Norm_uk

Regulated or Registered?

And the article clearly states they were acting outside their permitted activities by asking clients to deposit money with them and wait for better exchange rates - something most FX companies do not do regulated or otherwise.

N.

Johncarzx

What you have posted is correct but some of it is beyond Mr Average. All he sees is a fancy website promising that the company is the most respectable in the world, been operating since year dot and his money is totally safe. He does not know the difference between registered and regulated and if he did it would not have helped in this case.

I think they were regulated, but as usual you will need Sherlock Holmes to find out.

FCA STATEMENT

The FCA’s role in supervising Premier FX

Many firms, such as Premier FX, provide both regulated (money remittance) and unregulated (foreign exchange) services to consumers. The FCA is only responsible for supervising a firm’s regulated activities.
Although in administration, Premier FX continues to be regulated by the FCA. We are liaising with the administrators with regard to the fair treatment of Premier FX’s customers.

The provision of payment services (such as money remittance) is a regulated activity under the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSRs). The FCA is responsible for granting UK firms permission to undertake payment services. Firms are either ‘registered’ or ‘authorised’ by the FCA depending on the size of their business activities.
Once a firm is granted permission, the FCA is responsible for supervising the regulated activities of that firm. We currently supervise 58,000 firms in the UK. Our approach to individual firms depends on their size, activity and potential harm to consumers. More information on how we supervise firms can be found in our Approach to Supervision.

Premier FX has been authorised and supervised by the FCA under the PSRs since 25 February 2011 to provide money remittance services.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statemen...ier-fx-limited



Regulated or Registered? When you find out let us all know.

Norm_uk

The FCA doesn't confirm either in the case of Premier FX and simply states they were 'authorised' to carry out remittances. If they were regulated it seems extremely unliely this would happen as all money recieved by clients would have to be held in separate accounts from the business (similar to escrow) - although it's also clear the company was engaged in activities outside it's licensed activities anyway so perhaps there was nothing that could have been done (which opens questions about how often the FCA looks at companies to check).

The FSCG's website states compensation can only be sought from a licensed activity:
"Premier FX Limited was only ever permitted to carry out certain payment services (known as ‘money remittance’). However Premier FX was found to be acting outside of the boundary of these permissions by also holding customer money in their accounts.

Will FSCS protect money customers held with Premier FX Limited?

No, because Premier FX Limited were not authorised by the FCA to hold customer money in their accounts. This means FSCS will be unable to compensate for any shortfalls in customers’ money held by Premier FX Limited."

While the FSA can look again at advertising standards and insist companies provide more information about what they are actually licensed to do, it remains the duty of consumers to also check on the firms they are doing business with before handing over money. A quick search on the FSA website can reveal what a company is licensed to do and what it is not. It can also tell you if they are registered or regulated. It is not difficult to check if the company is advertising services it is not licensed to carry out. It's clear from the FSCG that zero compensation is available from activities outside licensed permissions.

This is a case of a firm doing things is was not licensed to do, rather than a systemic problem with the business model of typical FX firms - the majority of which do not offer services outside their licenses. Those who do can be easily checked and reported by literally anyone these days.

Reading about cases like this makes me think about writing something to help people make better decisions. I have been the victim of something similar before myself despite being in Financial Services...because I trusted the firm I worked in. There's always room for extra vigilence and good companies are always willing to share information to put clients at ease.

N.

Johncarzx

Hello Norm

You say ''it remains the duty of consumers to also check on the firms they are doing business with before handing over money.''

That would sound easier said than done. In this particular case no one seems sure or for whatever reason no one is saying. We have had every description, regulated, registered, authorised, licenced, and I am not sure you know for certain which one it is.

It's about time things were made more clear to average Joe Public including a statement of what they can do and what they cannot do on their own literature. websites and advertising, instead of hiding behind the descriptions mentioned above. (Your money is at risk, there is no compensation scheme). To operate in this market there should be a clear compensation provision by all companies for clients money. Pigs might fly.

Norm_uk

I am all for jargon free advertising and description of services. Believe me sometimes even professions in the industry are baffled by the nonsense some companies push out.

And I think it's worth looking at a compensation scheme - in fact by omission the FSCG seems to be saying compensation is an option if the activities are licensed. Compensation schemes need to be funded and managed though - the question would be who would do that, what limits would it have and what criterea would need to be met to trigger it.

I am also for empowering people to do their own dilligence, reading the small print and taking independent advice if they are unsure. This is the most powerful way to avoid these issues in my experience.

N.

Johncarzx

How does Burt & Betty Dimwit do their own diligence? Everyone deserves adequate protection and warnings from all these type of companies and the so called regulators.

The whole purpose small print exists is to try and hide what they don’t want you to know or understand.

What chance has Burt & Betty with, regulated, authorised, licensed and the FCA register. They thought FCA was a new bingo hall. Plus they feel too intimidated to seek professional help, but sadly believe all the marketing bullshit by these companies that the regulators turn a blind eye to.

Norm_uk

I agree everyone deserves adequate warnings - I think I made that clear - jargon free clear terms and conditions are a must. Companies hiding things in terms and conditions need to be stopped - and things cleared up.

But is it the job of the State to protect people who are 'too intimidated' to seek independent professional advice. whatever that means? In my experience people aren't intimidated to seek advice...they want free advice that is also professional and are baffled when people who have taken exams and courses and worked for years and sometimes decades might charge for their time.

If someone cannot check a website or hire someone for an hour or two to give impartial advice but are happy to chuck tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands into things they have not checked properly you have marvel really. Many of these scam firms rely on the fact people won't check independently. I also advocate teaching basic financial planning in schools by the way since it's lack in the culture today.

N.

Johncarzx

Hello Norm

I fully agree with what you say.

As in most cases the question always ends up ‘’WHY’’, what is the root cause that the regulators don’t do the obvious. Why do they allow companies to try and hide important warnings and risks in the faded small print?

Why in this case is ‘’YOUR MONEY IS AT RISK AND THERE IS NO COMPENSATION SCHEME’’ not prominent in the marketing material?

If it was, that might just be the prompt that gullible Bert & Betty need to go seek professional advice. Instead they are just overpowered with marketing bullshit that they believe.

Who’s pocket are the regulators in? Certainly not Joe Public’s. When the regulators do take action against a company it seems to be a fine that is passed on to the shareholders and customers while the true offenders (Directors) get off scot free and all have a good laugh together.