Clowns, Jokers and Delusional Pension 'experts' have lost you ￡250k ??

Yesterday I held 5 hours of conference calls with senior financial planning and chartered financial planners.The calls covered the impact of a Judgment that has completely ignored Perjury, Dishonesty, Regulatory and Enterprise Law, in order to protect the negligence of Police, HMRC and those representing the Justice system.The stupidity of the Judgment I am actually thankful for, because now the true financial harm caused to my customers, and over 10 million UK workers comes to the fore and reveals the biggest ever financial scandal in UK Pensions is very real.PROTECTING THE FEW, AT THE COST OF THE MANYPresently ￡4.2m of new pension funds exist because of my willingness to risk to my own Assets to help tackle a national savings crisis.The pension funds are secured by ￡4.2m of property collateral, which I acquired in 2011 and 2013, and ￡3.8m of CCA regulated fixed sum loan agreements, due for repayment in 10 years time.The Judgment covered 45% of my Borrowers, who were represented by QC James Waddington of Foundry Chambers. He did not represent my own customers (55% of ￡4.2m), who saw through the intimidation, lies and dishonesty purposefully written into witness statements by ex-policeman Ian Bloomfield, of Essex Fraud Squad.The Judgment didnt take into account that the majority (55%) of pension member funds were completely outside the scope of the charges put, so subsequently my discussion was how do we deal with those customers who refused to support a fantasy fraud case?THE PERFECT FANTASY FRAUD?I call it a fantasy fraud because after 4 years of investigations, no FSCS claim has been paid out to one of the so called CPS Investor victims.Surely if I had actually stolen anyones money, the Police would have been easily able to demonstrate that fact to the FSCS?Because after all, thats exactly what all (but one) CPS witness statement taken by Ian Bloomfield said in black and white. I had stolen their money and they had suffered a financial loss of their money.There never was going to be any victims because I am, and will only ever be the only Investor with capital at risk in my strategy.Despite making this crystal clear in my extensive written submission, the Judgment completely ignored the significance of the Police presenting to the Jury that I had stolen money from Investors, when in fact they are Borrowers, not Investors.The Judgment also completely ignored the transcript evidence that confirmed the Pension Trustee of a Master Trust SIPP scheme had committed Perjury by supporting dishonest claims of theft, because his own systems had correctly applied fees before releasing funds.Please just explain to my customers how it is possible for Lord Spencer to write that the Pension Trustee expected all RAS funds to be invested when the Pension Trustee had already deducted his own fees, IFA fees and investment platform fees?Im sorry, but what an utterly stupid thing to say.The Pension Trustee committed Perjury in order to cover up that none of his 11 SIPP schemes had qualified for RAS, and accepted his error in writing to HMRC in December 2014.The admission in writing sealed his departure from the pension industry and is now the recipient of a ￡5m class legal action by my customers who were prevented from receiving further funding due to his Dishonesty and Perjury.The Pension Trustee lied through his teeth and supported a malicious allegation of theft, which the Police have completely failed to convince the FSCS occurred.EXPLAINING THE REAL FINANCIAL HARM CAUSED BY STUPIDITYYesterday I discussed with multiple financial experts how to explain to all of my Borrowers the financial harm that the Judgment would cause them personally, because of the witness statements prepared by Ian Bloomfield and his colleagues at Essex Fraud Squad.Mr. Waddington finally admitted that all of my customers had received an 88 page disclosure pack from their IFA, which I hasten to add the FSA confirmed had met Section 21 of the FSMA in June 2010, long before my Strategy was formally launched to the pension and advisory industry in December 2010.However, Mr. Waddington says none of his witnesses (45% of ￡4.2m) would have actually used the default All Inclusive option, had they clearly been told about the initial fees being charged by my investment platform.As such, according to Mr Waddington, all his witnesses, including the Pension Trustee, would have automatically wanted to Opt Out of the default solution recommended in a Limited Advice report* by their IFA (also CPS witnesses) and instead use the Exclusive Fee option.Mr. Waddington said I had been Dishonest, hiding the Exclusive Fee option from my customers