London Capital and Finance

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

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.

It didn't say that though did it? The statement I read was:

"The historical financial review will seek to analyse the performance of the potential Borrowing Company over the last three years and determine whether the current profitability of the potential Borrowing Company is sustainable."

I have no doubt that they sought to analyse the performance of the borrowing company over the last three years and determine whether it is sustainable. It does not mean they were always (or ever) successful in doing so. Weasel words are littered throughout the document. They are not demonstrably untrue, but certainly misleading.

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

They are not demonstrably untrue, but certainly misleading.

Agreed that they could be twisted to meet their criteria. One bit that certainly is untrue is saying they charge borrowers fees of 2%. Nothing mentions that the fees were 25% and from the LCF accounts it was clear those fees were already being paid to Surge.

Income Generation
Income is generated by charging a Borrowing Company lending fees of 2% and making an interest ‘turn’ on the funds LC&F lends. As an example: for a £1 million loan, a set-up fee of £20,000 would be charged and a target 10% interest would be charged for the loan.

simonineaston

Cheers, folks - there's some nuggets in these most recent answers! Thanks :-)

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

Agreed that they could be twisted to meet their criteria. One bit that certainly is untrue is saying they charge borrowers fees of 2%. Nothing mentions that the fees were 25% and from the LCF accounts it was clear those fees were already being paid to Surge.

Income Generation
Income is generated by charging a Borrowing Company lending fees of 2% and making an interest ‘turn’ on the funds LC&F lends. As an example: for a £1 million loan, a set-up fee of £20,000 would be charged and a target 10% interest would be charged for the loan.

At the risk of beginning to think like an LCF director, I imagine the 25% commission paid to Surge Financial would be considered a matter between the borrowing company and Surge Financial. This was not part of the interest and fees charged by LCF, rather part of the capital lent to the company and paid by the company to Surge. Therefore, the description of the income generated by LCF is accurate.

Supercalafragalistic

Masonic...love your other thread explaining authorisation.Brilliant.

jimjames

If anyone is an LCF bondholder and wants an example letter to be able to send to their MP then Brev at Bondreview has compiled one that you can see here

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/03/lcf-mp-letter-complaint-template.html

masonic

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/news/investors-handed-extra-protection-city-watchdogs-new-database/

It would be worth copying any letter to the Treasury Select Committee, since they have oversight of the FCA.

londoninvestor

masonic wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/news/investors-handed-extra-protection-city-watchdogs-new-database/

It would be worth copying any letter to the Treasury Select Committee, since they have oversight of the FCA.

Perhaps also the DCMS Select Committee with the angle of the Facebook ads? Facebook do claim to "prohibit ads that promote financial products and services that are frequently associated with misleading or deceptive promotional practices" but that doesn't seem to be working so well...

dunstonh

GDB2222 wrote: »

I thought ALL the comparison sites get referral fees?

The handful of sites that did the LC*F were not comparison sites. They were similar to something a 15 year old could throw up with referral links similar to what you see and review sites (where if you click the link to buy, that site gets paid.

These were not proper comparison sites. Just another part of the scam.

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

A company can be regulated but carry out no retail business for consumers. It is the activity that is regulated.

i.e. a company will be listed on the FCA authorisations page but it will show the activities that they are regulated for. Products themselves are not regulated although the distribution of products can be.

LC&F loan notes are not a retail product though. They are a bit like shares in that respect. Shares are not a retail financial product either. If you buy shares and they fail then you lose your money.

Often these things are referred to as direct investments whereas investment funds (which do get FSCS protection and exist in a regulated environment) are referred to as retail investments.

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?

They were not supplying a retail financial product.

robatwork

To the new poster Simon and other late incomers who won't wade through the 70 pages - indeed there are lots of early posts deleted. Although most of us were warning about this scam/sham, not quite everyone was.

It got quite heated, and people were warned and banned for their forthright opinions about LCF. In hindsight those warning about them were all proved correct, and those endorsing LCF have either disappeared or have had some miraculous revision of the truth where they were correct all along.

Fascinating thread, like watching a car crash in super slow motion.