Pension Wipe Out

cedarhills16 · Post by **cedarhills16** » Sun 19 Jun 2016 4:51 pm

Has anybody else been affected by the total loss of pension funds because of the demise of the New Earth Fund? I took Independent Financial Advice from a local company in TRNC invested over 50 K GBP and last week got a revised balance of 3 quid !!!!

Should anyone want to know HOW ON EARTH COULD THAT HAVE HAPPENED, please let me know.

Keithcaley · Post by **Keithcaley** » Sun 19 Jun 2016 5:48 pm

Go on then - I'm all ears...

. ////
‹(•¿•)>
. )~(

johnny1 · Post by **johnny1** » Sun 19 Jun 2016 5:49 pm

me too .......

cedarhills16 · Post by **cedarhills16** » Sun 19 Jun 2016 6:17 pm

go and ask AstuteFMA they have all the answers.............

Keithcaley · Post by **Keithcaley** » Sun 19 Jun 2016 6:41 pm

Oh dear, I've heard that one before...

cedarhills16 · Post by **cedarhills16** » Sun 19 Jun 2016 6:43 pm

yes Keith...........I am peed off to say the least...........

Dalartokat · Post by **Dalartokat** » Sun 19 Jun 2016 6:57 pm

They were discussed back in 2013 on Cyprus44....LM Investments, Peter Drake, Scott Kennedy, Australia etc.

New Earth Fund, is this to do with Waste & Recycling based in the Isle of Man?

chiangbill · Post by **chiangbill** » Sun 19 Jun 2016 7:05 pm

Is this the Company?

http://www.international-adviser.com/ne ... nted-earth

file:///C:/Users/bill/Downloads/nerr-circular-16-06-16.pdf

laptatony · Post by **laptatony** » Sun 19 Jun 2016 7:20 pm

http://www.premiernewearthfund.com/stakeholder-news-/ looks like another disastrous investment. Just how do do people cope with losing their life savings. This is not the first time this has happened to people here.

Dalartokat · Post by **Dalartokat** » Sun 19 Jun 2016 7:25 pm

chiangbill wrote:Is this the Company?

http://www.international-adviser.com/ne ... nted-earth

file:///C:/Users/bill/Downloads/nerr-circular-16-06-16.pdf

Yes, this was the company I looked at and Laptatony has found the answer also. Very sad for people who have invested their money.

13roman58 · Post by **13roman58** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 7:36 am

I was approached by this person in 2006 but after ten minutes he realised that it was a no go and hasn't spoken to me since I am still amazed that people dolly up to him on Burns Night etc

cyprusishome · Post by **cyprusishome** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 7:45 am

I do hope that the financial advisor was not FMA!!!
The number of people who were screwed with the Australian so called "safe investment", was unreal. Anyone who invested through FMA after that should have had enough warning to be very careful.

waz-24-7 · Post by **waz-24-7** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 9:31 am

Cedarhills16

To invest anything in the TRNC or via any TRNC business is absolute folly. The infrastructure, legal system, accountability and duty of care within the region is abysmal.
I am afraid that any loss you have suffered is almost certainly permanent. Any investments should ONLY go via a UK FMA approved management company. Do not fall into the "great interest rate" trap. Too many people have lost their savings in a far from safe investment regime.

I can recommend Hargreaves Lansdown in the UK. FMA and their performance is consistently good OR Tilley Bestinvest similar performance.
I would hold fire until after the BREXIT as markets will most certainly see some volatility on Friday this week.
If we are IN then act quick and get on board sharpish. If OUT then leave it a few weeks because I predict quite a slump.

ITFCMike · Post by **ITFCMike** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 10:07 am

waz

As a retired IFA it saddens me that people still take advice from unregulated "advisers" passing themselves of as Independent Financial Advisers in the TRNC.

There is no such thing
The protection is not abysmal, it is non existent
The "advice" is questionable,I can think of a more apt description but am staying polite

There are cheaper options then you mention, AJ Bell for example, but these are for investors with some experience or those that have received some reliable guidance from someone with appropriate industry experience.

