London Capital and Finance

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

Interesting that Moneybox say there is an investor who has a letter from FSCS from a couple of years ago that says they would be covered. I wonder if there is more to it or they were advised to invest hence the cover

Interesting. Several possibilities could explain this: they invested under regulated advice (unlikely but not impossible), the FSCS based their answer on incorrect assumptions about the product, the FSCS was simply mistaken, etc.

What is very important to remember is that even if FSCS protection applied it would be the £50k investment protection and would not cover the investment loss suffered by bondholders, which is equivalent to a corporate bond defaulting. The only way an investor could receive money from the FSCS is through an upheld Financial Ombudsman Service complaint against a regulated adviser, where the adviser became insolvent.

Realistic

Liquidator said his base case recovery was 20%.

Moneybox as usual failed to mentioned another firm with similar high interest rate that also uses same service company which has a massive hole in its balance sheet.

Poor quality investigative journalism.

Rheumatoid

dunstonh wrote: »

Cue the sob stories of <insert public sector worker> who placed tens of thousands blaming everyone else but no coverage of how people can avoid these things by not letting greed overcome common sense.

Why this group in particular?

AnotherJoe

dunstonh wrote: »

Cue the sob stories of <insert public sector worker> who placed tens of thousands blaming everyone else but no coverage of how people can avoid these things by not letting greed overcome common sense.

I am really sorry they lost money. However, who on earth invests tens of thousands of pounds in a company they have never heard of where the top response on google is a thread on this site that warns people not to do it.

Naievity? stupidity? no common sense? Blinded by greed? no personal responsibility? Who knows. Many of those people would have put more research into their mobile phone purchase than they did into this extremely high-risk unregulated investment.

They were probably, at least to an extent, fooled by ads that said FSCS protection and they might reasonably have thought that if that was not the case, FSCS or Advertsing Standards would have taken action. Those highly misleading essentially fraudulent ads ran for years.
Martin Lewis took action with facebook regards the fake endorsements for bitcoin. These two official bodies did nothing for at least two years.

GDB2222

Rheumatoid wrote: »

Why this group in particular?

There's more sympathy for the average nurse being mugged in this way, than the average millionaire businessman. So, it's always a poorly paid public sector worker who is quoted in the meeja.

masonic

AnotherJoe wrote: »

They were probably, at least to an extent, fooled by ads that said FSCS protection and they might reasonably have thought that if that was not the case, FSCS or Advertsing Standards would have taken action. Those highly misleading essentially fraudulent ads ran for years.

We've discussed the misleading ads to death in this thread and I've seen many examples which are clearly aimed to mislead by omission of risk statements and inappropriate comparisons with cash savings. What I've not seen is one claiming the money was protected by the FSCS. Do you have an example?

jimjames

Realistic wrote: »

Poor quality investigative journalism.

I disagree. It's not very easy to get a condensed story into a radio segment that has to maintain interest for listeners. There are also lots of legal issues in place here that may be affecting things. I expect that other pieces covering other investments are going to be coming along soon

luxemburger

As it is still a criminal offence to promote an unregulated investment unless it has been approved by an authorised person or it is exempt, let's see if anybody goes to jail for this. And, as the regulator was warned about these guys back in 2015, let's see if anyone at the FCA loses their job over this.

masonic

luxemburger wrote: »

As it is still a criminal offence to promote an unregulated investment unless it has been approved by an authorised person or it is exempt, let's see if anybody goes to jail for this. And, as the regulator was warned about these guys back in 2015, let's see if anyone at the FCA loses their job over this.

LCF were FCA authorised by virtue of their regulated lending business. That gives them the necessary authorisation to approve financial promotions - this does not require a specific permission.

luxemburger

Which one?