Pace Securities | Page 18 | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

Shelley Mackie said
I was told by PCU that this situation was going on since mid last year before the pandemic. Because PSC could not come up with the funding.

I read all these posts and I feel empathy for us all. It sickens me at times.

I believe PCU will make this right.

I was told in December that my advisor didn't know this would happen but it's just a number thing. I was also told other things that after 5 years I get my money back. I didn't get my signed copy either as what I thought I was signing was going to be mailed to me or something. I transferred more money in early 2019 and then all of a sudden they moved more money to the FHH shares. I sent a email to question this and no answer no reply.

But if anyone wants more information PM  

I hope you're right and PCU decides to “make this right”.

Norman1 said

Investor1 said
PCU Owns or owned PSC.

Owning an investment dealer doesn't make one an investment dealer.

Just like owning a dog doesn't make one a dog!  

No, but owning a dog makes you responsible for it.

Is this the PACE legal team on here trying to intimidate people?

Elaine said

If you owned a dog you would not be letting it run wild in your credit union biting old ladies in the butt ,and then hiding the evidence(Lack of paperwork seems to be a thing here)And this dog is actually a dog owned by the credit union.
How the heck did Pace Credit Union ever think having their own tellers sell these Securities to unsuspecting customers and earning a nice 3 Grand commission(my case anyways) would be a good idea.Pace Credit Union provided the premises where this occurred.Not sure what to call it.  

Elaine thought/believed she bought a GIC which is very different from a pref. If she knew she bought a pref but the advisor told her the principal is safe, that is a little different cuz safe does not equal to guarantee by any means. In her case, it seems like the advisor did her wrong to some extent.

However I do not think that every one who bought the prefs are under the same circumstances. There will be some who are aware of risk (regardless of the level of risk), but choose the product for the enhanced yield. In that case, it’s only sensible for the investor to bear some pain if one is genuinely fair. This is in general what the judge ruling will base on as well.

Knowingly purchased a sophisticated product and cry foul and play dumb when things go bad does not satisfy the court. Which is why the accredited investor designation is very important. And if one just sign without thinking what it means, you may be out of luck.

Certainly not defending those advisors who knowingly deceit the investors in this case, but simply asking for PSU to cover 100% loss for everybody does not seem like a sensible standpoint from the other side of the table (PSU members included, not just management)

savemoresaveoften said

Elaine thought/believed she bought a GIC which is very different from a pref. If she knew she bought a pref but the advisor told her the principal is safe, that is a little different cuz safe does not equal to guarantee by any means. In her case, it seems like the advisor did her wrong to some extent.

However I do not think that every one who bought the prefs are under the same circumstances. There will be some who are aware of risk (regardless of the level of risk), but choose the product for the enhanced yield. In that case, it’s only sensible for the investor to bear some pain if one is genuinely fair. This is in general what the judge ruling will base on as well.

Knowingly purchased a sophisticated product and cry foul and play dumb when things go bad does not satisfy the court. Which is why the accredited investor designation is very important. And if one just sign without thinking what it means, you may be out of luck.

Certainly not defending those advisors who knowingly deceit the investors in this case, but simply asking for PSU to cover 100% loss for everybody does not seem like a sensible standpoint from the other side of the table (PSU members included, not just management)  

So what does accredited investor mean-my advisor probably should have been sent back to school
Because he was like woww you OWN A HOUSE-must be worth a million bucks-maybe two( I clarified to him it was a knockdown war house and was worth land value only-maybe 600 grand at the time).I had no idea that your house does not count so when he said YOU QUALIFY FOR THIS-I had no idea.HE was the advisor.I was the shmuck.At my own credit union being conned by a credit union employee As you all seem to know houses don't count for the Warren Buffet type investors.All I can think he did not know(the form does not specify what is to considered for the having a million bucks to throw a way category)or he did it intentional.Either way-as a credit union employee he was responsible for knowing his job and the longer this goes on the more stress I am under.

Elaine said

If you owned a dog you would not be letting it run wild in your credit union biting old ladies in the butt ,and then hiding the evidence(Lack of paperwork seems to be a thing here)And this dog is actually a dog owned by the credit union.
How the heck did Pace Credit Union ever think having their own tellers sell these Securities to unsuspecting customers and earning a nice 3 Grand commission(my case anyways) would be a good idea.Pace Credit Union provided the premises where this occurred.Not sure what to call it.  

