LLOYDS is going to FLY



Its completely the opposite in my case.




And All farting after dinner :wink: very windy…


Hi @Boring_Bernie, Sadly very few brokers offer personal Crest accounts at all and those that do levy a charge which is quite significant in some cases - see link below:-

Shame because it seems like s good solution to me but brokers clearly want people to stick with their nominee accounts.




Indeed… looks like sponsored CREST accounts are on the way out. A shame as they have a number of benefits over nominee accounts for the punter.

The other matter that someone earlier eluded to is that they aren’t eligible for tax-efficient ISA and SIPP wrappers as these MUST be nominee accounts… I really don’t know why though.


Nail in the coffin for Crest accounts if you cant use them with an ISA as far as I am concerned.




The information available from this link might be of interest, and takes some of the speculation away. However, it appears to be quite old since the list of Crest Brokers was last updated at the end of 2015. I found another link to a Sharesoc page, but this contained almost identical information and again was last updated in 2015. Other search results seem to show that nothing much has changed since 2015, apart from possible hikes in charges.

It seems to me that a Personal Crest Account is now only for those with extreme wealth, where the higher account charges as a percentage of the overall portfolio are still very small, and also the transaction charges become small when very large transactions are being made.


Hi All, Well FTSE down again today and LLOY off another 1.8% at 50.3x. At this rate they might drop to close to 49p again on Thursday when they go XD for 1.12p. That’ll put them on a 6.85% yield which may prove pretty attractive to income investors perhaps ?.

I see that HSBA came out with what looked to be truly excellent results overnight:-

To no avail though, shares down both here and in HK. I guess having the CEO resigning so soon is seen as a big negative.




Hi @Eadwig,

You asked me to keep you up to date with developments on my experiment with VILX, so here are some interesting stats for you:-

I bought at 1.63
As the markets rose to 7700 before this selloff the price dropped to ~1.24 (about a 25% loss)
Today the VIX has surged and the VILX price is now 1.984 (about a 21% gain)

Wont really get interesting unless we start to see gains of over 100% IMV, which might happen.




Turner Pope this morning told me Jarvis hold all there clients assets and money .
Cornhill also do likewise .
I wonder how protected you would be if Jarvis got in trouble , be knock on affect for many small brokers .
Maybe only one lot of 85k protection if account with others as well ?


I think this is a similar situation to if a Bank went into Administration.
Say if HL and AJ Bell used Barclays… and Barclays went into Administration… and you had accounts with both brokers and a current account with Barclays… then you would be covered up to £85k because of your current account… if HL and also AJ Bell went under… then you would also be covered for each of those by same amount.

Where you’d need to be careful is when you directly have different accounts with the same institution eg. RBS and NATWEST… as the compensation is per institution.


Thanks for replying to that J-W.
I have just come accross Money Saving Expert web site .
( MSE ) Forums .
Lots of what seems expert information on this very subject , after reading it i do not think i have anything at risk and the 85k appears to be Irrelevant .
I recommended the site.
( not sure if they discus shares ) :smiley:


Do you want to post a link to the particular thread you are referring to?


Well that’s good to hear @Ripley94, would be interested to hear your reasoning for that - especially why you think that the £85,000 limit is not an issue (if you are beyond that).




Useing phone, not good at posting links if on a computer.
So if anyone else more Tec savy can it might help a few who contributed or read yesterday.
I came accross site by googling s v s.
No news on line from news sites.
But the chat site I refer to marvelous.
A board just about the present trouble at Svs.
Worth a look obvious the posters had lots of knowledge.


Posting the link that Ripley refers to

I do not rate the site at all. Sorry



I just read the link that @soi kindly posted… what on that thread @Ripley94 makes you think you have no risk with SVS ? (Unless of course you had no positions or cash held with them)

Not that I want you to lose even a penny or have to suffer it being frozen for weeks/months.
If it was me… I’d be down at Princes St hammering on their door.


As soon as I read “money” “expert” “website” I chuckled. Let me add another word oxymoron.

Why do you all persist in using UK brokerages? They are a pile of amateurs. Look at Interactive Brokers. They are self clearing.


Hi Westlock.
In the main the posts on this from Masonic ( see the one @ 11.24 today for example )
I had been told this "living will " thing in the past , but had forgotten about it .
He seems very expert on the matter and is familiar with Beaufort and this would explain why a broker who i spoke to yesterday who worked at Beaufort told me his clients lost nothing .
A number of them followed him to SVS.
Do you agree he seems more on the ball then anyone who has commented on it here so far ?
Do you disagree with the reassurance he seems to give ?
I would imagine if you went down Princes st hammering the door the police might be called ?
The loss of money would be more of a worry then being frozen out for many id think .
Another poster on that site has referred to us lot over here posting worrying stuff .


Thanks for your contribution macbonzo.
Maybe its wishful thinking but Masonic posts read better to me .
Bit like choosing shares its judgment .


If your ex-Beaufort colleague told you that “his clients lost nothing”… then he’s probably lying.
The FCA said late last year regarding the Beaufort collapse: “Fewer than 10 individual clients will be left out of pocket”.
The only reason that more didn’t lose something is that PWC as the Administrator agreed to speed up the process and also reduce their costs in dealing with it… it needn’t have turned out that way. Initially, many more were going to suffer a haircut.
You might also want to ask him if he was aware of his colleagues working in his office who allegedly were part of a securities fraud and money laundering conspiracy… it wasn’t a large company.


Couldn’t give a crap.

Not sure… without questioning it more… difficult to say. I don’t know about a “living will” to be honest. But if that was the case… then why didn’t Beaufort make use of it and why did it take a revamp of costs from PWC to ensure most got full money back?
And did the “living will” help the clients of Pacific Continental, Lehman Bros or MF Global? Many of their clients lost out.