and making it too difficult to understand. However, this was not an opinion shared by my own customers, who represented 55% of the ￡4.2m I had funded.So Ill let you decide, here are the two options available;Exclusive Fees = ￡50,000 InvestmentYou pay ￡3,750 Initial Fees on topYou pay ￡6,250 AMCs after 10 yrsYou pay ￡5,273 AMCs after 15 yrsYou pay ￡5,933 AMCs after 20 yrsTotal Out of Pocket Risk ￡21,206orAll Inclusive Fees = ￡43,750 InvestmentTotal Out of Pocket Risk ￡Zero*The IFA Limited Advice Report was confirmed to have met the FSA Small Firms Units expectations under COBS in October 2010, which of course requires the IFA to disclose costs, fees and charges and to make the best financial recommendation.In May 2010 I sat face to face with the Regulator in their plush Canary Wharf offices, along with the Pension Trustees own Compliance Representative from CATS, as I explained the two financial outcomes available under my 3PPS funding strategy.The two FSA employees instantly recognised the unrivalled value for money the All Inclusive fee option has over the Exclusive Fees option, and more importantly, the alignment to the consumer savings shortfall crisis.Either option offered better outcomes than existing pension solutions, but the All Inclusive option is purposefully designed to meet the feed back from multiple surveys, and focuses on a savers true needs and wants of both lower risk and increased savings flexibility.Cost per ￡100,000 of Fund over 20 yrs inclusive of all costs, fee amp; charges:**NEST Default = ￡260/mthNEST + 3PPS Default = ￡150/mth**Assumes 5% growth less 0.5% AMC and standard statutory tax planning.As Forest Gump says STUPID IS AS STUPID DOESMr Waddington is no expert in Financial Planning, neither is Lord Spencer, or HHJ Morgan, or anyone at Essex Fraud Squad or HMRC, but in the eyes of the Justice system, apparently I am.I carefully explained in writing, and on record to the Appeal Court, the financial harm Mr. Waddington would cause my own customers (55% of ￡4.2m), whom he never held a mandate to represent, as well as his Non Financial Impacted Victims (45% of ￡4.2m).I explained why the Regulator would never support Mr. Waddingtons negligent assertion, because it sits directly opposed to the principles that make up COBS, specifically COBS19.I had invited the FCA to present its own financial findings in December 2020, but it respectfully declined to intervene. It advised it would reconsider its position if ordered by the appropriate court to do so.So the only financial expert who has ever engaged directly with the Regulator and met their expectations, twice, was ignored by the Appeal Court, and then refused the opportunity to defend himself.I was told in May 2019 that I could answer all questions about my strategy, the FSCS and HMRC rulings in 2018 and the Non Disclosure by the Police of all IFA emails between themselves and Mr. Waddingtons witnesses who knew full well what the initial fees were.All of this was swept under the carpet after the Legal Aid appointed Counsel I was forced to use failed to advance the points he was expecting me to cover.I GIVE YOU ￡6,250 IN PAPER, YOU GIVE ME ￡10,000 CASHAnd because the only Financial Expert was ignored who understands the maths, the Judgement means ￡6,250 gets added to the illiquid, unrated Investment Bond that matures in another 10 years time.However, every Borrower now has to hand over ￡3,750 initial fees, plus a further ￡6,250 for the 10 year AMCs e.g. ￡10,000 in total.The money can come out of my customers ISA, or Pension, or Savings Account that they have been saving into regularly over the past 10 years, as recommended by their IFA in order to meet their All Inclusive fees at maturity.But it will cost them ￡10,000 today, plus a further ￡5,273 in 5 years and another ￡5,933 in 10 years, before they can redeem the Bond by paying off their CCA Loan.What this Judgment means is that each client loses growth on ￡10,000 for the next 10 years at typically 4% net p.a. in order to gain 2.5% on ￡6,250 over 10 years.But they also lose liquidity, flexibility and are exposed to higher risk, which the Regulator I believe will instantly confirm is in no Borrowers best financial interest.BEWARE OF DELUSIONAL PENSION AND LEGAL EXPERTSI know a lot of pension experts but most are simply not realists, and are delusional about lower charges being the silver bullet to achieving better outcomes. Its utter nonsense.I was called a fantasist because according to Mr. Waddington no one will lend me any money, so no property will ever get built.You know when you hear someone say something really stupid, and instantly know that they are going to regret it coming out of their mouth because its going to come back