Alpari.co.uk Discussion | Page 235 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Alpari UK Insolvency Does Not Affect Other Alpari Companies 4 replies

Alpari US vs Alpari UK 20 replies

Alpari NZ vs Alpari UK 7 replies

Alpari Direct Pro vs Alpari MT4 Pro 4 replies

Alpari Russia, Alpari UK or MIG??? 5 replies

Attachments: Alpari.co.uk Discussion
Exit Attachments

Alpari.co.uk Discussion

  • #4,681
  • Feb 27, 2015 7:09am Feb 27, 2015 7:09am
Can we know if someone here will goes at the meeting 12 march? thanks.
myfxbook: neoxis
  • #4,682
  • Feb 27, 2015 7:31am Feb 27, 2015 7:31am
Quoting verv
{quote} Who did you ask? Strange the way KPMG is saying that the FSCS will be shorter - I don't know which will be faster, I have just been taking the word of KPMG
i've asked a London based insolvency practitioners company called Antony batty. But i did not ask whats faster. But they did say the FSCS is very good at handling this but it will take alot more time as KPMG is private and FSCS goverment rules. I guess the faster fscs pays us out and can set they invoices the quicker they get paid aswell.
  • #4,683
  • Feb 27, 2015 7:41am Feb 27, 2015 7:41am
Quoting missluna1982
{quote} i've asked a London based insolvency practitioners company called Antony batty. But i did not ask whats faster. But they did say the FSCS is very good at handling this but it will take alot more time as KPMG is private and FSCS goverment rules. I guess the faster fscs pays us out and can set they invoices the quicker they get paid aswell.
So anyway KPMG should be more faster Maybe the only unknown is creditors may extend the process..but i don't think this will anyway should affect our funds distrubution.
myfxbook: neoxis
  • #4,684
  • Feb 27, 2015 7:45am Feb 27, 2015 7:45am
Quoting papamax
{quote} With the FSCS, if you agree a balance I believe you will be entitled to 90% of that balance no matter what.
i think that 100% (up to the threshold) of the funds are guaranteed under the FSCS scheme... that from what i read on their site... i dont know if you are referring to the 10% that eventually KPMG will retain and so it will in return be retained by FSCS as well...

so the agreed amount passed to the FSCS will be the total amount agreed with the client - KPMG administration costs (in case its voted...which is the most logical thing to happen from my point of view)

and i believe within the costs are the costs of "sending" the money (bank transfer and handling costs) ... in case you are referring to that option
  • #4,685
  • Feb 27, 2015 7:50am Feb 27, 2015 7:50am
The emerging pattern is that KPMG in league with the creditors are are trying to dump a large chunk of the liquidation cost on the clients. I can also see a deliberate attempt to push as many clients as possible to FSCS under the guise that this option is shorter. Furthermore, they are aware that a lot of this clients are desperate to get their money and will endorse any deal no matter how unfair. T hey also know that the clients are scattered all the world and cannot come together to stop them.


In an ideal situation, the cost of KPMG services should be shared proportionately based on volume of work done on behalf of all the parties. but we all know that this situation is far from ideal? We may not know the full details of the offer to clients until the end of March, but we should watch them all the way and continue to share information here.





Quoting verv
{quote} Who did you ask? Strange the way KPMG is saying that the FSCS will be shorter - I don't know which will be faster, I have just been taking the word of KPMG
  • #4,686
  • Feb 27, 2015 8:03am Feb 27, 2015 8:03am
Quoting KGP
{quote} i think that 100% (up to the threshold) of the funds are guaranteed under the FSCS scheme... that from what i read on their site... i dont know if you are referring to the 10% that eventually KPMG will retain and so it will in return be retained by FSCS as well... so the agreed amount passed to the FSCS will be the total amount agreed with the client - KPMG administration costs (in case its voted...which is the most logical thing to happen from my point of view) and i believe within the costs are the costs of "sending" the money (bank transfer...
Actually you are correct! I apologize for the mix up... I was reading something in their site and the 90% refers to insurance products. Financial investments should be 100%.

Here it is from FCA's site.. http://screencast.com/t/bBTYIUEfk

http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/being-re...nisations/fscs
  • #4,687
  • Feb 27, 2015 8:13am Feb 27, 2015 8:13am
Quoting papamax
{quote} Actually you are correct! I apologize for the mix up... I was reading something in their site and the 90% refers to insurance products. Financial investments should be 100%. Here it is from FCA's site.. http://screencast.com/t/bBTYIUEfk http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/being-re...nisations/fscs
no apologies needed... i didnt know that i am correct thats why i was just asking...having a "some sort" of a legal background (which is 99.99% academic/no actual experience) doesnt mean that i am always right...

but your 90% has validation, because the "correct" amount "passed" to the authority is going to be (logically speaking so dont shoot me forexia....) is going to be minus the expenses (which are not covered under the scheme)....