For anyone with money to invest please please get a plane back to the UK and source an IFA there are plenty of good ones out there, it will be worth the plane fare and fee.

Do you mean FCA?, by mentioning FMA I suspect you will confuse further.

waz-24-7 · Post by **waz-24-7** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 10:53 am

Mike
Yes ..... FCA and IFA are the two bodies of distinction

What is clear is that TRNC based investment is absolute lunacy.

IFA ... yes absolutely
W

erol · Post by **erol** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 11:50 am

waz-24-7 wrote:What is clear is that TRNC based investment is absolute lunacy.

Surely you mean taking investment advise from a company that is outside a competent regulatory framework for giving such advise is lunacy ?

The fund that the original poster was talking about was registered in the Isle of Man and concerned as far as I can tell an investment in a recycling plant to be built in Scotland. The 'problem' is not that it was a TRNC based investment. I think the 'problem' you are highlighting is that if you took advise from an IFA to invest in this fund from a UK regulated IFA and you can show that the advise given to you to do so did not in fact correctly asses your needs as an investor, then you may be able to gain compensation for being so mis advised by your IFA, where as the chances of getting such from an IFA only covered by TRNC regulation is low to zero.

So I think your advise here, which itself is a form of unregulated independent financial advise, is to use a IFA (independent financial adviser) that falls under a credible regulatory system that offers some protection should you be mislead by said adviser ?

It seems to me even if you used a UK regulated IFA, that in itself would not protect your from having invested in this fund. It would, as far as I understand it, come down to how well the IFA considered your needs as an investor and how clearly they explained the risk level of this investment and if they suggested it as part of a diverse portfolio of investment or as a single 'put all your money here' advise.

ITFCMike · Post by **ITFCMike** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 1:16 pm

Lets be clear here
the two links are to an investment article, the other the fund managers page neither are the advisers page.

There is no such thing as an IFA covered by TRNC regulation,here you just have (any) person given completely unregulated advice.

Your last paragraph is correct but and it`s a big but the advice is checked and has to be justified.
In this particular case if the £50k was the total portfolio invested in one fund there is no way it would have got through the compliance process the second point is subjective but given the level of training and montoring of IFA`s in the UK I would be surprised if this fund formed part of any properly regulated portfolio

Hammerhead · Post by **Hammerhead** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 1:56 pm

ITFCMike wrote:waz for your information a uk adviser lost us 80000gbp,it's so easy playing with other people's money

As a retired IFA it saddens me that people still take advice from unregulated "advisers" passing themselves of as Independent Financial Advisers in the TRNC.

There is no such thing
The protection is not abysmal, it is non existent
The "advice" is questionable,I can think of a more apt description but am staying polite

There are cheaper options then you mention, AJ Bell for example, but these are for investors with some experience or those that have received some reliable guidance from someone with appropriate industry experience.

For anyone with money to invest please please get a plane back to the UK and source an IFA there are plenty of good ones out there, it will be worth the plane fare and fee.

Do you mean FCA?, by mentioning FMA I suspect you will confuse further.

Ragged Robin · Post by **Ragged Robin** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 2:20 pm

laptatony wrote:http://www.premiernewearthfund.com/stakeholder-news-/ looks like another disastrous investment. Just how do do people cope with losing their life savings. This is not the first time this has happened to people here.

The answer to that is "with great difficulty" . There are a lot of people here who are suffering hardship and illness because they have lost , if not their whole life savings , a large proportion of them as a result of financial advisers ignoring their needs and instructions. Those who still had homes and and families in the UK mainly returned to them and the tender mercies of the BHS. The rest have to cope somehow with losing the money set aside for medical attention and care in old age while watching those responsible enjoying luxury and lording it about on the proceeds!

