London Capital and Finance

AKRev01

An email was sent to bond holders today by the administrators - it seems very complicated and I don’t think investors seem to stand much of a chance to get their full investment back with the way it’s going..

verybigchris

AKRev01 wrote: »

An email was sent to bond holders today by the administrators - it seems very complicated and I don’t think investors seem to stand much of a chance to get their full investment back with the way it’s going..

Available to download here
I was going to quote the juicy bits, but it's all juicy bits. Wow.

masonic

verybigchris wrote: »

I was going to quote the juicy bits, but it's all juicy bits. Wow.

Indeed it is, so a very quick summary follows...

• 25% - 28% creamed off the top in fees at the start of the loan
• 1 year loans were 44% APR, 2 year loans were 29% APR ... 5 year loans were 19% APR
• Acknowledgement that there are borrowers and sub-borrowers
• Some refinancing activity already underway
• Largest borrower owes around half the money and has accepted accepted a director appointed by the Administrators
• Everyone is cooperating for now
• Assets are in the process of being revalued
• Hints at future personal liability action
• Still no definite answer from FSCS
• Still no clarity re: tax status of ISAs

sully1311

This drama just keeps on giving. For a spectator like me, I'm getting some more popcorn.

AKRev01

It’s unbelievable how this company can get away with this. How can they actually only lend to 12 investors, with one investor being given half of everything!? Bondholders were led to believe that the money would be spread across hundreds of small to medium sized enterprises. I just can’t see how this is anything other than foul play. Surely there’s a big legal action point here in terms of miss-selling that the bondholders can bite onto?

masonic

AKRev01 wrote: »

It’s unbelievable how this company can get away with this. How can they actually only lend to 12 investors, with one investor being given half of everything!? Bondholders were led to believe that the money would be spread across hundreds of small to medium sized enterprises. I just can’t see how this is anything other than foul play. Surely there’s a big legal action point here in terms of miss-selling that the bondholders can bite onto?

My understanding is LCF did not disclose the number of borrowers, nor the identity of any borrower, nor the size of any loan. One forum member spent a great deal of effort trying to extract this information from LCF but was unsuccessful.

Can you give an example of information provided by LCF that stated there were hundreds of borrowers?

If you look at the archived web pages here, here, here and here, there is nothing to suggest there were many borrowers, or that bondholders' money was diversified among many loans.

AKRev01

masonic wrote: »

My understanding is LCF did not disclose the number of borrowers, nor the identity of any borrower, nor the size of any loan. One forum member spent a great deal of effort trying to extract this information from LCF but was unsuccessful.

Can you give an example of information provided by LCF that stated there were hundreds of borrowers?

You’re right to be honest. It doesn’t look like they did. They did tell me ok the phone but I have no evidence of that whatsoever.

masonic

AKRev01 wrote: »

You’re right to be honest. It doesn’t look like they did. They did tell me ok the phone but I have no evidence of that whatsoever.

And the people on the phone were probably working for Surge Financial, not LCF.

Supercalafragalistic

If surge misled the investors, will any action be taken against them,or is the focus just on LCF? And also what about the people who advertised these?

Catrina777

"we are investigating the relationship between LCF and the agent." what are the implications of serge being paid first before the money was lent out? It reads like a paper exercise: borrowers could not possibly have agreed to 44% etc interest on their loans. False hope dished up here?