Wednesday 21 June The one stop source for free breaking news, expert analysis, and videos on AIM and LSE listed shares. I own shares in one or more of the stocks mentioned. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it other than from ShareProphets. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Evidence started to emerge four weeks ago of a major problem with the nominee service used by clients of Barclays Stockbrokers, Barclayshare Nominees. Something like this should just not be possible, but the numbers appear telling. Did Barclays Stockbrokers really dispose of nearly 66,, shares in New World over ten months? As of writing not a single customer of Barclays Stockbrokers has been able to join the shareholder action group. However, this only tells part of the story.

All of the major execution only brokers, such as TD Direct Investing, Hargreaves Lansdown and Halifax Share Dealing, have experienced significant difficulty in identifying how much settled stock customers own and can be rematerialized into certificated form.

Even so, each of these firms has been able to process at least a proportion of the requests they have received, but not Barclays Stockbrokers. What Barclays Stockbrokers has refused to admit to its clients is that on 18 May Barclayshare Nominees only had , shares. While the settlement situation has been an extreme event, this does not fully explain why Barclays Stockbrokers has not been able to process a single application for certificated stock. If the other brokers have been able to process at least a proportion of the applications from people who bought stock after 29 April, surely it stands to reason that Barclays Stockbrokers should be able to do the same?

I have been passed evidence from three customers of Barclays Stockbrokers, who between them have held just over 1,, shares in New World since December And it gets worse.

Two of these people have attempted to get their New World shares rematerialized into certificated form and have been refused by Barclays Stockbrokers, using the same excuses this firm has been foisting on its other customers. The problem for Barclays Stockbrokers is that in these two instances the excuses cannot fly.

These people owned their settled stock long before the forward selling fiasco began on 29 April. There can be no excuse why these people cannot get their legally held property transferred into their names. I asked Barclays Stockbrokers detailed questions concerning this issue and this was its response:.

Barclays Stockbrokers does not disclose nominee holdings in individual companies.

However, you should note that we understand that the registrar positions in the stock will only reflect settled holdings, and any unsettled purchases of stock will not appear. So while we will not disclose our client nominee holdings, we would suggest that the volume of unsettled positions in the stock across the market is the root cause of any discrepancy you believe you have identified. In confirming that Barclays Stockbrokers only uses Barclayshare Nominees, I can categorically prove that on 18 May it only held , shares in New World.

BarxDirectEquities - Barclays Stockbrokers

I can also categorically prove that on this day at least three of its customers held 1,, New World shares. I asked Barclays Stockbrokers to show me where in its terms of business it has the right to behave in this way, but received no further response. This surely has to be an inviolable rule.

Barclays Stockbroker Review - A Better Way to Trade.

I asked Barclays for comment on this story and its press department ignored me again. Spreadbet long or short on BARC HERE. This area of the ShareProphets. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets. The information available at ShareProphets. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.

All big nominees lend out shares to shorters for covered shorting. Thats how they can offer dealing at a fiver a throw. Its subsidised by lending out stock and subsequent fees. Barclays have just got caught with more out than the rest. I am with Barclays. I have traded NEW for several years and been completely out and completely in over the period.

I usually hold a small token amount all the time k shares All my deals have settled and the deals proceeds credited to my account which is what matters The right to the paper cert in a suspended share is somewhat tenuous in the circumstances.

Day after day more NEW shares were traded than were in existence. Many people bought shares and sold them later. The LSE reminded brokers that they had to settle on time. Nominee accounts effectively pool all the shares and provided settlement occurs both ways the number of shares on the register will roughly approximate the number of shares in client accounts.

If Barclays settled all the sells from the pool as LSE had said they must , but only received a small amount back from the buys, the pool would have been drained very quickly. Barclays are not alone in being in this position. They have just not been upfront in explaining the real reason why they are in that position and indeed very few other brokers have been. Not a good answer, but at least an honest one.

Given that most other brokers have given similar excuses, I suspect that the LSE has told brokers not to reveal the true reason why they are in the mess they are in. When the settlement situation is resolved the pools will all be refilled. It is however shocking that the LSE allowed the debacle to continue as long as it did.

The real blame for this aspect of it lies with the LSE. There was an obvious false market as pointed out by Share Prophets. LSE should have suspended there and then and wound back all the trades, however they blundered on to a point where that would be impossible. Will the LSE learn the lessons from this? As a Barclays client — albeit in the great majority I assume who have never owned a NEW share — I do know that they are extremely careful to do most things by the regulatory book.

But they also make mistakes. Given the way in which the big banks are policed these days, I would be surprised if they had knowingly acted improperly.

Drunken Sailor — your assessment of the situation is incorrect. I have become intimately familiar with the position of all the major execution brokers.

