01516680386

If you missed yesterday's You and Yours you can listen to it again here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04t6t5y

If you want a copy of the transcript, please email me on angiebrooks99@gmail.com and I will send it to you

Was anyone else surprised to hear that 700 SIPPs had invested in this too? I would be interested to know if 100% of all the individual SIPPs were invested in this one, illiquid, investment. Who were the SIPP providers? Did they not question this? The FSCS is already facing a considerable number of SIPP compensation claims from failed unregulated funds and the regulated  IFAs are getting creamed by the increasing annual levies to support it. I found this link and would be interested to hear what the SIPP providers have to say about this. Was no due diligence undertaken?

http://storefirstinvestments.tumblr.com/ In case it is removed here is what is says

More SIPP Providers Approve The Store First Model

Excellent news this week as more SIPP providers have approved the Store First investment model. This means that not only with guaranteed returns of 8% for the first two years and including capital uplift providing a total R.O.I of 106%. Investors now have the added security of more institutions approving the store first SIPP investment model. Not only does the Store first invetsment model work for SIPP investments, but can also work just as well as a cash or an alternative investment. Please see the most recent approvals from SIPP providers:

•    Guardian
•    Berkley Burke
•    Stadia
•    Carey
•    Rowanmoor
•    Lifetime

Store First are currently speaking to more SIPP porviders to approve our product. We will announce details on our blog as more SIPP providers recommend our investments model.

I have just looked up some of these Sipps on google, not all appear but these are the ones that stood out.

Guardian -  Regulatory Legal name them as being involved in the Harlequin debacle.

Berkeley Burke- The FOS ruling is significant for SIPP firms, worth reading this article

http://www.professionaladviser.com/profession ... -sipp-providers

Stadia

http://www.professionaladviser.com/ifaonline/ ... vider-over-ucis

Lifetime

http://www.professionaladviser.com/profession ... s-left-in-limbo

The comments on these articles sum things up. Anyone spot a theme here?

those links seem to say that those what invested in sipp's are able to get compensation but what about capita oak pensions. surley the rules must be that same as it is all pension fund money. what does this mean!

only sipp name that surprise me is Rowanmoor

Think the SIPP providers have some explaining to do.

When I searched for that number in the internet a found a maybe related site called www.schrottimmobilien.gomopa.co. Can some one proof the connection?

Up until last year we could quite easily open a SIPP and purchase commercial property, now one will require suitable advice 1. to open a SIPP & 2. to Invest into these kind of investments.

This does not mean that the investment is not suitable, this is simply down to commercial property is not regulated by the FCA.
You are rambling on as though storefirst is a scam, yet facts and figures prove otherwise. The facts are that you will have all been told at some point where your funds will be invested therefore this surely cannot be a shock!

Your issues lie with the possible issues with administration of the scheme not where your money is invested. You should all be careful on the volume of negative press you are distributing on where your money is invested. You cant realistically expect to bad mouth, slander and spread rumors on where your hard earned cash is ultimately invested and expect  positive outcome and return on investment. Put it this way, if you owned a rental property as an investment would you willingly go on forums like this and bad mouth your very own investment? Of course you wouldn't!

WE??? Who's we ?
You could quite easily open a SIPP but its much easier to throw stuff in an occupational scheme isn't it !!

Not where it's invested ??
Buy back arrangements that suit one party..
2 years from retirement and placed into an illiquid asset...
Returns that haven't (possibly) been paid to the scheme...If they have ..show us..
Thats not necessarily administration issues...i will let the next poster put a definition on it...!

How do the buy back arrangements only siut one party? Guesing you mean not the pensioners. Did the people whoever they were at the time as it keeps changing that ran the pension get a lawyer to look at the buyback arrangements?

Which lawyers checked this out for the pensioners in this fund? How does the buyback really work in fact? Does this mean they wont buy back the storerooms?

Up for debate I think that latter point....yes but terms and conditions may well apply...

Was any consideration given to the fact that people from 55 might want to access an income and cash as is their right, leading on from Roger's point about 2 years to retirement and definition ?

It is normal, regulated or not, for investment providers  to provide data to the investors. So, I think the members need-
a) A proper independent market valuation of the pension assets
b) Occupancy rates for the units
c) Average rent per sq m, so that investors can work out the yield.
d) Profession opinion on the resale market for the units, with realistic price projections.

Get that info to the investors and the "definition" might be more positive. Is that a reasonable request?

There was a clear buy-back clause.  But also a clear caveat that the buy-back clause could only be invoked if Store First had the money in the bank.

And what money is in the bank after circa 5m dividends and all the inter company loans.
Dylan Harvey had £23.65p in the bank when administrators were appointed !!!

Its all in the accounts.  Veil of incorporation?

Posts removed again ??

Hadn't noticed Karen ??

What are your views on this alert from the FCA ?

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/sipps-further-alert     An extract is below.

'In the cases we have seen, customers’ existing arrangements were invariably traditional pension plans invested in mainstream funds or final salary schemes, with the customer generally having no experience of non-mainstream propositions and many having very limited experience of standard investments. The new arrangements firms proposed were to transfer or switch the customers’ pension funds to a SIPP, with a view to investment in non-mainstream propositions, which were typically unregulated, high risk and highly illiquid investments. Some examples of these investments are overseas property developments, store pods and forestry. Such transfers or switches are unlikely to be suitable for the vast majority of retail customers.'

Quite simple, this information relates to the thematic review the FCA undertook of the SIPP market last year. This by no means refers to any of these investments being a scam, it simply means that the the investor needs to be sophisticated in order to make an investment into these types of investments.
The SIPP industry has changed now and it is no longer possible to invest within unregulated and potentially sophisticated investments without receiving suitable financial advice or the investor being high net worth. This was not this case 18 months ago and you could simply open a SIPP and select an investment of your choosing from the providers approved list and instruct the investment. That's what Self Invested Personal Pensions were designed for. Are the SIPP companies negligent in allowing to make these types of investments? Maybe or maybe not and time will tell. The fact remains that the Storefirst Business Model is viable and there is nothing to prove otherwise. None of this appears to reflect on Capita Oak anyhow as it appears it was an occupational pension not a SIPP.

The investment is not to blame for this, lets be realistic here.