming industry, or offshore, is anything to do with them. Some of these self-proclaimed experts also dismiss the victims as “stupid” or “complicit”. To say I have no time for these people would be a bit of an understatement. But to see some of these idiotic “experts” also being insulting to the very people I value so highly is a bit much for me – and the victims – to swallow.

Henry complains about the pesky “experts” on the following grounds:
1. They make you read their books
2. They willy waggle
3. They waggle each other’s willies
4. They get frustrated when you don’t agree with them
5. They are generally from the USA and Europe
I don’t really have a problem with number 1, because I also try to get people to read my book: Anatomy of a Pension Scam

I did try to make it free, but the cheapest selling price Amazon will let you use is $1.34.

I don’t do 2 or 3 (either actually or metaphorically) but I do 4 a lot. But that is because intelligent, knowledgeable people tend to understand the importance of tackling financial crime, while arrogant, ill-informed people don’t. Not that I am talking about agreeing with anything complex or requiring much knowledge – I am referring to the basic principals that scamming is wrong; being unqualified is wrong; being unregulated is wrong; being greedy is wrong.

I am not too sure about 5 because I know very few people from the USA. However, the people I tend to meet in Europe are mostly either victims or perpetrators – and they are both genuine experts in their field of expertise in equal measures (i.e. at being scammed or doing the scamming). I have met one or two good guys on the Continent, but they are pretty rare.

I’ve had a quick look at the willy waggling Tweets by John Ralfe (clearly a legend in his own mind) to which Henry is referring. Ralfe appears to be recommending that Henry should take up reading the work of Nobel Laureates. I have no doubt that should Henry ever feel the need for advice about what books he should read, he will know exactly where to go. And, of course, Henry is far too much of a gentleman to tell this ignorant twerp where to go. I, on the other hand, do not aspire to Henry’s high standards.

So, Mr Ralfe, take your willy and waggle it somewhere else.
July 25, 2018
10 essential questions for offshore advisers
Pension Life is working towards making offshore financial advisers more transparent. We have created a list of 10 essential questions for offshore advisers and their preferred answers. For too long precious pension funds been left in the hands of unqualified, unregistered advisers and unregulated financial advisory firms.

Offshore advisers need to follow a strict set of rules just as UK-based ones do. Being offshore doesn’t mean you can invent your own set of rules for financial advice. However, it seems more and more people are being poorly and illegally advised in the transfer of their pension funds.

Offshore advisers often use unnecessary insurance bonds to skim extra commissions without disclosing these commissions prior to the pension transfer. It is clear more information needs to be available to the clients of these ill-advised pension transfers. With greater transparency, pension holders would be able to make better informed decisions about advisers to whom they entrust their transfers. Also, they will have better knowledge of how to spot a pension scammer.

With so many advisory firms out there, it is hard to know when your inner beacon should be flashing a bright red warning light telling you to just walk away. Pension Life has put together this list of 10 essential questions to ask your offshore adviser.

If their answer points to the red warning light walk away – FAST!
1. What are your qualifications – are you qualified to give advice on pension transfers? and what CPD have you done recently? Advisers giving advice on pensions must be qualified to a certain level. Click on the link above to read what these requirements are. Simply having a qualification isn´t enough. Advisers must be qualified to the correct level and they must have made an effort to complete the relevant continued professional development (CPD). In addition they must pay their membership fees to the institute with which they qualified.
2. Is the company you work for regulated for insurance and investments? If the answer to this question is NO – walk away – DO NOT take any financial advice from them. All companies who give financial advice on pension MUST be licenced to do this by being regulated for both. An insurance licence is not sufficient.
3. Compliance. Is there a robust compliance department staffed by qualified personnel? If the answer is no walk away.
4. Do you use insurance bonds? If the answer to this is YES – walk away. If your pension goes into a SIPPS or a QROPS, it does not need two wrappers and therefore an insurance bond is just another way of the adviser making more money out of your fund though commissions – hence draining the value of your pension fund.
5. Do you use structured notes, UCIS funds or in-house funds? If the answer to this is YES – walk away. Structured notes are for ´professional investors only´; they are high-risk and not suitable for a pension which is classed as a retail investment that should be placed into a low-medium risk investment.
6. Do you use a reputable firm for DB transfers? If the answer is NO walk away.
7. Do you carry out a detailed fact-find to establish a client´s risk profile? If the answer is NO walk away.
8. Do you disclose all the fees and commissions at the start? Often we hear of pension scam victims who have been told by their adviser that their pension review is free and no other fees or commissions are mentioned during the transfer process. Once that transfer has completed the clients look at the pension fund value and find that a large chunk has been taken to cover various ´costs´. Every pension fund transfer will have some reasonable charges. However, many scammers apply extra charges and fees that are far above what is reasonable and proportionate. These are often undisclosed. Make sure that your adviser is able to provide – in writing – all of the costs. Once you have these details, you will be able to make an informed decision as to whether you are happy for the transfer to proceed.
9. Do your clients get regular updates on the progress of their funds and have full access to check this for themselves? You should be able to check the progress of your pension whenever you want. However, a good adviser should provide you with a quarterly update. This should include any charges or fees incurred and any profit/loss made. A yearly review should also be carried out to ensure your pension fund is steadily growing with the right investments.
10. How do you deal with customer complaints?
If your offshore adviser refuses to answer the questions or skims around an answer – just walk away. Anyone offering pension advice should adhere to certain criteria and he must be ready and willing to provide you with all the information you ask for. He should be fully transparent about all the details involved with your pension transfer.

