1 reviews | Active since May 2024
Warning regarding STS Investment Holdings and BC Funding Solutions
BC Funding Solutions acts as a subsidiary of STS Investment Holdings to raise capital from private individuals and corporate entities to fund community schemes with GAEL Fund Services acting as an independent third-party fund administrator. They offer a favourable return on investment that accordingly, entices the investor. Although the investment product offering and terms may vary, something that raised alarm bells was observing the manner in which they work once the investment duration has concluded. Something that is not elaborated on prior to investment is the fact that you are not guaranteed timeous payment of your investment even though the agreed upon term (5 years for example) has passed. The date of the repayment therefore remains indefinite which is very concerning. This is attributed to the alleged fact that the relevant community scheme in which they invested your funds has not yet been repaid and said delays are as a result of possible efforts/legal action to obtain said funds. You then ask for proof of where your funds were initially invested and most importantly, at what percentage of repayment the current scheme is at. This is met with delays, being pushed from pillar to post and being sent information that is relevant but does not directly answer any of questions. Following this, you are advised that you may request a withdrawal but will be penalized an ‘early withdrawal’ percentage even though the agreed upon term has lapsed. Uncertain about things and perhaps just wanting your funds back, you endeavour to accept the ‘early withdrawal’ penalty and are then advised that this will still not bring about a definitive time period for you to receive your funds, but that instead of receiving the money from the portfolio that your funds were invested in, you will be added to the queue to receive funds obtained from ‘replacement capital’ which could be regarded as another person’s investment capital. When asking these questions and putting the matter to the ombudsman, the company was quick to retreat to their legal team. It currently remains unclear as to whether such conduct is protected within the framework of the laws and regulations that apply to the sector but it most definitely does not seem reasonable to leave the investor in a pool of uncer*****y.
To sum up - you the investor, are left in the following position (depending on your investment): 1) No guaranteed immediate access to your investment even once the agreed upon term has concluded. 2) No timeline as to when you will receive your investment once the agreed upon term has concluded if the relevant portfolio your funds were invested in has not been collected successfully. 3) Little means to accurately verify through transparent and easy to understand correspondence, the actual repayment progress of the relevant portfolio to which your funds were allocated. Perhaps your funds were split amongst various portfolios in which case a repayment percentage is vital in understanding the overall picture. 4) An ‘early withdrawal’ option that penalizes you a percentage when you request immediate repayment of your funds once the term has concluded. 5) Being penalized for the ‘early withdrawal’ but obtaining no true benefit in being advised that instead of your funds being repaid to you from the relevant portfolio it will be repaid from other received capital whereby the timeline remains indefinite however rest assured, you have been added to the queue. 6) It is not the investor’s fault that the company chose to invest in a portfolio that proved to be problematic as the investor has nothing to do with the due diligence that the company carries out or should reasonably carry out. 7) Repaying you from other investment capital raises several other questions.
I do not believe that this the first time that the above companies have been challenged. Therefore, there are most likely mechanisms in place that will trigger a defence and reliance on a certain premise. However, regardless of background noise, laws and regulations aim to remove uncer*****y and grey areas, therefore surely the above cannot be justified. I work within the legal space and am therefore happy to liaise with other persons that could add value, clarity or legal alternatives to the above.
The individual who posted this review is not recorded as a client of BC Funding Solutions, nor is he presently recorded as an authorised representative on our systems. He does, however, appear to have a personal connection to the parties involved in the underlying matter, which is not disclosed in the review.
We are not able to comment publicly on confidential client-specific matters, particularly where the communication is made by a third party. We can confirm that all relevant terms and conditions, including the mechanisms now in question, are fully set out in the client's signed source documentation, to which the relevant parties have had access. BCFS has dealt with this matter in accordance with that source documentation and the agreed contractual position throughout. That said, the review contains a number of statements which we consider to be factually incorrect and misleading, and which do not appear to reflect the relevant source documentation, agreed terms and conditions or the contractual position applicable to the matter.
We remain available to engage through the appropriate formal channels with the client concerned, or with any duly authorised representative, upon receipt of proper written authority. All rights remain reserved.
From BC Funding Solutions (Pty) Ltd.
The individual who posted this review is not recorded as a client of BC Funding Solutions, nor is he presently recorded as an authorised representative on our systems. He does, however, appear to have a personal connection to the parties involved in the underlying matter, which is not disclosed in the review.
We are not able to comment publicly on confidential client-specific matters, particularly where the communication is made by a third party. We can confirm that all relevant terms and conditions, including the mechanisms now in question, are fully set out in the client's signed source documentation, to which the relevant parties have had access. BCFS has dealt with this matter in accordance with that source documentation and the agreed contractual position throughout. That said, the review contains a number of statements which we consider to be factually incorrect and misleading, and which do not appear to reflect the relevant source documentation, agreed terms and conditions or the contractual position applicable to the matter.
We remain available to engage through the appropriate formal channels with the client concerned, or with any duly authorised representative, upon receipt of proper written authority. All rights remain reserved.
From BC Funding Solutions (Pty) Ltd.
I note the contents of your reply.
It is unfortunate to observe the manner in which you continue to approach this matter. I endeavour to continue to shed light on facts, not allegations.
Stating that a number of terms are factually incorrect or misleading but not being able to provide accurate reasoning or explanation thereof shows the true validity of your statements. Falling back onto the excuse of protecting client information is also a weak premise as you are able to elaborate on several points without infringing. Relying on a mandate but overlooking the fact that I have been cc'd in on several communications further proves the position held by the company, which appears to be one that utilizes delay, obstacles and a lack of transparency coupled with overly complicated and generic feedback not always suited for the lay person. In order to overcome these obstacles a mandate has indeed been put forward.
Please be weary with your response as due to your comments, I will now look to support my statements with proof in the form of screenshots of the relevant written communications. I am also in the process of verifying recorded calls.
Remember that in all of this, an investor was only seeking assistance and clarity. You chose and still choose the direction in which this is heading. Moving forward, I will look to broaden the horizons and shed light onto anything further that I find.
I note the contents of your reply.
It is unfortunate to observe the manner in which you continue to approach this matter. I endeavour to continue to shed light on facts, not allegations.
Stating that a number of terms are factually incorrect or misleading but not being able to provide accurate reasoning or explanation thereof shows the true validity of your statements. Falling back onto the excuse of protecting client information is also a weak premise as you are able to elaborate on several points without infringing. Relying on a mandate but overlooking the fact that I have been cc'd in on several communications further proves the position held by the company, which appears to be one that utilizes delay, obstacles and a lack of transparency coupled with overly complicated and generic feedback not always suited for the lay person. In order to overcome these obstacles a mandate has indeed been put forward.
Please be weary with your response as due to your comments, I will now look to support my statements with proof in the form of screenshots of the relevant written communications. I am also in the process of verifying recorded calls.
Remember that in all of this, an investor was only seeking assistance and clarity. You chose and still choose the direction in which this is heading. Moving forward, I will look to broaden the horizons and shed light onto anything further that I find.