i dont want to give up 10% of my funds/capital as well but i know that the other side (creditors) would like to receive more as well -after paying less- so its easy to understand what the vote result will be... only if you (generally talking) take in account the facts

its a first of me in terms of experience and there are not many cases around where segregated accounts were 100% (according to KPMG's knowledges and info provided) intact... in fact i dont know of any....

btw just for your info and guidance there is another insolvency as we speak of another broker -after alpari- taking place (i dont recall the name of the broker now) where the case was opposite of us (segregated accounts were not intact)
  • #4,688
  • Feb 27, 2015 8:17am Feb 27, 2015 8:17am
Quoting Articulate
The emerging pattern is that KPMG in league with the creditors are are trying to dump a large chunk of the liquidation cost on the clients. I can also see a deliberate attempt to push as many clients as possible to FSCS under the guise that this option is shorter. Furthermore, they are aware that a lot of this clients are desperate to get their money and will endorse any deal no matter how unfair. T hey also know that the clients are scattered all the world and cannot come together to stop them. In an ideal situation, the cost of KPMG services should...
What do you think is best, personally I can wait, I would prefer to get 100% in 4 months, than get 90% in 2 months.
  • #4,689
  • Feb 27, 2015 8:22am Feb 27, 2015 8:22am
Quoting verv
{quote} What do you think is best, personally I can wait, I would prefer to get 100% in 4 months, than get 90% in 2 months.

Guys...we are just still speculating everything....until we don't know exactly is this pro-rata and time...for any distrubution...we cannot know what is better.

So let's wait the result of this meeting dated 12 march and especially the end of march..than we should know if money are full or something missing..

After that maybe we have more info for make a decision of what way is better undertake.
myfxbook: neoxis
  • #4,690
  • Feb 27, 2015 8:33am Feb 27, 2015 8:33am
Ive just got off the phone to the FSCS.
I was told that they are aware of the emails that were sent out to some clients to access the portal created by KPMG to agree their claims.
They have stated that if you decide to pursue the claim through the FSCS you will receive 100% of your balance agreed with KPMG through the portal.
So if you dont want to pay any fees go through the FSCS and you will get 100% of your agreed balance.
The way I see it is if you continue your claim with KPMG then they will deduct their fees from your balance before returning it so you will not get all the money you are owed.
I was told to ring again in a few days to clarify all this information so my advice is, if you are entitled to compensation from the FSCS then dont sign anything until the information in this post is clarified.
  • #4,691
  • Feb 27, 2015 8:34am Feb 27, 2015 8:34am
Quoting neoxis
{quote} Guys...we are just still speculating everything....until we don't know exactly is this pro-rata and time...for any distrubution...we cannot know what is better. So let's wait the result of this meeting dated 12 march and especially the end of march..than we should know if money are full or something missing.. After that maybe we have more info for make a decision of what way is better undertake.
How about the guys who now have access to the Claims Portal? Will we be in serious disadvantage if we just speculate first before their meeting without choosing FSCS or the company as the claiming target?
  • #4,692
  • Feb 27, 2015 8:40am Feb 27, 2015 8:40am
Quoting ppc123
{quote} How about the guys who now have access to the Claims Portal? Will we be in serious disadvantage if we just speculate first before their meeting without choosing FSCS or the company as the claiming target?
PPc123...we just not have enough information for make the right decision...

So my advice is to wait how they handle the process...and than when we have more details we gonna make the right decision.

Now have access to the portal doesn't give you any more info than just what you owed on alpari company.

