London Capital and Finance

Superscrooge

dunstonh wrote: »

And for those people looking at the previous 2 posts and thinking whether to read them or not because of their length, here is the summary.

The LC&F bond is a very high risk 100% loss of capital investment that is not a retail consumer product. It is an unregulated investment. It has no FSCS protection.

It is not the sort of investment that should be used by inexperienced investors and even if an experienced investor decided to dabble, it should not really form any more than 5% of their overall investable wealth.

Further to Dunstonh's comments.
You only need to read the disclaimer on the London Capital and Finance website to realise this is an extremely risky investment


Disclaimer

The bonds are corporate loans and are not regulated by the FCA and investments into the LC&F bonds are not protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
Investing in the Bonds carries significant risk and you may lose part or ALL of your investment. Investors should note that repayment of the bonds offered by London Capital & Finance Plc, and the payment of interest on the bonds, depends on the performance of loans made by London Capital & Finance Plc to various small and medium sized borrowers. In the event that these borrowers default on the loans, investors are likely to lose some or ALL of their investment.

bigadaj

Superscrooge wrote: »

Further to Dunstonh's comments.
You only need to read the disclaimer on the London Capital and Finance website to realise this is an extremely risky investment


Disclaimer

The bonds are corporate loans and are not regulated by the FCA and investments into the LC&F bonds are not protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
Investing in the Bonds carries significant risk and you may lose part or ALL of your investment. Investors should note that repayment of the bonds offered by London Capital & Finance Plc, and the payment of interest on the bonds, depends on the performance of loans made by London Capital & Finance Plc to various small and medium sized borrowers. In the event that these borrowers default on the loans, investors are likely to lose some or ALL of their investment.

And yet they have large adverts in the daily and Sunday papers that make these look like savings bonds, targeted at people who aren't looking for investment risk, let alone this extreme end of the scale.

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi everyone

As you know, we're a friendly forum. Please help us keep it that way. If you don't agree with something someone's written please either respond politely or ignore it and block the forum member with your ignore list if you need to.

In this instance, we believe bail-in re-posted the content after it had accidentally been removed, which may have been why some people feel it's been spammed.

Now that bail-in has posted it once they shouldn't have to post again.

Thanks folks!

Andrea

dunstonh

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi everyone

As you know, we're a friendly forum. <snip>

But not a forum that has consumer interests at heart any more.

90% of those two posts from Bail-in is drivel. Normally, garbage posts like bail-in's are not a problem but in this case you are talking about an unregulated, extremely high risk, 100% loss potential investment (it isnt even a retail product) that is being marketed as a fixed term deposit. A week doesnt go by without us seeing threads by unsuspecting consumers being caught out by it.

Garbage posts can confuse those that are already confused. Oh big words in a long post must mean that person know what they are talking about - not. It is posted as a review. If MSE is allowing a review then they should check the credentials of the person making the review. And now his posts read as if it has MSE backing giving the garbage even more weight.

MSE Andrea, do the right thing and delete those two posts. Allow bail-in to post normally like the rest of us but not provide official like reviews containing 90% garbage.

coyrls

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi everyone

As you know, we're a friendly forum. Please help us keep it that way. If you don't agree with something someone's written please either respond politely or ignore it and block the forum member with your ignore list if you need to.

In this instance, we believe bail-in re-posted the content after it had accidentally been removed, which may have been why some people feel it's been spammed.

Now that bail-in has posted it once they shouldn't have to post again.

Thanks folks!

Andrea

Please review this attempt to create fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the FSCS protection provided for bank deposits (my bolding):

However, do not think that your low risk High Street bank savings account is safe. It is not. The last few years of the 2007-8 financial crisis illustrates this with the transposition and implementation in the UK of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) by the Banking Acts 2009 to 2016 (1/1/2016). To help avoid a state bail-out of a failing bank, now all of your savings deposits may legally be confiscated, converted into bank equity, a bail-in, by the UK Bank of England Prudential Resolution Authority (PRA). Not just shareholders but depositors as unsecured creditors will be bailed-in. Savings deposit accounts will be converted to equity, share accounts, in the bank company and the value will be used to recapitalise the bank and pay off the bank's liabilities. Possibly FSCS protected deposits to insured value could be included, although at present they are excluded. For more on this see thread post "BRRD, BofE, bank failure resolution, bail-in rule, FSCS, and bank savings deposits" in moneysavingexpert.com Savings and Investments forum. There are many online sites, including government, and press articles re the BRRD rules, including the toolkit bail-in rule.

Is this the sort of rubbish that you are happy to see posted?

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi

All Forum readers must do their own research and no-one should ever take action based on anything anyone says on the Forum without doing that research first.

As a Forum Team we've let bail-in post them because they are bail-in's own work. We don't remove content just because it's negative (or overly positive).

We're not saying the information is correct or incorrect. It's up to people reading any post on the Forum to decide that for themselves.

Andrea

coyrls

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

We're not saying the information is correct or incorrect. It's up to people reading any post on the Forum to decide that for themselves.

The issue is it's not written like a normal post on the Forum, it's written as "review" preceded by:

NOTE: THIS REVIEW IS AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AUTHORED AND POSTED BY BAIL-IN AND MSE HAVE GIVEN PERMISSION TO POST

which has the effect of implying more "authority" than a standard post.

eskbanker

coyrls wrote: »

The issue is it's not written like a normal post on the Forum, it's written as "review" preceded by:

NOTE: THIS REVIEW IS AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AUTHORED AND POSTED BY BAIL-IN AND MSE HAVE GIVEN PERMISSION TO POST

which has the effect of implying more "authority" than a standard post.

It's already been watered down as it previously stated something more like 'authorised by MSE' until I challenged that on grounds similar to yours, although the relevant posts seem to have been deleted.

Being charitable, I suspect that the permission bail-in refers to is MSE accepting that there are no copyright-related issues, as their post #99 alludes to some questioning this....

robatwork

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

We're not saying the information is correct or incorrect. It's up to people reading any post on the Forum to decide that for themselves.

Andrea

Sorry that's a real cop out and not good enough.

When everyone, mostly the long-term and respected variety of poster, is saying that a forum post is dodgy, unhelpful or spammy/scammy it's up to you to respect these members. Between us we have thousands of "thanked" posts and over 100 years of posting history.

If we all "decide for ourselves" on everything then you wouldn't take down any scam. We've all decided - and you shouldn't be undermining us (and by inference the newer more gullible forum members).

Malthusian

Are we about to see London Capital & Finance promoted in the weekly MSE email?

Or perhaps one of those official company reps is going to start popping up in all the threads about fixed term deposits telling them what a great rate they can get with a certain unregulated minibond provider?