View more on these topics

Moneygate applies to bulk transfer Clarkson Hill advisers

Moneygate has applied to the FSA for consent to undertake a bulk transfer of Clarkson Hill advisers.

In a statement to the stock market this afternoon, it revealed it has been in talks with Clarkson Hill for three months with a view to acquiring the firm but is reviewing its position as Clarkson Hill can no longer conduct regulated activities.

Moneygate says it has made a number of attempts to contact the directors of Clarkson Hill in the last two weeks but has “yet to re-engage in constructive discussions”. It has made a bulk transfer application with the FSA.

The statement says: “The directors of Moneygate have a great deal of sympathy for advisers, staff and clients of Clarkson Hill who they believe will be keen to know what the immediate future holds for them.

“Moneygate’s management are receiving many calls and emails from Clarkson Hill advisers seeking information.  Unfortunately, Moneygate is not currently in a position to answer these queries other than to confirm that it has made an application to the FSA for consent to take a bulk transfer of Clarkson Hill’s advisers.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 6 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Hello. My friend

    === http://www.shoesforking.com ===

    Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!

    WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

    YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

    thank you!!!

    === http://www.shoesforking.com ===

    Believe you will love it.

  2. This seems to be a sensible way forward, though whether or not the FSA will see it that way or merely as an opportunity to do the same to the people concerned as it’s done to the unfortunate Park Row advisers remains to be seen. If the latter, then it will only add fuel to the groundswell of opinion that the FSA has it in for the IFA community by fair means or foul. If the former, though, then the question will arise as to why a smooth transition is being facilitated for the Clarkson Hill people but not for the Park Row people.

    Furthermore, if the FSA is the “open and transparent regulator” that it claims on its website to be, then why does it continue to offer no explanation as to why it’s treating the applications of so many ex-Park Row advisers people in such a manifestly prejudicial manner? After all this time, surely the FSA should be required to explain its apparent unwillingness to enable these people to resume their livelihoods? AIFA ~ what are you doing about it? If you have taken up this cause, then please publish for all to see the response you’ve received from the FSA. If you’ve not taken up this cause, then please tell us why not.

  3. Why is it Moneygate always crop up in situations like this then fade away.They had bought A20 hadn’t they ? How can you be talking for three months and yet fail to “engage in constructive discussions”.
    Wasters !

  4. think they have got it wrong using out of date info

  5. were there not advice issues at Park Row ,I do not believe this is the case at CHG, that could be the reason for being treated differently by the FSA

  6. I do not think it is moneygate who are involved, I think that is a mistake

Leave a comment