Once you have ensured that your adviser is fully qualified and regulated, and operates in a manner that is within your pension fund´s best interests, we would advise you to check out our other blog:

10 essential questions to ask an IFA

This blog covers pension options in a bit more detail.
July 25, 2018
Qualified and registered? Comments, complaints and feedback

Who would have thought that the series of blogs, ….. company name … qualified and registered? would have caused such a stir? On one side I have anonymous readers attacking my words, on another I have grateful victims of pension scams thanking me for outing these companies. From a third direction, I have IFAs telling me they are qualified but don’t bother to pay their membership fees.

For those readers who follow Pension Life blogs, I would like to say that comments in response to my postings – whether they be positive or negative – are almost always approved – there is nothing to hide, despite what some of the trolls may suggest. Interestingly, the trolls that continue to post their nonsense, hide behind anonymous names and titles – either because they are cowards or because they are involved in pension scams themselves. However, comments which are clearly malicious and time-wasting, are popped into the spam bin. The trolls clearly hate the fact that we are educating the masses on how to avoid falling victim to a pension scam.

The Globaleye Dubai – qualified and registered? blog has had a lot of comments:

‘You do realise that these databases only carry the names of subscription paying members. I have 3 CII qualifications but do not pay their ‘admin’ fee so do not appear on the search.  Therefore, your comments are irrelevant!’ Jo Kerr

If my comments are irrelevant, why take the time to respond? What we are trying to highlight in this series of blogs is that offshore advisers are operating without the correct qualifications (or even with NONE AT ALL) to advise on pensions and investments. Without the correct qualifications, how can a client be sure that the adviser is working to their specific needs – as well as in an educated and trustworthy manner? If they do not belong to an association like the CII, what does govern them and ensure they are an honest and qualified adviser? The point of being qualified in a specific area is to enable the qualified person to provide a professional service to the client – (just as important as for doctors, lawyers, mechanics or plumbers).

If you are paying someone to do a job, you want them to be qualified to the highest standard. If they are not qualified appropriately, this is where ‘mistakes’ can happen. Whether it be by accident or on purpose (often because the defining factor is what earns the adviser the most commissions, rather than what is in the best interests of the client). Posing as a fully qualified IFA is simply wrong. Plus if you have the qualifications, then why not be proud of having them and pay the membership fee? Be transparent; let all clients and potential clients know that you have devoted yourself to studying for and achieving these qualifications.

Pension scams are no joke – they are not irrelevant to the victims whose lives have been left in tatters. Maybe “Jo Kerr” would like to field some of the calls I take – talk to victims who have lost their life savings by trusting unqualified, unregulated so-called advisers posing as fully qualified experts, placing hard-earned pension funds into toxic, high-risk investments, generally accompanied by high commissions. Maybe this callous joker could absorb some of the profound despair of the victims who are contemplating suicide. I guess you could simply say to them, ‘well I think it’s irrelevant’. But maybe you, like many other IFAs, just don’t care. It is irrelevant to you what happens to the funds of the victims, as long as the investments make you fat commissions.