In defense of our apparent naivity in appointing advisers based in a country without adequate legal protection may I point out that the advisers in question claimed to be UK trained and qualified and to work to UK standards of professionalism and ethics, to be in "partnership" with an Isle of Man registered insurance company, and appeared to have the support and approval of two UK reputable "institutions" here! In fact we suffered by trusting fellow Brits - not the only occasion this has happened,

The probl ems is that we should all have been warned by the fact that these people chose are "targets" a retired expatriate population (which by definition could be facing the problems of ageing , health and bereavement) in an internationally unrecognised country and who would be vulnerable to persuasion and ill equipped to protest or take action on their losses.

erol · Post by **erol** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 3:02 pm

ITFCMike wrote:Lets be clear here

The point I was trying to make was 'protection' with regards to using an IFA is not about where a given investment may be but is down to if the IFA you use is covered by some kind of regulatory scheme or not.

The secondary point I was making was that even if you use an IFA that is covered by say the UK regulatory environment, this does not in itself pretect you from a fund going into receivership. It protects you from being given bad advise, not from funds going bust.

ITFCMike wrote: I would be surprised if this fund formed part of any properly regulated portfolio

The idea that no IFA regulated under the UK regulatory structures would have recommended this fund is not I am afraid correct. I can cite at least one case where such a regulated IFA not only recommended this fund, they did so in a manner that was totally inappropriate to the client, such that the regulator did indeed make them compensate the client as a result of this bad advise. They did not order the IFA to pay compensation to the client merely because the fund went bust.

http://www.ftadviser.com/2016/05/13/ifa ... ticle.html

The point I am trying to make then is that using a properly regulated IFA does NOT protect you from investing in a fund that goes bust. It can protect you from investing based on bad advise and this is why if you are going to use such an IFA you should use one that has such protections.

All investments carry risk at the end of the day. My mother incurred significant loss by having pension investments with Equitable Life for example. No one would claim that if an IFA had recommended these before Equitable ran into the trouble it did, such advise would have been 'inappropriate' or 'bad advise'.

ITFCMike · Post by **ITFCMike** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 3:34 pm

Michelle

This is the point I am trying to make, you have protection

I cannot be specific and do not intend to be but you have a right to appeal if you feel that you have been misled.

1. You specifically refer to uk adviser,so was this adviser a tied agent,usually a bank or building society rep?
If so was that status disclosed verbally and in writing?

2.Was any of the documentation you received doctored in any way,even a written comment on it will do

3.£80k lost, what proportion of your total investment was this,anything above 70% rings alarm bells

4.Was the investment appropriate to your attitude to risk,if you were low to medium you should have been advised a portfolio with a mix of asset classes.

I am not authorised anymore so cannot comment further but if you feel any of the applies check your documentation and appeal

michelle wrote:
ITFCMike wrote:waz for your information a uk adviser lost us 80000gbp,it's so easy playing with other people's money

As a retired IFA it saddens me that people still take advice from unregulated "advisers" passing themselves of as Independent Financial Advisers in the TRNC.

There is no such thing
The protection is not abysmal, it is non existent
The "advice" is questionable,I can think of a more apt description but am staying polite

There are cheaper options then you mention, AJ Bell for example, but these are for investors with some experience or those that have received some reliable guidance from someone with appropriate industry experience.

For anyone with money to invest please please get a plane back to the UK and source an IFA there are plenty of good ones out there, it will be worth the plane fare and fee.

Do you mean FCA?, by mentioning FMA I suspect you will confuse further.

ITFCMike · Post by **ITFCMike** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 3:35 pm

I think we basically agree Erol!!

erol wrote:
ITFCMike wrote:Lets be clear here
The point I was trying to make was 'protection' with regards to using an IFA is not about where a given investment may be but is down to if the IFA you use is covered by some kind of regulatory scheme or not.

The secondary point I was making was that even if you use an IFA that is covered by say the UK regulatory environment, this does not in itself pretect you from a fund going into receivership. It protects you from being given bad advise, not from funds going bust.

