Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • daniel80
    • By daniel80 22nd Oct 15, 6:31 PM
    • 230Posts
    • 48Thanks
    daniel80
    London Capital and Finance
    • #1
    • 22nd Oct 15, 6:31 PM
    London Capital and Finance 22nd Oct 15 at 6:31 PM
    Anyone had any dealing with this company. My son has 25k to invest for only 2 years as it will be a house deposit. Iv`e told him to stay away from the stock market as 2 years is not long enough. As he is not overly keen with saving accounts cash isa`s etc due to low interest rates I said what about premium bonds a gamble on winning but stake is safe only loss would be inflation. When I googled investment ideas a link came up who were called specialist investment ideas with free advice. I put in my details..I received a call about half an hour later the guy recommended the above company which was based in Mayfair. he sounded very posh. He said London Capital and Finance were offering bonds paying 8% the money being lent to various companies to a maximum of 60% of their assist. He seems more of a salesman than an advisor and wants to phone back Monday. Brochure looks ok online but something does not seem right. Anyone dealt with these.

    MSE Insert

    Check out our Where to Start Saving guide for help.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 01-09-2016 at 2:14 PM.
Page 11
    • Lungboy
    • By Lungboy 11th Feb 18, 9:13 PM
    • 1,204 Posts
    • 1,118 Thanks
    Lungboy
    I don't think he ever did. He was trying to be even handed and do a fair review but the length of his posts and unclear text meant people tended not to read to the end and missed the point.

    Less is more
    Originally posted by Reaper
    It wasn't overt so shill was probably the wrong term, but his walls of text seemed designed to confuse people who would otherwise have found these investments too risky and trick them into thinking they were mainstream and safe. On top of that he tried to convince investors to post here, presumably to also convince people that it's safe.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 11th Feb 18, 10:44 PM
    • 762 Posts
    • 619 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    Rhetorically, why do you ask this question? What makes you think there is a change?
    Originally posted by bail-in
    Rhetorical, or not, I'll answer your questions. I wondered if there was a change in your view because your more recent posts seem to be calling into question whether they are an honest and fit and proper company.

    There has been no change in my view of this company or unregulated and regulated investments. My view in my posts and LC&F review tends to be the same. It always has been, which is honestly looking at facts and figures on both sides objectively with the info I have to hand and searching for truth. No reader would give credence to all posts or a review which were totally negative nor totally positive, whatever type of investment. With my posts, the few there are, what you see is what you get. There is nothing hidden. I am an outsider, a newcomer to the forum so long term members are suspicious. However, I have no hidden promotional agenda, or any other agenda, that some members here have mistakenly accused me of. In my approach I have always looked from the information angle of both pros and cons. What you have read in my recent posts is also in my review, just taking the negative angle. There has been no change in my view. I never have had a solely negative or positive view. I am still objectively enquiring, looking for answers. That dog and bone thing.
    Originally posted by bail-in
    Okay.

    These types of products are not retail investments and are extremely high risk. They are being marketed as retail investments and, even worse, they are being presented as if they are savings bonds. This is why so many of us are unhappy about this company (and others operating in the same way).
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 12th Feb 18, 12:26 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    bail-in
    I do not see how any reasonable person reading the London Capital and Finance mini-bond review could conclude that the LC&F investment bond is a safe investment. Even if so, the FCA has ensured the application process clearly points out the high risk and appropriate certification of investors. However, as it is a self certification process, I have little doubt that some investors, knowing full well the high risk, chasing the high interest rates, will choose to invest irrespective of the fact that they do not match the required investor certification.

    For the record, I would not invest in LC&F nor do I recommend anyone to do so because it is highly risky, as pointed out clearly in posts here including the review and backed up with data.