Each firm has been able to identify which customers have settled stock and which have unsettled stock, to the extent that some members of the action group have both settled and unsettled shares. As for Barclays not being alone, you are correct and I am circling in on a second broker that has done the same thing. I have requested certs before for other reasons and it always takes about six weeks to arrive , sometimes longer , depending on registrar work load.

In the normal course Barclays would simply buy them back in the market if urgent , but of course in suspension they cant do that. Read the small print for Barclays L2 trading ………… there is acres of it ………. What your trying to do is make the incompetence of NEW board and broker into Barclays fault. You would be better off tackling the NEW rns yesterday: Do they think punters are fecking stupid or what?

Note that their wages are still accruing ………… NOTHING has been given up except a movement of cash. They are trying to get the 1 mill deposit back! Wildrides — The whole six week processing argument is at the centre of this argument.

It is not about whether they can identify which trades have settled or not — I am sure they can, though as people have asked is my trade settled conflicting answers have been received. The issue is Barc have settled more sell orders than they have had buy orders settled that is what has drained the pool. Maybe they had loaned some stock for shorting before the debacle, who cares only BBM s think shorting is wrong and should be banned. I do not recall NEW being heavily shorted before this all blew up.

The nominee account brokers are the victim in all of this, they have followed their clients instructions and because shares that did not exist have been traded some are sitting on large black holes. The nominee account brokers are in the front line of the anger from their clients and whilst Barc have not be open and honest, and neither have a lot of others, that is all they have really done wrong and that has probably been on the instruction of LSE who are covering up their own failure and the failure of the real culprits.

That is not to say that their clients should give them an easy time, far from it! Drunken Sailor — just think your first paragraph through. How could BS have settled more sell orders than buy orders, unless its retail customers were shorting, using something like Ts? For several days more than the real number of shares in issue were being traded indeed some days it was double the number in issue — these shares were being bought and sold by a whole variety of people using a whole variety of brokers some with short settlements some with longer settlements.

Online Banking | Safe and secure internet banking from Barclays

I often buy on a longer settlement to give time for money to arrive but always sell on short settlement as there is no point in having a longer one.

A Barc customer buys NEW — trade is not settled in accordance with the agreed settlement date, but a few days later they sell, Barc have shares in the pool, they are being told they must settle the trades they settle with shares in the pool, expecting that the buys will get settled.

Different brokers will have brought the shutters down on settling sells at different points, it sounds like Barc were quite late in doing that. There is a black hole of shares up to the placing number of 2.

The placing shares were not admitted to trading but were traded, thus that black hole has moved to various brokers around the system who have clients who bought and sold during the period when trades were not being settled.

There are other brokers in exactly the same position, some do not have quite such a large black hole and can certificate, others do not have enough shares in the pool to certificate. Though in exactly the same way as if we all went to our banks and asked for our accounts to be closed and to be paid in cash the banks would not be able to provide the cash, if every NEW holder with settled shares asked for them to be certificated I doubt any broker could do it right now.

All makes perfect sense and is effectively what Barc told you. When the settlement situation gets resolved they will have all the shares to match with client holdings, until then they are coming out with a variety of conflicting excuses, as are a lot of other brokers, presumably because they have been told not to reveal the true cause or the size of the problem. As I said in my original post one broker has been honest with their client a long term holder of 3 years and told them straight, we cannot certificate your holding as the pool is empty.

There really is no other logical explanation as to why all brokers have a deficit in their pools to some extent or other. Enter your comment below. You must preview your comment first before finally posting. Resend Account Validation Token. UK Investor Show PLC Roll of Shame Blogs Tom Winnifrith UK Investor Mag May April March February January December October September August July June April March February January December November October September August July June Investing Ideas Nifty Fifty Hot Stock Rockets Contrarian Investor Sign In.

Are you a customer of Barclays Stockbrokers? By Ben Turney Wednesday 1 July Dare We Invest in a British Bank?

Ben, Day after day more NEW shares were traded than were in existence. Keep digging to make it a great one. Duck and Dive — thank you, there is more to follow on this story. Ben, It is not about whether they can identify which trades have settled or not — I am sure they can, though as people have asked is my trade settled conflicting answers have been received.

Ben, For several days more than the real number of shares in issue were being traded indeed some days it was double the number in issue — these shares were being bought and sold by a whole variety of people using a whole variety of brokers some with short settlements some with longer settlements. Email address Not displayed. Shocking Photo Article - Miranda's sweet pussy: Thursday Fusionex - votes to delist: About ShareProphets Contact Us Advertise With Us Send Us A Tip Donate.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy. Forgot My Password Forgot My Username Resend Account Validation Token.