and haunt them? Mr. Waddington this one is for you;This Judgment means that my company receives ￡1.2m in Cash from my customers.And guess what the build cost to match ￡4.2m of property that you bragged would never get built in The Bahamas?I explained in writing the stupidity of the argument advanced by Mr. Waddington to protect the Police, HMRC and the Pension Trustee.The Regulator knows full well how easy it is for me to secure funding using my 3PPS strategy and statutory financial planning, yet it keeps silent whilst my customers are being exposed to gross professional negligence and Perjury by multiple individuals.WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE, IS GOOD FOR THE GANDERAs I explained to the FSA face to face, I dont need to borrow any money. I dont need any Investors money, all my company needs are normal trading conditions which are exactly the same Statutory Tax and Enterprise Laws used by the DWP to support its ￡1.2bn peoples money loan to NEST Corporation since 2010.Between 2010 and 2012 NEST spent ￡140m to accumulate ￡6m of new pension funds for its members. I would assumed that half of those funds (￡3m) were funded by member contributions.Between 2010 and 2012 as a private sponsor I privately funded ￡4.2m of new pension funds for my members via my All Inclusive terms, which delivers a Non Contributory scheme.The FSCS have confirmed that none of my members invested their own savings. So why did the Police tell Chelmsford Magistrates in January 2016 I had stolen all my customers money? And why did they lie and tell my customers that they would get back their money, which the FSCS subsequently said they did not invest?Imagine what the FSCS levy would be if anyone could simply make up lies to claim they are Investors, without ever investing any of their own money?Between 2010 to 2017 NEST Executives earned ￡1.75m at an average ￡250,000 p.a. for a pension product that costs their members ￡260/mth per ￡100,000 of pension fund.However, according to this Judgment, I am expected to give my property assets away for nothing, pay a 2.5% fixed return with no investor risk, and work for free as a Financial Expert, despite my members paying only ￡150/mth per ￡100,000 of pension fund.The Crown was perfectly happy with NEST spending an eye watering ￡140m of the peoples money to attract ￡6m in pension funds, but according to this Judgment my spending ￡1.1m to create ￡4.2m with no cost or risk to my own members is evidence of me stealing or wasting the peoples money.I specifically raised this point in writing, asking for the Appeal Court to rule on the Law, but I don't see where Lord Spencer or Mr. Waddington justify the Crowns contradictory position on Enterprise Law.CLOWNS TO THE LEFT, JOKERS TO THE RIGHTIn 2013 I warned the FCA twice that there is a systemic failure in the pension industry, which its predecessor, the FSA, dutifully spotted at our face to face meeting in Canary Wharf in May 2010.In March 2014 I warned Steve Webb as Pension Minister, via my local MP, and he ignored me. He continues to ignore me now as a Partner of Lane, Clark and Peacock.In February 2021 my customers submitted claims for between ￡220,000 and ￡600,000 for failures under COBS19.In April 2021 the consequence of ignoring the financial expert who uncovered systemic pension failures stands at a cost to society of around ￡2.5 trillion and it affects 10 million 35 to 65 year old workers in the UK.THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACTING WITHOUT DUE CARE OR REGARDYesterday the first three customers (one CPS witness and two non CPS witnesses) concluded that Mr. Waddington and Lord Spencer had both acted without due care or regard for their best financial interests.They asked why no-one bothered to listen to the financial expert who had liaised directly with the Regulator, and why no-one bothered to consider what was best for them.All of them asked why the Appeal Court ignored Perjury.All are I think very fair questions that I believe the Lord Chief Justice should ask Lord Spencer and Mr. Waddington about.What I am interested in specifically is why both Mr. Waddington and Lord Spencer claimed that the Pension Trustee expected for 100% of RAS to be Invested when it was an established fact that the Pension Trustee had already deducted all the Fees on his admin system, and his Evidence in Chief and Cross Examination in Trial 2 confirmed he knew and accepted Fees applied.As these three Borrowers have already filed complaints via the FCA against five of Mr. Waddingtons witnesses, I am certain they will be asking the FCA Executive why their Six Pillars have clearly failed to prevent Clowns and Jokers from acting against their best financial interest.