ITFCMike wrote: I would be surprised if this fund formed part of any properly regulated portfolio
The idea that no IFA regulated under the UK regulatory structures would have recommended this fund is not I am afraid correct. I can cite at least one case where such a regulated IFA not only recommended this fund, they did so in a manner that was totally inappropriate to the client, such that the regulator did indeed make them compensate the client as a result of this bad advise. They did not order the IFA to pay compensation to the client merely because the fund went bust.

http://www.ftadviser.com/2016/05/13/ifa ... ticle.html

The point I am trying to make then is that using a properly regulated IFA does NOT protect you from investing in a fund that goes bust. It can protect you from investing based on bad advise and this is why if you are going to use such an IFA you should use one that has such protections.

All investments carry risk at the end of the day. My mother incurred significant loss by having pension investments with Equitable Life for example. No one would claim that if an IFA had recommended these before Equitable ran into the trouble it did, such advise would have been 'inappropriate' or 'bad advise'.

cedarhills16 · Post by **cedarhills16** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 3:59 pm

Apologies for the delay I was out of the office yesterday. I have read through your file this morning and I note the following:

1. The Premier Lite International Pension Plan was selected by you as this was the cheapest QROPS plan available on the market at the time. This plan did not incur any set up fees, a small annual admin fee of 138 GBP & no drawdown fees applied & no advisor fee.
2. At the time we did provide alternative QROPS options as detailed in our Pension Transfer Report, for example the Carey’s Ventura Ospreys product using DPZ Capital as the Discretionary Fund manager. Set up costs for this product were 850 GBP, annual fee 600 GBP & 1.1% per annum on fund value per annum for DPZ / FMA. You did not select this option as set up and running costs were more expensive.
3. The Premier Lite International Pension Plan is a Closed Architecture Product, this meant that only Investment into Premier funds were allowed. As per your risk assessment, on the opening of the QROPS, your pension premium was placed into the Premier Balanced Portfolio. The Premier Balanced portfolio provided a diversified structure as it invested across the whole Premier fund spectrum & allocated a proportion of monies into the New Earth fund which was returning 13% per annum. The Premier Balanced fund returned around 7% growth per annum as it was spread across a wider selection of funds within Premier fund range.
4. In July 2011, we received instruction that you wished to switch 100% out of the Premier Balanced fund that was returning 7% pa & switch 100% into the New Earth fund that was returning 13% per annum. In order for the switch to be placed you had to sign a letter instructing the trade. FMA cannot place deals without your instruction. A signed letter was placed with the pension trustee who then notified Premier to make the switch out of Premier Balanced portfolio & into Premier New Earth – this trade was completed in October 2011 – investment amount was 54,304 GBP. I believe extra investment allocation was provided by Premier New Earth, to cover the 7% surrender fee applied from the Premier Balanced fund.
5. Upon request – FMA would provide you with updated pension valuations, which are provided to us by the pension trustee. These valuations have detailed your pension pot holdings, whether it was your holding of Premier Balanced or your holding of Premier New Earth.

Obviously no one could have predicted that New Earth Recycling plants would come into financial hardship & that efforts to sell the business failed. I am in contact with Deloitte who have been appointed Liquidators to the fund, they are working with the New Earth Recycling plants Administrators Duff & Phelps.

As soon as I further information I will circulate out. I am also due to have a conference call with an ex- Premier employee today or tomorrow to discuss the matter. I am hoping he can provide me with off the record information.

cedarhills16 · Post by **cedarhills16** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 4:04 pm

so it is all my fault............I was given advise by Scott Kennedy of ASTUTE FMA. I chose the investments based on the advise I was given. The risk was supposed to be a mix of Medium and High.

Invested plus 100K in LMIM Australia based on Advise Given by Astsute FMA

Invested over 50K in a scheme that was obviously going to go tits up from advice given by Astsute FMA

I advise back in return..........Scott give up advising people with their savings, your hopeless at it. Go home to Glasgow and get yourself a proper job.

