Pace Securities | Page 34 | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

I have been rightfully corrected that the 13 people on schedule D get their money.
Why that would be-morally as someone who has senior clients losing their life savings-the thing to do would be to toss it all back in the pot to be divided up amongst the most needy.And it would go a long way in putting some faith back in Pace.Now it is just par for the course.

And what it sounds like-from the guys who know what they are doing-if Barbara did not panic we might not be in this mess anyways(ya-I know about margin calls)

Elaine said
I have been rightfully corrected that the 13 people on schedule D get their money.
Why that would be-morally as someone who has senior clients losing their life savings-the thing to do would be to toss it all back in the pot to be divided up amongst the most needy.And it would go a long way in putting some faith back in Pace.Now it is just par for the course.

And what it sounds like-from the guys who know what they are doing-if Barbara did not panic we might not be in this mess anyways(ya-I know about margin calls)  

You are making the assumption that Pace has the means to meet the margin call, which I dont believe it can. The margin clerk has full authority to liquidate to limit LBS's losses and he/she rightfully did.
At the end of the day, one should be grateful to get 70cents on the dollar back, seriously.

Dave_1

I like your "price discrimination" angle. Google lookups indicate it's probably not illegal, but maybe, morally, an argument can be made that "price discrimination" should be denied. If you (or anyone) has a few silver bullets on this subject, please DM me.

As you pointed out, every client that gets a payout, consumed exactly the same service from PRRR. So why the disparity in fees among the clients ? In my book, just because it's always been done that way, doesn't fly.

FYI, I am working on my own objection that I will put forth to the Courts. It you want to sign on to mine, or collaborate in any way, please DM me.

If someone bought what they thought were gics and didn't look into why the rates were much juicier than everywhere else and also didn't even demand a copy of the agreement then they are wilfully blind, imo. A 30% haircut is thus the cost of their own negligence in this matter, you'll get nowhere taking the position that zero is your fault, 100% is Pace's.

Why would I (or anyone) need to demand something from a trustworthy organization?I was inside a Credit Union.I was ready to leave because I could get a better rate than the one that was posted form the hydro credit union.
And then someone shows up and

I was told it was the last day of a sale.He would work on it all night to get it in .Anywhere else I would walk.But I was in a credit union.One that I had not been in before because Altrans(who I had been with forever) were bought by Pace.Altrans had none of these bells and whistles.And I never thought Altrans would sell out to a credit union that had major issues going on.
Will whining on this board on a beautiful sunny day get me anything?-nope.
Will the Pace team (who is reading this) do anything different in the future-maybe not.
Even the first time I spoke with Barbara Dirks and explained how the scam worked,she said there may be extenuating circumstances in my case(in writing) before her plug was pulled.
But whatever-have a beautiful day.

so why the heck is he in on the settlement?.Pace was proved to be in the wrong.He represents Pace.
It is so scammy

Elaine said
so why the heck is he in on the settlement?.Pace was proved to be in the wrong.He represents Pace.
It is so scammy

Not sure where you got that from. The matter never got to trial. I didn't see any finding of wrongdoing by the judge. Did PACE CU, PACE Securities, PACE Financial, or anyone admit to wrongdoing?

All of the investors, as a class, agreed to drop the matter for $40 million. Judge approved the settlement agreement. $40 million was provided. Matter is now legally dropped.

Elaine said
Then Pace should not been in the business of selling those shares out of their credit unions and making them look like GIC's.

I agree. But, legally, anyone, including PACE CU, could sell you up to $10,000 of the shares a year.

And if I had been scammed , while aware of the risks I would say you are right.
I was not made aware of the risks and I did not qualify to buy the product.It was the salesperson who filled out the form-not me. And a copy was never given to me to look over.Because as far as I knew I was purchasing a Pace branded GIC.First time buying a GIC in there.Just figured this is how they do things.
…

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that. Responsibility is not all or nothing. It is a range from 0% to 100%. I don't think you would be able hold the needle on your responsibility meter at 0%.

If this did go to trial, the judge would ask why, for such a large sum of money to you, you didn't raise a fuss a few months after the fateful transaction when you still did not receive any confirmation, written or online, of the $100,000 "GIC" purchase.

Answering that you trusted PACE CU will get you lots of sympathy. But, it won't be enough to establish that you were 0% responsible.

Keep in mind that not being 0% responsible doesn't mean one was 100% responsible either.

Speaking as an impartial outsider, I think 70% plus any tax relief is probably the best that is realistically possible.

The IIROC hearing finally happened after multiple delays.

This is probably why PACE finally decided to settle before this hearing.

Here is a link to one of the stories covering the matter: https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/from-the-regulators/pace-securities-ceo-faces-temporary-ban-after-iiroc-settlement/