| The Comments |
This is so indicative of our time with regard to debating the impact on citizens from some of the unaccountable financial institutions .... there will always be those who no matter what evidence is presented will remain cynical or irritated if it doesn’t suit or relate to their own personal circumstance, as opposed to looking to a wider perspective where sometimes uncomfortable realities might need to be addressed IF the impact becomes so significant as to scapegoat a large majority of citizens, or place them at undue risk.
In this particular circumstance relating to the use of currency exchange companies however, it doesn’t appear to have been proven that the risk of large authorised companies are about to become insolvent nor that the method to date of separating monies ( ringfencing) to act as protection is not happening. It’s all conjecture without actual proof.
So you then query how do you go about proving it? Where is the transparency to assist in this process, and if there is little transparency, then focus on that as a means of affording greater protection to all those who depend upon the currency exchange companies to go about their everyday lives as permanent expats......
But that is quite different to this particular instance where the original poster is seeking an economical way of repatriating their monies back to the UK following court proceedings, and trying to minimise their costs without incurring undue risk at this particular moment in time.
Only Gambles, the original poster can know if the discussions within this thread have assisted him to make a better informed decision or not and whether he feels comfortable to discuss his findings with the law firm representing him.
This message was last edited by ads on 05/11/2019.
0
Like
|
Ads, I am sure you are correct that money transfer companies are completely risk free and that is why they never publish any risk warnings and therefore no compensation scheme is necessary. It must only be the unfortunate uninformed who use banks at a lower exchange rate with a government compensation scheme.
I am sincerely sorry I have queered any of your statements and facts on this thread. I do not have your qualifications and expertise.
_______________________
There is enough in the world for everyone, but not enough for the greedy!
1
Like
|
No need for personal sarcasm and misinterpretation of postings yet again Kavanagh.
You know perfectly well that I am differentiating between the risks at this particular moment in time for those like the original poster who is in the very near future presumably seeking to exchange monies from his successful litigation, as opposed to your generalised observations regarding the FCA.
The message from what we appear to have learned to date is that by seeking out authorised companies who ring fence monies for large transfers of monies, is far less risky than companies who are just registered ( not authorised).
It would be interesting to know on what basis do you infer that the authorised companies might not have been ringfencing monies? Do you have access to inside information in this regard as this would be effective evidence to bring before the authorities.
Are you suggesting that all authorised currency exchange companies are at risk at this immediate moment in time ( which is relevant to those seeking immediate transfer of monies)?
0
Like
|
How can the ordinary man in the street be expected to know the in’s and out’s of authorised and registered. Is there an evening class on this subject?
Surely any private trading company, authorised, registered or Trotters independent traders is always at risk on a daily basis.
_______________________
There is enough in the world for everyone, but not enough for the greedy!
0
Like
|
We are agreed on that at least Kavanagh, hence the need to go into such educative detail on EOS!
But please in this process of striving for greater transparency, that we both ironically appear to believe is essential going forward, don’t misconstrue my words by making false inferences.
There is a big difference to the practical realities as of now and what can be achieved as a relatively safe means of exchange of large amounts of monies, as opposed to the scenario where ringfencing is not taking place and authorised companies are imminently at risk of insolvency.
I hope you understand my meaning in this regard.
Have you written of your expressed concerns in this regard to the FCA and Government requesting that greater transparency is required by making those currency exchange companies who are not authorised adhere to better standards via bold print warnings ?
This message was last edited by ads on 05/11/2019.
This message was last edited by ads on 05/11/2019.
0
Like
|
Ads, as always I fully agree. Does this all boil down to a crap rate with the banks with total security or a better rate with money transfer companies who most have a wonderful track record but could go bust today.
_______________________
There is enough in the world for everyone, but not enough for the greedy!
0
Like
|
|
Great News.
What is the latest when it comes to Mothercare pensions?
Sky News reported that pension trustees are in talks to plug a £139m deficit in the companies pensions.
Your money transfer company is as sound as a pound. But what about the 50% deposit I put down on our Chardony's pushchair. Contact the FCA for a refund, it was ringfenced.
_______________________
There is enough in the world for everyone, but not enough for the greedy!
0
Like
|
|
Kavanagh
I ask again, since you have brought this up, have you written of your expressed concerns in this regard to the FCA and Government, requesting that greater transparency is required by making those currency exchange companies who are not authorised adhere to better standards by making these unauthorised companies issue bold print warnings that clients monies could be at risk?
Have you written of your apparent concerns that authorised companies might not be safeguarding monies by actually separating accounts as they suggest?
Or are you content to leave your concerns unresolved?
This message was last edited by ads on 08/11/2019.
0
Like
|
Hello ads
You are quite good at asking personal questions but a bit shy at answering any yourself.
I write to the FCA or whatever they are called this week every month, I never receive a reply or acknowledgement.
You post about unauthorised companies as if authorised companies are above any risk, I am not sure you fully understand the risks of all money transfer companies. Authorised companies are supposed to follow the FCA rule book, but who can guarantee they would if they became desperate and got into financial difficulties (Robert Maxwell). Authorised companies have no compensation scheme if they went bankrupt.