Useless is an understatement.

frontalman · Post by **frontalman** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 4:20 pm

I'm a bit confused here. Am I right in supposing that mess 23 is FMA's response and mess 24 is your response to that?

cedarhills16 · Post by **cedarhills16** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 4:29 pm

no Frontalman.

I posted both the messages. Just throwing it out there.

Leither · Post by **Leither** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 4:48 pm

When will people ever learn,you do not invest your hard earned money with anyone in this country,put it under your mattress it will be a lot safer there than anywhere else here and I include the banks.

tomsteel · Post by **tomsteel** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 5:10 pm

Having experienced the Australian LM saga based upon advice in the TRNC, I have sympathy for others so affected and despite being assured the investments were capital guaranteed. However, I sought the advice, was given advice and accepted it. Ergo, I must share the blame for my failed investments. What a chump! Mea culpa.

cedarhills16 · Post by **cedarhills16** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 5:11 pm

could not agree more..........especially do not seek advice from ASTUTE FMA..........well if you want to 100% lose money then you must !!

Ragged Robin · Post by **Ragged Robin** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 8:11 pm

What surprises and upsets me is that while those who lost money on the various housing scams - often through failure to do sufficient checking of facts in advance - get a lot of sympathy and even support from the expat community, those who suffered equally damaging losses through bad advise simply suffer criticism and belated advice as to how not to do it . My own advice to anyone investing money or otherwise committing large sums from their savings get a written contract, confirm all instructions given to advisers in writing and take minutes of any meetings. Of course the advisers should do this, but as has been proved in another case it is sometimes not in their interests to provide evidence that they are not acting in their clients best interests

I have also been surprised that since the demise of Cyprus 44 I have seen and heard very little from those who have suffered losses from the various financial fiascoes and the perpetrators appear to flourish and be socially acceptable. Maybe it is because I dont look in the right places, or because most of the victims have returned to the UK. but it cant help raise questions about influence.

Ragged Robin · Post by **Ragged Robin** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 8:22 pm

frontalman wrote:I'm a bit confused here. Am I right in supposing that mess 23 is FMA's response and mess 24 is your response to that?

I am also- still - confused!

I think in fact message 23 reads as the Advisers' response to a complaint/request by cedarhills and cedarhills has quoted it to give an indication of the type f response to be expected. Perhaps cedarhills could be kind enought to confirm this. It is impossible to judge without a lot more knowledge of the case in question, but at least one other has experienced a response in similar terms which was totally incorrect about the investors actual instructions and demonstrated a very aggressive/defensive attitude to this being questioned.

jofra · Post by **jofra** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 8:34 pm

I'm afraid - perhaps because I have never had a great amount of "expendable" money - I have always operated on the principle that I should not invest (risk!) more than I am willing, and more importantly, can afford to lose - and over the past few years, anybody or anything offering or suggesting more than 3 or 4% per year at the very most, would have me running like hell in the opposite direction! There were "boom" years once upon a time, but that was long ago....
I do have sympathy for those who have lost anything, but that sympathy is tempered....

thickey · Post by **thickey** » Mon 20 Jun 2016 9:00 pm

What's that old saying if it sounds to good to be true it is.

johnny1 · Post by **johnny1** » Tue 21 Jun 2016 1:51 am

Leither wrote:When will people ever learn,you do not invest your hard earned money with anyone in this country,put it under your mattress it will be a lot safer there than anywhere else here and I include the banks.

Leither can you explain a little on what you mean when you said ''including the banks''?
should we not have any money in any bank in the north?do u know somethign that we dont maybe?

kibsolar1999 · Post by **kibsolar1999** » Tue 21 Jun 2016 7:38 am

erol wrote
It seems to me even if you used a UK regulated IFA, that in itself would not protect your from having invested in this fund. It would, as far as I understand it, come down to how well the IFA considered your needs as an investor and how clearly they explained the risk level of this investment and if they suggested it as part of a diverse portfolio of investment or as a single 'put all your money here' advise.

exactly. and if a IFA wants to sell you something, then you know it is time to leave. they should be advisers and not a branch, getting commissions for sells, and thats the real problem. the so called Independent FAs offer financial advice for free, and you buy from them the products they "adviced" you.... haha.

