London Capital and Finance

masonic

Sledger wrote: »

I was looking for Elten Goldings posts but all reference to him seems to have been removed

I'm not surprised he didn't last long given his forum name.

...as suspected, user account deleted
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/memberlist.php?&pp=50&order=asc&sort=username&ltr=E&page=201

Sledger

masonic wrote: »

I'm not surprised he didn't last long given his forum name.

Yes my post querying him to change his nickname also went. Curious as to his angle on this with claimed evidence of fraud. Maybe he was sold a duff helicopter

masonic

Sledger wrote: »

Yes my post querying him to change his nickname also went. Curious as to his angle on this with claimed evidence of fraud. Maybe he was sold a duff helicopter

He also claimed to have shared his evidence with the administrators and the FCA, who are the only parties really able to make use of it anyway.

eskbanker

Sledger wrote: »

I was looking for Elten Goldings posts but all reference to him seems to have been removed

My question remains as to what you'd actually use such posts for, but if you see contentious and unsubstantiated allegations posted on here and feel that they'll be of some use to you in the future, then yes, take a copy of them, as potentially libellous posts are always far more likely to be removed than the rest of the thread....

Sledger

masonic wrote: »

I understand that not everyone is well informed. That's why we always say don't invest in anything you don't understand and if it looks too good to be true it probably is. I'm afraid if you go around assuming everything you can find on the internet is safe you are going to get into trouble and that will never change.

The first time the LCF website mentions the FCA and FSCS this is what is written:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161014050705/https://www.londoncapitalandfinance.co.uk/
How can LC&F offer market beating interest rates for investors?
London Capital & Finance Plc is a leading provider of loans to UK businesses. We typically charge borrowers between 12-20% per year which means we are able to pass on higher interest rates to our investors, like you.

London Capital & Finance Plc is incorporated in England and Wales under the Companies Act 2006 as a Public Limited Company with registered number 08140312. We are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for credit broking and our registered number is 722603. Investments into the LC&F bond are not protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).

Hi Masonic opened the archive link directly but cant copy and paste it to open it and have to go back to your 1216 posting. What was the date of issue as cant see a ref.? LCF Published a Borrowers booklet which was hard to find unlike the loan ones. Do you have a link to that please.

masonic

Sledger wrote: »

Hi Masonic opened the archive link directly but cant copy and paste it to open it and have to go back to your 1216 posting. What was the date of issue as cant see a ref.? LCF Published a Borrowers booklet which was hard to find unlike the loan ones. Do you have a link to that please.

You should see a header with showing the date of the website snapshot and the option to navigate to the page as it appeared on other dates. In this case it was a snapshot from October 2016.

The only documents I've had access to are the ones helpfully posted by Jelli back in the #600s. I've not seen anything provided to borrowers, and I think that documentation will be very hard to track down given we now know how few borrowers there were.

jimjames

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Masonic,.... no,but the general public might. Not everyone is well informed. I thought fca protection referred to fscs ...i didnt distinguish between the two. Nor, would i imagine, would a lot of people. And thats why these companies have been successful in gaining investors money. False advertising i would say.

It's definitely false advertising but there are also elements where bondholders have some responsibility.

I'm not sure if the Information Memorandum was provided before or after the money was handed over but that had a detailed section about the risks. I guess a lot of people never read it but there were certainly a few people who said they invested knowing the risks. I somehow doubt that as they probably wouldn't have invested if they really had understood the risks involved and the poor return offered in exchange.

Secondly I think a big learning for many people is that online reviews are not a reliable source of information on the validity of an investment. Many people said they invested because LCF had good reviews. If you look at the reviews they say nothing about the risks, they are apparently people who have no understanding they have invested their savings into a high risk unregulated product.

Reliance on reviews for handing over life saving is an extremely bad idea even if the reviews are genuine (as LCF ones appear to be) rather than being faked as many scam product reviews are.

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

Secondly I think a big learning for many people is that online reviews are not a reliable source of information on the validity of an investment. Many people said they invested because LCF had good reviews. If you look at the reviews they say nothing about the risks, they are apparently people who have no understanding they have invested their savings into a high risk unregulated product.

Reliance on reviews for handing over life saving is an extremely bad idea even if the reviews are genuine (as LCF ones appear to be) rather than being faked as many scam product reviews are.

Indeed, not only are reviews from people who aren't in a position to critically evaluate the offering, they may have been rewarded for leaving a positive review.

A review is only as good as the person leaving it. If you don't know them and trust them then it really isn't worth anything at all.

eskbanker

masonic wrote: »

jimjames wrote: »

Secondly I think a big learning for many people is that online reviews are not a reliable source of information on the validity of an investment. Many people said they invested because LCF had good reviews. If you look at the reviews they say nothing about the risks, they are apparently people who have no understanding they have invested their savings into a high risk unregulated product.

Reliance on reviews for handing over life saving is an extremely bad idea even if the reviews are genuine (as LCF ones appear to be) rather than being faked as many scam product reviews are.

Indeed, not only are reviews from people who aren't in a position to critically evaluate the offering, they may have been rewarded for leaving a positive review.

A review is only as good as the person leaving it. If you don't know them and trust them then it really isn't worth anything at all.

Agreed, and I'd add the timing aspect too - as seen from other risky (let's say) investments, it's vital to their success to lull investors into a false sense of security by fulfilling all promises of scheduled returns in the first few years, so it simply isn't practical to measure the success of such schemes until much later on, by which time of course it's too late for many.

As I recall, some schemes have even gone as far as fully repaying early investors (albeit with the contributions of later ones), so judging investments on reviews by inherently satisfied early punters is highly unreliable....

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

The administrators have stated that Surge Financial acted as an underwriter for the loans. In other words, Surge Financial funded the loan to the borrower using its own capital, giving 75% of the capital to the companies and charging 25% in fees. So the company takes out a loan for say £1m, Surge gives it £750k after fees, but it owes Surge £1m plus interest.

Reading the info again I've not seen anything from the administrators that explicitly states that Surge were employed as an underwriter. That suggestion was from a report of a conversation between the owner of a Facebook group and the administrators. I wonder if the person reporting it didn't really understand financial terms.

The letter this week says an agent was used to raise money and process applications. Exactly the same is done by Blackmore bond