Joe Public needs to be informed by a headline that all these companies ‘’YOUR MONEY IS AT RISK, WE ARE NOT A BANK, WE HAVE NO COMPENSATION SCHEME’’.
Ads do you disagree and are you saying that authorised money transfer companies are full proof and carry no risk whatsoever?
_______________________
There is enough in the world for everyone, but not enough for the greedy!
0
Like
|
Kavanagh
I am saying that authorised companies appear to safeguard monies in separate accounts away from company accounts which implies that monies are protected in this regard. Are you suggesting that monies being placed into separate accounts in this way are not protected in the event of insolvency? Or are you suggesting that they are not separating accounts in this way?
Have you advised the Government via your parliamentary representative that you are not receiving replies or even acknowledgements to your questions?
Have you been doing this via www.writetothem.com which monitors and follows through and asks if you have subsequently received a reply from your parliamentary representative?
0
Like
|
Hello ads
The next time you go to the Carrefour check out with no money try using the words ‘’appear and implies’’ and see how far that gets you.
When most companies get into financial difficulties and become desperate the rule book goes out of the window. Money exchange companies have risks and you refuse to acknowledge them or ever answer any questions put to you. So be it, ads know best, put your money in the hands of a money transfer company with no guarantee or compensation scheme.
_______________________
There is enough in the world for everyone, but not enough for the greedy!
0
Like
|
Mine were questions put to you with regard to currency exchange companies, not companies in general, and mine were not statements Kavanagh, as well you know, so please stop these mischievous postings that continue to misinterpret and wrongly insinuate.
I have not stated that all money transfer companies are risk free as you insinuate. I have stated that unauthorised exchange companies appear to be at greater risk as they do not follow the same procedures to safeguard and separate monies away from company accounts, as required by authorised companies. I have asked you specific questions relating to the safeguarding of monies re FCA authorised companies, for which you appear to refuse to answer.
You have not answered the questions
1). Are you suggesting that monies placed into authorised currency exchange companies such as Moneycorp or Transferwise who are safeguarding by putting clients large amounts of monies into separate accounts away from company accounts are at risk from insolvency? Are you suggesting that this safeguarding method does not act as sufficient protection for clients?
or
2). Are you suggesting that these FCA authorised companies are not in reality separating these larger amounts of monies at end of day, as and when required?
Surely answers to these questions would be in everyone’s interests?
1
Like
|
|
Hello ads
In answer to both your questions, no company in any industry can be trusted to follow the rule book, especially when they get into financial difficulties.
The FCA only ever carries out periodic audits and does not have full time employees within authorised money transfer companies. They set rules, but tend to be after event investigators, denying all responsibility, nothing new there.
** EDITED - Against forum rules **
This message was last edited by eos_moderators on 11/11/2019 12:05:00 AM.
_______________________
There is enough in the world for everyone, but not enough for the greedy!
0
Like
|
Yes Markfish, and the same appears with Moneycorp who identify the following in their website
https://www.moneycorp.com/globalassets/documents/uk/corporate/marketing/moneycorp-payment-solutions-2019.pdf
”Ensuring Your Money is Safe
We are able to assure our customers that they are dealing with an established organisation with strong financial credentials. By the nature of our Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) permissions, we are also able to verify to customers that all funds are ‘safeguarded’ in segregated client bank accounts.
Risk Management Approach
moneycorp adopts a very disciplined approach to risk. As a firm we do not take any proprietary trading positions and each transaction that is expected with moneycorp is backed immediately with one of our panel of banks. So we never hold a position that could fluctuate with any market movements.
We also have very stringent operational risk controls that ensure we operate a fit and proper governance as you would expect within a regulated entity.
0
Like
|
Kavanagh
There you go again making false insinuations...I am not sure, hence my ongoing questions!
Please stop these wrongful insinuations, they do not help and sadly only alienate.
If I understand you correctly you are in effect saying that insolvency issues are not covered by this safeguarding approach to “separate clients monies”....is that correct?
You are saying that there are insufficient audit checks to ensure that safeguarding is being correctly applied by these authorised exchange companies. Is this correct?
And if so, in the event of insolvency you are suggesting that the client would have to follow separate legal proceedings ( and not be effectively protected by the FCA) to gain access to their monies that may not have been correctly safeguarded. Is this correct?
This message was last edited by ads on 08/11/2019.
1
Like
|
Like it or not, if you hand over your money, any amounts, to any company, person, or what ever, it is not considered in safe hands until its given back to you.
Its cloud cuckoo land if you choose to believe otherwise.
2
Like
|
Financial Regulation in the UK is intended to address these issues so it is right to question and clarify the detail going forward, especially when authorised exchange companies are giving reassurances in their formal compliance statements implying they are “able to verify to customers that all funds are “ safeguarded” in segregated client bank accounts “ and that they apply stringent governance expected within a regulated entity.
Lessons need to be learned in this regard and the only way to do this is to be proactive in terms of education and vigilance, for everyone’s sake.
This message was last edited by ads on 09/11/2019.
0
Like
|