Tell this victim of CWM’s ‘Blue chip notes’ pension scam – promoted by unregulated and unqualified IFAs that his loss is irrelevant:

CWM Pension scam – A victim’s reconstruction

The blogs we write at Pension Life are aimed at the public, the hard-working public who have saved much of their working life into a pension plan and want to put it somewhere safe. It is therefore their right to know which companies and advisers are fully qualified and regulated and which are not. The public need to be able to make educated and safe investment decisions. They need to know what questions to ask their IFA. They need to know what companies have been involved in past pension scams. They need to know as much as possible about how to invest their pension wisely.

With these blogs I hope to better educate the masses so that pension scammers and fraudsters can be stopped in their tracks – worldwide. The series of qualified and registered blogs has exposed many unqualified and unregistered advisers who work in the industry. I don’t quite get why so many of the comments are then so negative to this transparency – I wonder what those who make the negative comments have to hide? Are they the ones who are involved in the pension scams and realise that their misdemeanours are being publicised?

What I find most interesting, is that rather than question the companies as to the reason their IFAs lie about their qualifications, the readers placing the comments are more inclined to try to discredit me, my company and my staff.

I wrote in a previous blog a response to questions about the companies I do not mention and I will repeat that here:

Regular readers of my blogs may notice that sometimes my blogs quietly disappear with no public explanation. There is a reason for that too. The blogs often bring firms to the table and we get stuff done. Sometimes firms even preempt matters and make contact even before I get a chance to do a blog.

If I call a firm to discuss a problem and they enter into helpful and constructive dialogue over how to solve it, I don’t blog about it but keep the matter confidential. There are firms who quietly sort things out without making a fuss in a dignified and conscientious manner. In contrast, however, there are firms that just pull up the shutters – such as OMI and STM Fidecs. Hence why I keep blogging about them.

DeVere is indeed one of a number of firms I don’t currently blog about. So for the nice gentleman called Graham and another charming chap who calls himself “Innocent Bystander” who are accusing me of being partisan, don’t think just about what I do write, but about what I don’t write. There are good reasons for both.

I will continue to expose the actions, practices and vulgar conduct of firms who continue to ignore my questions; And I will tag all those who are stupid and irresponsible enough to keep on working for these firms and helping to fill these firms already bulging pockets.  In contrast, however, Holborn Assets and Guardian Wealth Management have engaged in relation to complaints, and so I have removed all blogs which mention the firm.”

I would like to thank CII Member for their comment in response to Jo Kerr:

‘As a member of the CII, I am appalled by all of this.

‘It is a membership fee, not an “admin” fee, for a professional body. Qualified members, by being paid members, sign up to a code of conduct. Some are claiming to be members and some are using CII designations after their names without being members. This is expressly not allowed by the CII. I cannot comment about the CISI, though I am sure they will have similar rules.

The CII need to take firm action here to maintain the integrity of the Institute for those that are genuine, qualified members.

As I have pointed out, any self-respecting adviser with qualifications is happy to pay their membership fee, and is horrified that others who hold the same qualifications do not bother to do so. This, therefore, enables anyone to state “I do hold the qualification – I just don’t pay the membership fee”. If you have the qualification and are working as an adviser, why not pay the membership fee? Qualified advisers refusing to pay leaves the door wide open for the fraudsters posing as qualified advisers to get away with committing fraud TIME AND TIME AGAIN. This blatant lack of regard for the system – QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED AND REGULATIONS – that has been built up over many years, enables the bad and the ugly to roam free – with new pension scams being hatched daily.

Also to add, as CII Member does, you need a level 4 if not 6 with the CII to be fully qualified to give UK pension advice. A level 3 does not qualify you to advise on pensions – as our previous blog outlines.

How many more victims of investment and pensions scams do we need to have before everyone in the industry can undertake that there needs to be 100% transparency and a worldwide register of regulated companies and their fully qualified and registered advisers – whether they are offshore or not?

July 24, 2018
OMI IPO Profit Warning
OMI IPO Profit Warning – urgent please read carefully.

Old Mutual International (OMI) have entered into an IPO – initial public offering. This means they have become a public company rather than a private one. Frequent readers of Pension Life blogs will know that OMI have featured heavily in our recent blogs with regards to issues with structured note provider Leonteq, the selling of fraudulent notes and their involvement in the CWM pension scam.

But now it is very important that the public, and future potential victims of OMI, should be very wary of investing in this company. I have serious concerns about the undisclosed current liabilities and future drops in profits.