    Please follow the Forum Rules and the recent Forum Team posts in the LC&F threads. In your posts please be accurate, truthful, just, respectful and tolerant. To those continuing to villify me, please do not continue to do so or incite others to do so. Do not continue to have my posts deleted if they do not violate Forum Rules. Do not misleadingly alter the paragraph above, use it out of context, or use any of my words in my posts, to mean the opposite of my meaning. Thank you.
    Last edited by bail-in; 12-02-2018 at 12:29 PM.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th Feb 18, 12:44 PM
    • 762 Posts
    • 619 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    Please follow the Forum Rules and the recent Forum Team posts in the LC&F threads. In your posts please be accurate, truthful, just, respectful and tolerant. To those continuing to villify me, please do not continue to do so or incite others to do so. Do not continue to have my posts deleted if they do not violate Forum Rules. Do not misleadingly alter the paragraph above, use it out of context, or use any of my words in my posts, to mean the opposite of my meaning. Thank you.
    Originally posted by bail-in
    I, for one, have done none of the things you complain about, and I have seen no one else doing so either. If posts have been deleted that is because a moderator believes that it breached the forum rules. Reporting a post doesn't automatically lead to it being deleted.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 12th Feb 18, 12:53 PM
    • 7,287 Posts
    • 13,306 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    . If posts have been deleted that is because a moderator believes that it breached the forum rules. Reporting a post doesn't automatically lead to it being deleted.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    If enough people hit the 'spam' button on a post it is automatically 'hidden / removed until a moderator can check it' or some such language, allowing the forum to essentially self-police and ensure we get rid of the incessant adverts for kitchens or fake IDs which appear at all hours of the night when moderators aren't around to manually react to reports.

    Perhaps the same happened to some of bail-in's posts ; I don't know to what extent a moderator or board guide actually reads and exercises a value-judgement on content of posts that have received a lot of spam flags, or just goes with the consensus as enough reason to keep the post suppressed; but I do know that some earlier posts of bail-in's were removed before they requested reinstatement or a chance to post again, because he told us so.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th Feb 18, 1:03 PM
    • 91,087 Posts
    • 58,097 Thanks
    dunstonh
    The LC&F threads do appear to get culled periodically. This includes posts by others and not just bail-in. I doubt the spam button is responsible for all of them and the mods tend to only look at threads if someone is reporting posts the old way.

    In the interests of transparency, I used the spam button on a recent post by bail-in that gave contact details. It came across more spammy than serving any other purpose.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 12th Feb 18, 1:09 PM
    • 7,287 Posts
    • 13,306 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    I do not see how any reasonable person reading the London Capital and Finance mini-bond review could...
    Originally posted by bail-in
    ...not get bored to tears before the end of the scintillating second act ?

    However, as it is a self certification process, I have little doubt that some investors, knowing full well the high risk, chasing the high interest rates, will choose to invest irrespective of the fact that they do not match the required investor certification.
    I don't doubt that either, but I do tend to think that where someone is so greedy that they will deliberately sign off that they are a sophisticated or HNW investor who does not want the regulatory protections associated with 'retail' deposits or investments - for fear of missing out on a too-good-to-be-true investment that is only allowed to be invested in by people who certify that they fully understand all the risks - pretty much deserves whatever negative returns they get.

    Another school of thought is that some people through no fault of their own are dim witted and need to be protected from themselves, so even if they deliberately lie on a form to get something that isn't suitable, they should still expect the industry's collective mercy and protection.

    For the record, I would not invest in LC&F nor do I recommend anyone to do so because it is highly risky, as pointed out clearly in posts here including the review and backed up with data.
    Basically the short answer is as it always had been, this is an investment that's incomparable to a cash deposit because it is entirely possible to lose all your money, and where it is next to impossible to conduct adequate due diligence on the underlying investments held behind the loan into which you invest. You are not not supposed to invest unless you can afford to lose the money, and your family and friends and everyone on the internet forums will laugh at you if you lie and say you understand it and then later lose your money and want to complain. That's all you need to know.

