The Financial Services Authority (FSA) will face questions from Arch Cru investors at a hearing on Wednesday on the regulator's role in the downfall of the fund range - and the £54m redress deal - despite not being allowed at the meeting.
Tomorrow's hearing, which will be attended by representatives from the FSA, is for members only and is closed to the public and press.
However MPs will come prepared with questions from investors based on responses received by law firm Regulatory Legal, which asked its 2,700 Arch Cru clients each to compile a list of what they want to know from Capita and the FSA.
A total of 560 questions were received across two days, with 247 for Capita and 313 for the FSA. Capita has declined to send its representatives to the hearing.
MPs called the meeting after intense pressure from constituents, and following a Westminister Hall debate on investor claims the FSA-brokered Capita deal is unfair and lacks transparency.
The following are an edited selection of the questions for the FSA (capped up letters are original).
Eight questions from Arch Cru investors to the FSA
(55 questions received in total)
Q 1 How can it be deemed fair to offer such a paltry sum?
My mother and father invested their life savings of £130,000 with Arch Cru in May 2008, when 73 and 76 respectively, because they were assured the investment was virtually RISK FREE. Since the death of my mother (in January) my father has deteriorated and may eventually need care! Although we are yet to receive any offer I have heard the actual cash being talked about is around £15,000 per £100,000 - HOW CAN IT BE DEEMED FAIR TO OFFER SUCH A PALTRY SUM OF MONEY IN RETURN FOR A LIFE'S WORK - ALL BECAUSE OF THE GREED AND DECEIT OF 'MONEY MEN'!!!
Q 2 Why are you scared to act on misleading literature?
What did the FSA fail to recognise and act on regarding the marketing materials through which the CF/ArchCru Funds were sold in 2007/2008? In the Fund Factsheet, April 2008, (p4) it is stated "Absolute returns mean positive returns, i.e. investing without loss..." How can the FSA have accepted that but now claim the complexity of the funds has prevented them from pinpointing the liability? In any other sales arena, this would fall foul under the trades descriptions act. Why are you scared to act on the same basis?
(72 questions received)
Q 3 What is your is your connection with Capita?
When our IFA was advising us on the Capita investment he was concerned about the scheme so approached FSA and was told they were quite satisfied how the scheme was being run. This begs the question what is your is your connection with Capita as you obviously were not reporting back to our IFA the true position, or monitoring an investment company which was already in trouble.
Q 4 Why aren't you 'regulating'?
You issued firms, including Capita, with YOUR 'Treating Customers Fairly' charter - why and how did you consider/decide that none of its guidelines/rules applied in the case of Arch Cru Funds' dealings? Are you not supposed to be 'regulating' on behalf of the very investors you now seem to have ignored and deserted?
(45 questions received)
Q 5 What's the reason for the speed of the losses?
How can a fund which was launched in October / November 2008 lose so much money in the space of a few weeks (Finance fund)?
(110 questions received)
Q 6 Why tie FOS' hands if the deal is fair?
How can you state that the £54m offer is fair and reasonable, given the fact that you have tried to tie up every other body which might otherwise be expected to decide/rule otherwise?
Q 7 What have you got to hide?
Just what are both you and Capita trying to keep under wraps on details of what happened to dealings in the funds up to the 13 March 2009 when you suspended it? Therein lies the basic truth which will prove Capita defaulted. If there is no guilt in this, let it all come out into the arena NOW.
(45 questions received)
Q 8 Why haven't you contacted the Serious Fraud Office?
I am a policeman with Northumbria Police and work on a specialist unit dealing with frauds by bogus workmen. Their M.O. is to inform the victim of problems, which usually don't exist, promise much, vastly overcharge and deliver nothing; fraud by FALSE REPRESENTATION. Does this sound familiar? This whole thing is criminal and should be treated as such. It is about time you did your duty and placed the matter in the the hands of the serious fraud squad having firstly returned all of the monies that investors have been duped into handing over.
Putting the tech into protection
Square Mile’s series of informal interviews
Fallout from Haywood suspension
Launching later in 2019
£80bn funds under calculation