Elite Advisers' Nobles Crus wine fund suspended by CSSF – Luxembourg's financial authority

From Elite Advisers website

From Jim's Loire:

The CSSF decided to suspend the Nobles Crus wine fund on 27th May 2013 because it coud not meet the requested redemptions. On 31st May Miriam Wilson and Michel Tamisier, general partners in Elite Advisers/Elite Partners, informed their investors of the suspension. It may be significant that it would appear that it was the CSSF who stepped in rather than at the request of Elite Advisers/Elite Partners. 

Read the rest here. 

FCA bans promotion of wine funds to ordinary retail investors

Gates@Château Mouton-Rothschild

This afternoon The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has banned the promotion of Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes to ordinary investors. This ban includes wine investment funds, who will only be allowed to sophisticated investors and high net worth individuals. The new rules, set out below in the FCA press release, will come into force on 1st January 2014. 

Although many of the wine investment funds, whose management needs approval from the financial authorities if based in the UK, do only sell to sophisticated investors and high net worth individuals, the ban sends out a very powerful signal that companies selling wine investments, whether they are collective investments or not, should not be colding calling and should be assessing whether the investments they offer are suitable for their individual clients.

This is a very welcome statement.

While the ban, as it currently stands, does not apply to the boiler rooms of Bromley and elsewhere, flogging individual cases of wine to individual clients, it is now official that cold calling should not be used to sell investments. 

Once again it is abundantly clear that the Wine Investment Association (WIA) has to come into line and ban its members from cold calling. 

The message is clear: if a company cold calls you offering wine investments, plots of land, carbon credits etc. put the phone down. The company is out of line with UK investment policy, so is a scam.       

**       

Press release from The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)

FCA to ban the promotion of UCIS and certain close substitutes to ordinary retail investors

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published final rules to ban the promotion of Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes (UCIS) and certain close substitutes (together to be known as Non-Mainstream Pooled Investments (NMPIs) to the vast majority of retail investors in the UK. The rules mean that, in the retail market, promotions of these riskier and often very complex fund structures will generally be restricted to sophisticated investors and high net worth individuals for whom these products are more likely to be suitable.

The ban follows on from extensive work undertaken by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which found that only one in every four advised sales of UCIS to retail customers was suitable and that many promotions breached the existing UCIS marketing restrictions. Concerns have also been identified in relation to products, which are close substitutes for UCIS and in relation to which the existing marketing restriction had no effect. A number of NMPIs have failed completely in recent years, leading to customers losing their total investment.  

The final rules follow a consultation period in which the FCA engaged extensively with all stakeholders and received detailed feedback. The majority of respondents agreed with the general aim of the proposals to protect ordinary retail investors from the risks arising from inappropriate promotion of NMPIs. However, the FCA has taken into consideration a number of responses about the definition of NMPIs and refined those to focus more tightly on products posing the greatest risk of inappropriate distribution to ordinary retail investors.  The FCA has also considered concerns about requirements applicable to marketing to high net worth or sophisticated retail clients and amended the proposals accordingly.

Following analysis of the feedback, a number of products now lie out of scope of the marketing restrictions. These include exchange traded products, overseas investment companies that would meet the criteria for investment trust status if based in the UK, real estate investment trusts and venture capital trusts. Enterprise investment schemes and seed enterprise investment schemes, unless structured as UCIS, are also outside the scope of the rules.  The marketing of special purpose vehicles pooling investment primarily in shares and bonds is also not restricted. Firms still need to ensure promotional communications about these products are fair, clear and not misleading, and if advice is given they must ensure any recommendation to invest is suitable to the client.

The following investments will be subject to marketing restrictions: units in qualified investor schemes (QIS), traded life policy investments, units in UCIS; and securities issued by SPVs pooling investment in assets other than listed or unlisted shares or bonds.

The FCA will continue to review market developments and, should it discover similar issues in the future that create the risk of significant potential for consumer detriment, particularly where arbitrage is taking place to avoid the marketing restrictions, it may need to consider an extension of scope of the rules. If necessary, the FCA can make a temporary product intervention rule to do this before consultation.

Christopher Woolard, director of policy risk & research, said:

“Consumers have lost substantial amounts of money investing in UCIS and similar products in recent years so the need to introduce new rules to prevent this from continuing was essential. However, we have also taken into account that for some investors these products can still be appropriate.

“We believe today’s rules strike the right balance. They should go a long way in helping to protect the majority of retail investors in the UK from inappropriate promotions while allowing the industry to market these risky, unusual or complex investment propositions to those experienced investors for whom they could be suitable options.”

