London Capital and Finance

Reaper

masonic wrote: »

- If you don't understand the investment, don't invest.
- If it looks too good to be true it probably is.
- Don't get ideas for financial products from social media or search engines.
- Stick to comparison sites you know to be trustworthy.
- Learn what you can reasonably expect from different types of savings and investments.
- Use resources like this forum as a sounding board if you really want to move into unfamiliar territory.

I think I would add:
- Don't invest if the company is not FCA regulated (a good general rule but less useful in this case as they were part regulated)
- Don't invest if the company is not transparent about what it is doing with the money it gets.
- Reviews on non-financial sites by inexperienced investors (eg Feefo) are worthless.
- The fact returns have been paid to date means nothing. All Ponzi schemes pay out regularly until they don't.

Supercalafragalistic

Reaper wrote: »

I think I would add:
- Don't invest if the company is not FCA regulated (a good general rule but less useful in this case as they were part regulated)
- Don't invest if the company is not transparent about what it is doing with the money it gets.
- Reviews on non-financial sites by inexperienced investors (eg Feefo) are worthless.
- The fact returns have been paid to date means nothing. All Ponzi schemes pay out regularly until they don't.

Is it the company who must be fca regulated or the product? See....still confused!

dunstonh

I get the sense that a lot of wisdom re financial affairs can be with the benefit of hindsite!

Although not in the case of LC&F.

So, turning round and looking to the murky mists of the future, what would you experienced money folk say were the Top Half Dozen Ways to Apply Common Sense when selecting where to put my savings?

Conventional mainstream options.

I've already started to collect selected Golden Rules, but thinking about LC&F, where an attractive internet presence was (apparently) backed up by "independant" comparison sites and everything was more or less legal, how does one tell the wheat from the chaff?

Those comparison sites were unregulated (you find the well known ones are regulated. Also, they were not independent. They were paid referral fees. You could see the referral link.

If something is too good to be true then it usually is.

if you look back at the date of the original post, you can see that years separate the first, "Will it be OK to invest in this lot?" Q. and the Money Box episode when it became pretty clear that the answer was "No!". In short, what lesson must I learn?

If you are incapable of doing these things yourself then employ an IFA.

However, LC&F were first getting "dont do it" posts on here in 2015 or earlier. Moneybox and the media and the regulator are nearly 5 years behind what was being posted on these forums.

GDB2222

Those comparison sites were unregulated (you find the well known ones are regulated. Also, they were not independent. They were paid referral fees. You could see the referral link.

I thought ALL the comparison sites get referral fees?

masonic

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Is it the company who must be fca regulated or the product? See....still confused!

I wouldn't afford much credit to the product or firm being regulated. Regulated firms and products are still capable of losing 100% of your capital.

masonic

Those comparison sites were unregulated (you find the well known ones are regulated. Also, they were not independent. They were paid referral fees. You could see the referral link.

GDB2222 wrote: »

I thought ALL the comparison sites get referral fees?

Not all do, and not all that do get fees from all the products they list. Receiving a referral fee doesn't mean anything in itself. I use comparison sites that are paid a referral fee, including Money Supermarket, of which MSE is a referral earning subsidiary.

Supercalafragalistic

masonic wrote: »

I wouldn't afford much credit to the product or firm being regulated. Regulated firms and products are still capable of losing 100% of your capital.

I see what you mean , but noteithstanding, am i correct in thinking lc and f are regulated by the fca (as all companys who flog financial items are) but their product was not? ....or shall i just quit now while i am ahead and lock myself in a padded cell:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

I wouldn't afford much credit to the product or firm being regulated. Regulated firms and products are still capable of losing 100% of your capital.

But they would have to make it very clear that your capital was at risk.

masonic wrote: »

Based on what we currently know, statements made in the product literature have not been shown to be false, but the literature omits crucial details that would have revealed the risk to be much higher than assumed.

I think from the info from the administrators there are certainly some statements in the literature that can be shown to be false. In particular the lending process described is demonstrably untrue. You cannot review historical financial information & profitability for the last 3 years for a company that was created days earlier or one that has never traded.

jimjames

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

I see what you mean , but noteithstanding, am i correct in thinking lc and f are regulated by the fca (as all companys who flog financial items are) but their product was not? ....or shall i just quit now while i am ahead and lock myself in a padded cell:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Yes that's correct. However even as an experienced investor I have looked at the FCA website and think it's exceptionally unclear. LCF are still shown as being authorised and that FSCS may apply.

The whole process is a complete mess

https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000001m189AAAQ

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

Yes that's correct. However even as an experienced investor I have looked at the FCA website and think it's exceptionally unclear. LCF are still shown as being authorised and that FSCS may apply.

The whole process is a complete mess

https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000001m189AAAQ

I agree, that's why I felt the need to create a thread explaining how FCA permissions can be used to judge FSCS availability: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5892874/when-fscs-protection-does-not-apply

Note that LCF did not hold either the Accepting Deposits (required for FSCS protection for savings) or authorisation to hold Client Money (required for FSCS protection for investments).