Elaine, you get my vote for "best reply of the day"! 🙂

I'm curious if the more knowledgeable folks here have run across this article at the OSC, and have an informed opinion:

https://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category3/rule_20110513_33-735_non-accredited-investors.pdf

I'm not qualified to understand whether the preference shares of PFL and FHH fall under it's umbrella. BUT I think they do. For certain, I don't qualify as an Accredited Investor, but my IA must have falsely indicated as such. Can't say where this will go, but I will be discussing this article with my lawyer.

member said

No, but owning a dog makes you responsible for it.

Not if there were an Ontario Canines Act that gave dog owners general immunity from the liabilities of the dog's actions, like the Ontario Business Corporations Act does for a corporation like PACE Securities Corp.

Is this the PACE legal team on here trying to intimidate people?

Are you one of the smart people who actually saw a lawyer to learn what your actual rights are and are not?

i_got_smucked_too said
I'm curious if the more knowledgeable folks here have run across this article at the OSC, and have an informed opinion:

https://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category3/rule_20110513_33-735_non-accredited-investors.pdf
…
 

Norman1 said
…
Not sure what "dealer" refers to in that that OSC staff notice. Is it anyone who offered the exempt securities or just "investment dealers"? PACE Securities is an investment dealer and its employees are registrants. But, PACE Credit Union is not a registered investment dealer and its employees are not registrants.

I saw some odd wording in the First Hamilton Holdings offering memorandum about "finders" that seem to be in contrast to "dealers":

2.11.2. Dealers and Finders

The Issuer anticipates entering into various agreements from time to time with qualified agents, such as investment dealers (including the PACE Securities Corp.) and exempt market dealers, to assist with the Offering of Units and, in such circumstances, to pay commissions of up to 10% of the gross proceeds realized on the issuance of Units plus Brokers’ Warrants equal to 10% of the number of Units issued.

The Issuer anticipates paying various persons for acting as “finders”, as permitted by and pursuant to applicable securities legislation, and, in respect thereof, to pay finders’ fees of up to 10% of the subscription amounts for referring subscribers of Units to the Issuer.

Could PACE Credit Union and its employees be "finders" and not a "dealer" for regulatory purposes? So, they were not paid commissions but finders' fees!

Perhaps your lawyer would be able to see if that is significant.

It is quite possible that a "finder" would have much lower legal responsibility than a "dealer".

Norman1 said

Investor1 said
PCU Owns or owned PSC.

Owning an investment dealer doesn't make one an investment dealer.

Just like owning a dog doesn't make one a dog!  

Haven't followed this thread lately, but I think this is an unhelpful counter-factual argument.

Cheers,
Doug

Norman1 said

Elaine said

So what does accredited investor mean-my advisor probably should have been sent back to school
Because he was like woww you OWN A HOUSE-must be worth a million bucks-maybe two( I clarified to him it was a knockdown war house and was worth land value only-maybe 600 grand at the time).I had no idea that your house does not count so when he said YOU QUALIFY FOR THIS-I had no idea.HE was the advisor.I was the shmuck.At my own credit union being conned by a credit union employee As you all seem to know houses don't count for the Warren Buffet type investors.All I can think he did not know(the form does not specify what is to considered for the having a million bucks to throw a way category)or he did it intentional.Either way-as a credit union employee he was responsible for knowing his job and the longer this goes on the more stress I am under.

The $1 million and $5 million qualifications on the form for an accredited investor don't look that fuzzy to me:

Either alone or with your spouse, you own more than $1 million in cash and securities, after subtracting any debt related to the cash and securities.

Either alone or with your spouse, you have net assets worth more than $5 million. (Your net assets are your total assets (including real estate) minus your total debt.)

Then again, my concentration while reading that is not clouded by thoughts of what I'm going to do with my share of a $3,000 commission or finders' fee.  

And for the sake of repeating myself to poor Norman I will say that there is no definition of "securities" on the form-that is how they got away with it -no one knowing what "securities" meant including the ADVISORS or ADVISERS whose job it was to know this.Either it was a scam or they were incredibly daft.And these are Pace Credit Union EMPLOYEES.
The fact that the managers of the credit unions did not seem to be aware of how many millionaires they had in their branches seems a bit odd to me.Have they been interviewed as part of the process?How about the other tellers who did NOT sell the securities-have they been interviewed?(these last two questions are for the PCU team monitoring the site-Good morning)