The FCA is also monitoring the market in relation to products, which are not pooled investments. The industry is beginning to introduce to the retail market a range of novel securities – including contingent convertibles (CoCos), building society deferred shares and similar instruments – that were once exclusively offered to institutional investors, and which carry risks unfamiliar to and inappropriate for many ordinary retail investors.  The FCA intends to consult on the introduction of a new marketing restriction in relation to these types of products. 

Notes for editors

1. The Policy Statement.

(http://www.fca.org.uk/news/policy-statements/ps13-03-restrictions-on-the-retail-distribution-of-unregulated-collective-investment-schemes-and-close-substitutes)

2. Examples of underlying assets sometimes held in UCIS and similar products include fine wines, crops, timber, and speculative financial instruments and traded life policies. These assets may sometimes appear to offer better returns with less volatility than more usual investment types but they are often actually higher risk investments.  The risks they carry are often esoteric and difficult to assess.  For example, they may be illiquid, difficult to value and prices may be volatile.  Governance controls can also be weaker than on more mainstream investment vehicles, which may increase the risk of product failure and loss of capital for investors.

3. Previously the FSA undertook a significant amount of work to improve standards. The FSA published guidance to firms to improve standards, including detailed findings of our file assessments and guidance on good and poor practice.  Last year the FSA issued over 250 letters to firms active in this market to repeat our concerns and highlight the key regulatory requirements that apply.

4. A list of recent enforcement notices against firms for providing unsuitable advice on UCIS is available.

5. On the 1 April 2013 the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) became responsible for the conduct supervision of all regulated financial firms and the prudential supervision of those not supervised by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).

6. The FCA has an overarching strategic objective of ensuring the relevant markets function well. To support this it has three operational objectives: to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers; to protect and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system; and to promote effective competition in the interests of consumers.

*

Coverage in Press: Telegraph, Reuters,    

Four on trial for Nouveau World Wines/ Finbow Wines double 'fraud'

Investors were 'defrauded' of £4.5 million through two companies run by 38-year old Daniel Snelling. Snelling is charged with two counts of conspiracy to defraud and one count of money laundering. 

The first company was Nouveau World Wines, which operated between 2007 and 2009, offering investments in Australian wines. When Nouveau World Wines disappeared in 2009, Finbow Wines was set up using investors’ money from Nouveau. Finbow offered short-term profits in a five-month deal claiming to ship containers of cheap Italian wines in China for the Chinese New Year, to India, and to South Africa for the World Cup.

Investors were told that wines bought for £2 a bottle including transport could be sold in China for £3 producing a rapid profit. Investors were offered a buy back guarantee if the wine was unsold after 12 months. The guarantee proved to be worthless.    

Also in the dock at Southwark Crown Court are 35-year old Dina Snelling, Daniel’s sister and the office manager, Rebecca McDonald, the accounts manager, and Simon Dempsey, the director of Finbow Wines Ltd and Dina Snelling’s boyfriend. Dempsey was not involved in Nouveau.

Although Daniel Snelling was a director of Nouveau, he was not a named director of Finbow. The prosecution, however, alleged that he was fully involved in setting up and running Finbow, where he used the name Aston. It was Daniel Snelling was made the arrangements to buy the three containers that were sent. It was he who informed the telesales staff that they were no longer working for Nouveau World Wines and were now employed by Finbow.

Investors' money that should have been used to buy Australian wine through Nouveau World Wines Ltd was used to set up the Finbow operation.  

The court of told of two sets of invoices for Nouveau World Wines Ltd. The first set was drawn up over the period that the company was active, while the second ‘bogus’ set was produced on a single day 2009, when the Companies Investigation Branch started looking at the company and designed to show that the company had bought more wine than it actually had.
Both companies failed to buy all the wine purchased by investors. Finbow bought £34,000 worth of Italian wine, while taking some £2 million from investors. Instead substantial cash payments were made to the defendants disguised by false invoices. Handwritten annotations on the invoices told a different story and showed which of the defendants the cash being paid. The prosecution said notes were written by Rebecca McDonald - evidence that she was aware that Finbow was a fraud from the outset. One of the cash payments was for a deposit on a Range Rover. 



Prosecutor Julian Christopher QC told His Honour Judge Grieve and the Jury how one Finbow investor lost over £120,000 by making five purchases, while another lost £67,000. 
The defendants have pleaded not guilty.

The case opened on Thursday at Southwark Crown Court and is expected to last around 10 weeks with the prosecution’s case being completed by early June.