So i prefer to wait anyway before to make a claim...cause after agree you cannot come back.
myfxbook: neoxis
  • #4,693
  • Edited 9:16am Feb 27, 2015 8:51am | Edited 9:16am
Quoting neoxis
{quote} PPc123...we just not have enough information for make the right decision... So my advice is to wait how they handle the process...and than when we have more details we gonna make the right decision. Now have access to the portal doesn't give you any more info than just what you owed on alpari company. So i prefer to wait anyway before to make a claim...cause after agree you cannot come back.
Exactly! Just because you have access to the Claim Portal it doesn't mean you have to agree to your balance immediatelly! I would probably, go in, if balance is 100% of past balance I would take screenshots of everything or even record the screen while accessing it(just in case they decide to change anything) and then wait for the meeting and new information to decide what is best to agree upon.
  • #4,694
  • Feb 27, 2015 11:10am Feb 27, 2015 11:10am
Quoting papamax
{quote} Exactly! Just because you have access to the Claim Portal it doesn't mean you have to agree to your balance immediatelly! I would probably, go in, if balance is 100% of past balance I would take screenshots of everything or even record the screen while accessing it(just in case they decide to change anything) and then wait for the meeting and new information to decide what is best to agree upon.
Good idea.
  • #4,695
  • Feb 27, 2015 12:52pm Feb 27, 2015 12:52pm
I hope all of you have seen new update dated 26feb
https://www.insolvency-kpmg.co.uk/Vi...3-f8aa9879f8db
https://www.insolvency-kpmg.co.uk/Vi...7-0a1a7fa4ceab
  • #4,696
  • Feb 27, 2015 2:27pm Feb 27, 2015 2:27pm
please if any of you received an e-mail and able to access the portal ,let us know
  • #4,697
  • Feb 27, 2015 3:21pm Feb 27, 2015 3:21pm
Quoting magicpips
please if any of you received an e-mail and able to access the portal ,let us know
I have received the e-mail saying I can access, 3h ago... But I'm out for the weekend and with limited internet, and since the site Isn't going anywhere, I will only check Sunday night (didn't trade in those days, so I'm supposed to have all the money there).
  • #4,698
  • Edited 4:18pm Feb 27, 2015 3:25pm | Edited 4:18pm
Quoting jizzyjay
Ive just got off the phone to the FSCS. I was told that they are aware of the emails that were sent out to some clients to access the portal created by KPMG to agree their claims. They have stated that if you decide to pursue the claim through the FSCS you will receive 100% of your balance agreed with KPMG through the portal. So if you dont want to pay any fees go through the FSCS and you will get 100% of your agreed balance. The way I see it is if you continue your claim with KPMG then they will deduct their fees from your balance before returning...
Glad at least you will be able to get all your money back through FSCS. This is more like it. The question is: If everybody is going through FSCS is get their 100% of money back, what's going to happen to the client funds that's segregated in the company? Because it's segregated, it will never become part of the company assets for anybody to claim. Or are they going to become part of company "estate" once they see they are unclaimed after a period of time? Or is FSCS turning around and seize the segregated client funds from the company to compensate for what they paid out to us clients? How does it work? The reason why we are entitled to get money back from FSCS is because Alpari UK was a member of FSCS so they pay to the FSCS.
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #4,699
  • Edited 4:18pm Feb 27, 2015 3:47pm | Edited 4:18pm
Quoting KGP
{quote} i think that 100% (up to the threshold) of the funds are guaranteed under the FSCS scheme... that from what i read on their site... i dont know if you are referring to the 10% that eventually KPMG will retain and so it will in return be retained by FSCS as well... so the agreed amount passed to the FSCS will be the total amount agreed with the client - KPMG administration costs (in case its voted...which is the most logical thing to happen from my point of view) and i believe within the costs are the costs of "sending" the money (bank transfer...
This is the case with most countries' financial compensation/deposit insurance schemes. You basically get EVERYTHING back up to the threshold that you have ever deposited with the company regardless of any fees. And the threshold is usually high enough for us little guys unless you are George Soros. We should confirm the total amount of my money BEFORE ANY FEES with FSCS and go through them. And maybe we should do this BEFORE the vote since the vote might result in the fees deducted from the client funds. I am NOT sure if we still need to go through the portal to confirm the amount with KPMG since we are not going to be dealing with them anymore if we are going through FSCS JUST IN CASE KPMG pulls a fast one on us and make us agree to an amount with the fees deducted. KPMG is NOT getting 1 cent of my money! They are gonna have to pay for their fois gras lunches out of their own pocket or ask their rich creditors buddies to pick up their tab.

Quoting KGP
{quote} but your 90% has validation, because the "correct" amount "passed" to the authority is going to be (logically speaking so dont shoot me forexia....) is going to be minus the expenses (which are not covered under the scheme).... i dont want to give up 10% of my funds/capital as well but i know that the other side (creditors) would like to receive more as well -after paying less- so its easy to understand what the vote result will be...
I will NEVER shoot you KGP. The only people that I will shoot are the greedy KPMG for charging $1+ million just for filing paperworks and the cheap creditors who have likely contributed to this debacle in the first place and have $billion assets but still don't want to pay any fees that were incurred for them and by them.
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #4,700
  • Feb 27, 2015 4:16pm Feb 27, 2015 4:16pm
Quoting Articulate
The emerging pattern is that KPMG in league with the creditors are are trying to dump a large chunk of the liquidation cost on the clients. I can also see a deliberate attempt to push as many clients as possible to FSCS under the guise that this option is shorter. Furthermore, they are aware that a lot of this clients are desperate to get their money and will endorse any deal no matter how unfair. T hey also know that the clients are scattered all the world and cannot come together to stop them. In an ideal situation, the cost of KPMG services should...
EXACTLY what I said several hours earlier:

Quoting Forexia
{quote} Yeah making the government pick up the tab while making more money available for the creditors. Nice going. I guess if you read it carefully, it just says your money is segregated from the company funds it didn't really say it would be accessible or withdrawable in the event of insolvency. We just all assumed that our client funds, since it's safe, being segregated would be available to us but no, you actually have to PAY to get your own money back.
If the clients have paid the special admin. fees, then the creditors wouldn't have to when they claim whatever is left from the company! Ditto! More money for them!!
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
3 traders viewing now