eg, just see all the "dirty sells" just before Lehmans went bust, when all the FMAs, FAs FMCs, IFAs, and all the banks, made a lot of money by getting outrageous high commissions to get rid of this hot papers. and this still goes on.

many house scams, eg in TRNC, happend, because the estate agents offered the property, the contract (with builder and -or developer), the lawyer, the noter. the full package, no money, great deal.

frontalman · Post by **frontalman** » Tue 21 Jun 2016 8:42 am

Ragged Robin wrote:
frontalman wrote:I'm a bit confused here. Am I right in supposing that mess 23 is FMA's response and mess 24 is your response to that?
I am also- still - confused!

I think in fact message 23 reads as the Advisers' response to a complaint/request by cedarhills and cedarhills has quoted it to give an indication of the type f response to be expected. Perhaps cedarhills could be kind enought to confirm this. It is impossible to judge without a lot more knowledge of the case in question, but at least one other has experienced a response in similar terms which was totally incorrect about the investors actual instructions and demonstrated a very aggressive/defensive attitude to this being questioned.

Yes, I kind of worked that out myself but just wanted Cedarhills to confirm it.

ITFCMike · Post by **ITFCMike** » Tue 21 Jun 2016 9:32 am

Commission for IFA`s ceased some time ago,all based on agreed fees at outset now.

Looking at the fund in question without doubt an individuals attitude to risk would have had to be high and so high it would have formed in my opinion, no more then 5% of the overall portfolio,like the Aussie funds, and you can accuse me of hindsight if you wish, but I would not have touched either of these funds with a barge pole, there is no need to, there are plenty of funds out there with proven track records in their particular sectors.

If the attitude to risk had been medium to low the IFA would have the book thrown at him if it formed any part of the portfolio.

Funnily enough, as an aside, this particular fund management company do have some excellent funds.

kibsolar1999 wrote:erol wrote
It seems to me even if you used a UK regulated IFA, that in itself would not protect your from having invested in this fund. It would, as far as I understand it, come down to how well the IFA considered your needs as an investor and how clearly they explained the risk level of this investment and if they suggested it as part of a diverse portfolio of investment or as a single 'put all your money here' advise.

exactly. and if a IFA wants to sell you something, then you know it is time to leave. they should be advisers and not a branch, getting commissions for sells, and thats the real problem. the so called Independent FAs offer financial advice for free, and you buy from them the products they "adviced" you.... haha.

eg, just see all the "dirty sells" just before Lehmans went bust, when all the FMAs, FAs FMCs, IFAs, and all the banks, made a lot of money by getting outrageous high commissions to get rid of this hot papers. and this still goes on.

many house scams, eg in TRNC, happend, because the estate agents offered the property, the contract (with builder and -or developer), the lawyer, the noter. the full package, no money, great deal.

Caveboy · Post by **Caveboy** » Sat 25 Jun 2016 7:47 am

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it ?? I rue the day I dealt with them many years ago....

Steve C · Post by **Steve C** » Sat 25 Jun 2016 8:12 am

It is very sad that any one had lost their life savings by investing here. But the reality of the situation is that if you want to make a small fortune here you need to start with a large one. The thing that annoys me more than anything is that the advisors that have caused all this upset seem to carry on with their lives as if nothing has happened, apart from the fortune in commission they have earned .

Caveboy · Post by **Caveboy** » Sun 26 Jun 2016 6:16 am

Steve C wrote:It is very sad that any one had lost their life savings but investing here. But the reality of the situation is that if you want to make a small fortune here you need to start with a large one.

So very very true !!

magalan · Post by **magalan** » Sun 26 Jun 2016 7:05 am

John Aziz Kent, (the father of tourism in Cyprus) when interviewed on ADA TV, remarked "The UK gave me the chance to amass a fortune. The TRNC gave me the chance to lose it."

Say No More!

Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

Join us