London Capital and Finance

billyolly

In response to Botheredin i am not a gobby person just a 67 year old pensioner who is confused and overloaded by the amount of information I can access.Not sure what a flamer is but the insinuation seems to be that I am trying to stoke up flames of bad or fake news.
I read and occasionally ask questions on this forum to try and understand the situation not to be insulted by being called a gobby person, a flamer or something else.

Supercalafragalistic

Botheredin wrote: »

Either you know something, you're a gobby person or a flamer. Spit it out then...

....Or they were just saying of course.That was a little harsh, this person has been very knowledgeable and kind enough to share their info.

Botheredin

billyolly wrote: »

In response to Botheredin i am not a gobby person just a 67 year old pensioner who is confused and overloaded by the amount of information I can access.Not sure what a flamer is but the insinuation seems to be that I am trying to stoke up flames of bad or fake news.
I read and occasionally ask questions on this forum to try and understand the situation not to be insulted by being called a gobby person, a flamer or something else.

Hi Billyolly. Apologies, Sir, this was not said in response to your comments and I am sorry to hear you have been caught up in this awful situation.

The comment was aimed at {text removed by MSE Forum Team} who seems to know this crew quiet intimately. @EG, apologies if the comment came over as harsh, it was said out of frustration and more so now I learn that a good friend of mine, also a pensioner, has been had over on this also. Thank you for your earlier comments and if you can share more please do.

robatwork

{text removed by MSE Forum Team}

OK you've just joined this forum so you get the benefit of the doubt. I've been here for donkeys.

This is one of the most active threads I've ever seen on this particular forum, and certainly the most active one I'm subscribed to.

This thread is the very antithesis of quiet.

jimjames

sully1311 wrote: »

Please do not go chucking good money after bad Jelli. This statement lets me think you're going to do something silly again.

The strategy being discussed doesn't involve bondholders paying money to anyone so I don't think this is a risk of scam activity

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

The strategy being discussed doesn't involve bondholders paying money to anyone so I don't think this is a risk of scam activity

One course of action bondholders could take is to sell/assign their bonds to a purchaser. Naturally this would be at less than face value, but would give them certainty and potentially a better outcome than they would otherwise achieve, especially if the purchaser could secure a significant enough part of the borrowings to secure a place on the creditor committee and exert some influence on proceedings. I don't know if that is the sort of thing being discussed on FB. Obviously the extent of haircut taken and personal circumstances of the individual would both inform whether this was a sensible course of action.

I would be cautious about any sort of action that would involve a third party taking a fee from the proceeds of recovery as it is unlikely they would achieve a better outcome individually by involving a third party than they would otherwise through the administrators.

Linton

Jessica_King wrote: »

Have you ever thought about property crowdfunding? They allow investment for 2 years and they also offer diversification and reduced risks, because you invest money in different projects. I am not an expert, but for me the stock market is too risky and as for saving accounts they really do have low interest rates. I recently discovered Realty bundles, they have properties all over Europe and you can choose several investment packages to invest.

In principle how does this differ from lending to LCF? If the company you lend to goes bust or is dishonest you could lose all your money.


RealtyBundle is a company incorporated in 2017 and the first set of accounts are not due until March this year. I have not been able to find a website. So whatever they do, they have barely got started.

masonic

Linton wrote: »

In principle how does this differ from lending to LCF? If the company you lend to goes bust or is dishonest you could lose all your money.

The spam button has done its job and the post is now gone.

Jelli

Could someone please give me a complete summary of why the current admin is less than ideal? I've read sooo much info that I've forgotten why I've started to use the word 'dodgy', and wondered if I've been unjust. Should I just replace the word dodgy with something less critical?

masonic

Jelli wrote: »

Could someone please give me a complete summary of why the current admin is less than ideal? I've read sooo much info that I've forgotten why I've started to use the word 'dodgy', and wondered if I've been unjust. Should I just replace the word dodgy with something less critical?

I think the two main issues are:

They appear to have been chosen by LCF (perhaps involved with the company prior to the insolvency) and merely approved by the FCA, so might be more sympathetic towards the directors of LCF than a truly independent firm approaching the situation with fresh eyes.

They have stated things in a public interview that range from being misleading to simply untrue, and making those statements was not in the best interests of bondholders.

...but, I wouldn't be in a hurry to initiate any action to try to have them replaced. This could lead to 2-3 months of legal action, followed by a new firm starting again from square one. The costs of proceedings would need to be borne by someone, either bondholders directly or the company in administration (i.e. bondholders indirectly). It is unlikely that a change in the administrators would lead to a substantially different outcome.