I would like to disclose some information about OMI post IPO. Hopefully, this information will reach prospective buyers before they make any purchases of OMI shares. Also, I can see no evidence that OMI have disclosed this information publicly to warn potential investors.

ABOUT OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL (OMI)
- OMI – a company that happily uses high-risk, toxic, illiquid, professional-investor-only notes for pension holders’ funds
- OMI – a company that refuses to take any responsibility for buying totally unsuitable products which end up destroying innocent victims’ hard-earned retirement savings
- OMI IPO – a strategic move forward to make more money from the unsuspecting public – whilst sweeping their past misdemeanours under the carpet
First, let me explain a little more about what an IPO is:

An IPO means that the company can sell stock to the public. Therefore, if a company seems viable to the public, investments into it will be made and these investments will make the company a lot of money.

An IPO can be seen as an exit strategy for the original founders of the company. The shares that are being sold to the public would originally have belonged to the founders and early investors of the company.

An IPO is a way for the original founders to claw back monies they may have invested into the company at the outset.

“Why go public, then? Going public raises a great deal of money for the company in order for it to grow and expand. Private companies have many options to raise capital – such as borrowing, finding additional private investors, or by being acquired by another company. But, by far, the IPO option raises the largest sums of money for the company and its early investors.”
Information from https://www.investopedia.com/university/ipo/ipo.asp

This does, however, mean that:
- The Company (in this case OMI) becomes required to disclose financial, accounting, tax, and other business information
So I wonder if the OMI IPO has disclosed the following information to warn the public of underlying liabilities which will inevitably affect future profits and net asset value:

Between 2012 and 2016, OMI purchased £94m worth of fraudulent structured notes from Leonteq; presumably, a further £94m of non-fraudulent (but still unsuitable) notes from Leonteq; probably a further £94m worth each of Commerzbank, Royal Bank of Canada and Nomura (many of which performed as badly as the Leonteq fraudulent ones incidentally). Therefore, we could be looking at £470 million worth of structured notes with losses of at least £100 million – probably substantially more. And up to half of this could lie with the victims of the CWM scam.

The term sheets of the Leonteq notes clearly stated:

“Given the complexity of the terms and conditions of this Product, an investment is suitable only for experienced investors who understand and are in a position to evaluate the risks associated with it.”

and

“Products involve a high degree of risk, including the potential risk of expiring worthless. Potential Investors should be prepared in certain circumstances to sustain a total loss of the capital invested to purchase this Product.”

This information about OMI purchasing £94m worth of the fraudulent notes is not hearsay on my part – as is sometimes suggested in the comments on Pension Life’s blogs – any doubters can follow the link to the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man Civil Division dated 20 March 2018 and read these details.

OMI IPO Profit Warning

It would seem that the OMI IPO is a way for the company to make more money or just get out of losing money. With the High Court proceedings hanging over their heads, there is a chance that they will find themselves heavily in debt if they are instructed to pay back the crippling losses involved.

Going public and selling their shares – what better way is there to avoid taking a massive hit and losing money. Just let more innocent victims buying these shares take the hit on OMI´s past mistakes.

How long can OMI continue to turn a blind eye to the toxic crap they sold – the pension funds they helped destroy? With High Court proceedings underway, alongside their IPO, surely it is only a matter of time before OMI will be forced to air their dirty laundry!

My biggest concern about OMI‘s provisional accounts for the period up to June 2018, is that there is no evidence of any provision for the substantial losses likely to be suffered as a result of buying so many toxic structured notes – including the fraudulent Leonteq ones. There could easily be up to half a billion pounds’ worth of structured note losses due to OMI’s negligence and incompetence. However, on top of this, there could easily be millions – if not billions – worth of toxic, failed UCIS funds which were offered on OMI’s platform. These dreadful funds included LM, Axiom, Mansion and other worthless and/or Ponzi schemes.

If I were a potential investor in OMI, I would ask myself why they haven’t used the £8.365 billion worth of profits they’ve just declared to compensate their thousands of victims who are facing crippling losses to their retirement funds. I would also think seriously about highly-likely sharp drops in OMI’s profits in the very near future. And if I were an investment adviser to any individual considering buying shares in OMI, I would firstly give them a dire profit warning, and secondly ask whether it is right to invest in such an unethical firm.
July 24, 2018