    It doesn't really need many pages of scrolling down a "review" online to understand what due diligence other people have done, nor calls for other anonymous strangers online people to post a "review" of whether or not they got all their money back when they made their private investment (as your experience may differ anyway).
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 12-02-2018 at 1:11 PM.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 12th Feb 18, 5:31 PM
    • 3,700 Posts
    • 5,761 Thanks
    Malthusian
    I don't doubt that either, but I do tend to think that where someone is so greedy that they will deliberately sign off that they are a sophisticated or HNW investor who does not want the regulatory protections associated with 'retail' deposits or investments - for fear of missing out on a too-good-to-be-true investment that is only allowed to be invested in by people who certify that they fully understand all the risks - pretty much deserves whatever negative returns they get.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    I've now seen quite a lot of these self-certification forms, and most of them are as easy to ignore as that blather about cookies that now appears on every website, or the small print that comes up when you take out a mobile phone contract.

    I don't necessarily disagree that people are ignoring them out of greed and FOMO, but I still have some sympathy.

    Standard practice among respected companies that offer high-risk investments to retail investors is to either require them to go via a regulated intermediary, or, if they want to go direct, complete a checklist that asks "Have you invested in a product like this before" "Are you prepared to risk 100% loss of your money" etc etc for about half a dozen questions or more. Anyone who ticks "no" is either politely declined or asked further questions. If someone ticks "yes" to all of them the company can reasonably say they did everything possible to verify that the investor was high-net-worth or sophisticated.

    Self-certification is balls.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 13th Feb 18, 10:14 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    bail-in
    Basically the short answer is as it always had been, this is an investment that's incomparable to a cash deposit because it is entirely possible to lose all your money, and where it is next to impossible to conduct adequate due diligence on the underlying investments held behind the loan into which you invest. You are not not supposed to invest unless you can afford to lose the money..... That's all you need to know. .
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Now that is to the point. I will give you that. Unfortunately I never was good at precis in school. As for the boring point, the LC&F mini bond review pales in comparison to readings of bills in parliament. Take a pillow with you if ever you have the option of doing so!
    • robatwork
    • By robatwork 13th Feb 18, 9:39 PM
    • 4,096 Posts
    • 4,485 Thanks
    robatwork
    Weird thread is weird.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 16th Feb 18, 3:36 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    bail-in
    Mini-bonds | The risks... The Telegraph

    All bonds carry risks. The company you lend money to could always go bust, or face cash flow problems that delay interest payments.

    Unlike deposits with banks, bonds are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

    Mini-bonds are normally seen as riskier than other corporate bonds for two reasons:

    Mini-bonds, unlike retail bonds, cannot be traded on the stock market. Investors are therefore locked in until the bond matures, even if the firm falls into difficulty.

    The rules concerning mini-bonds are less onerous. For instance, issuers or mini-bonds need produce only basic prospectuses for investors.
    • Vortigern
    • By Vortigern 16th Feb 18, 6:26 PM
    • 2,355 Posts
    • 1,566 Thanks
    Vortigern
    Unfortunately I never was good at precis in school.
    Originally posted by bail-in
    We'd never have guessed!

    I've just seen an ad on Facebook, linking to a "Top Ten ISAs" comparison site, which offered rates of up to 8% - this immediately raised suspicions.

    Guess whose ISA was top of the list?

    They really are trying to snare unsophisticated investors who would look to Facebook for guidance.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 18th Feb 18, 6:21 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    bail-in
    https://www.director.co.uk/how-to-launch-a-mini-bond-business-funding-4585/

    An article about Richard Wheatley and his company MRM re ins and outs of mini-bonds. He has been behind the launch of some of the more successful launches.
    "Derivatives are weapons of financial mass destruction." Warren Buffet.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 18th Feb 18, 6:32 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    bail-in
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/feb/03/mini-bonds-city-high-return-risk-fca

    Article from the Telegraph on high risk mini-bonds
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

140Posts Today

2,173Users online

Martin's Twitter