London Capital and Finance

GDB2222

Malthusian wrote: »

Given the demographic of LCF investors it's only matter of time.

Victim-blaming is an ancient tribal ritual which helps the general population sleep easy at night thinking it won't happen to them.

Look, it's obvious that those LCF investors who voted Brexit are displaying an ongoing lack of judgement, whilst those who voted remain were simply unlucky in their investment.

Supercalafragalistic

GDB2222 wrote: »

Look, it's obvious that those LCF investors who voted Brexit are displaying an ongoing lack of judgement, whilst those who voted remain were simply unlucky in their investment.

Not nice..you’ll be chucked off the universe of niceness!

GDB2222

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Not nice..you’ll be chucked off the universe of niceness!

Sorry, I didn't mean to upset anyone. I was just expressing a view about Brexit, rather than LCF. Sorry that wasn't at all clear.

Mind you, we are all upset about Brexit. Everyone is, regardless of how they voted or what the eventual outcome is.

Rubclucker

I just joined here because I saw the program on BBC South West about LC&F.

I was very close to investing some money I have saved for retirement. One thing I find odd though is when I did the application there was a box you had to tick to say you weren't investing more than 10% of all of your money (unless you're rich..... Not me!).

I feel for everyone that has lost money but why are people saying they have lost everything if you have to tick a box yourself to say you won't invest more than 10%?

If I had 100,000 and lost 10,00 it would be a !!!!!! but I wouldn't be losing mine and my wife's house... So I don't get it?

masonic

Rubclucker wrote: »

I feel for everyone that has lost money but why are people saying they have lost everything if you have to tick a box yourself to say you won't invest more than 10%?

One person admitted that they didn't understand the declaration and didn't think it applied to the investment they were making.

The declaration states no more than 10% per year, so it's possible people could have invested over several years with prior years' investments not counting, and possible some believed it was only 10% per investment product taken out and went ahead and spread their money around several bonds and ISAs.

Supercalafragalistic

words throughout the paperwork designed to attract the unsuspecting public

Realistic

EY were third firm of auditors in three years, after PWC who lasted one year after taking over from a small firm.

Always a concern when auditors are charged so frequently.

Auditing the recoverability of loans would have been tricky in absence of publically filed accounts so perhaps they relied on management accounts of LCF borrowers.

eskbanker

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Weasle words throughout the paperwork designed to attract the unwary.

It's undoubtedly fair game to criticise LC&F for their misleading advertising that drew people in by pretending to be protected savings rather than risky investments.

However, once people got to the LC&F site, there were plenty of warnings using FCA-compliant wording (as highlighted in the earlier years of this thread and indeed your reference to 'throughout the paperwork') so to me it's a weaker argument to claim deception there.

I'm not saying this to twist the knife, just to emphasise the distinction between the advertising used to attract people and the documentation presented on the site itself.

masonic

eskbanker wrote: »

It's undoubtedly fair game to criticise LC&F for their misleading advertising that drew people in by pretending to be protected savings rather than risky investments.

However, once people got to the LC&F site, there were plenty of warnings using FCA-compliant wording (as highlighted in the earlier years of this thread and indeed your reference to 'throughout the paperwork') so to me it's a weaker argument to claim deception there.

I'm not saying this to twist the knife, just to emphasise the distinction between the advertising used to attract people and the documentation presented on the site itself.

While it is true the risks were pointed out in sufficient clarity, there were also weasel words and deception in the documentation, as discussed here.

In short it was implied that the performance of the borrowing company over the last three years was assessed to determine whether it is sustainable, when in fact this level of due diligence was only sought and in fact borrowing companies didn't even have a 3 year track record. Fees paid by the borrowers were implied to be only 2%pa, but those were only the fees to LCF and the 25% fee to Surge wasn't mentioned. This was a regulated Financial Promotion that was signed off by an FCA authorised firm.

eskbanker

masonic wrote: »

While it is true the risks were pointed out in sufficient clarity, there were also weasel words and deception in the documentation, as discussed here.

In short it was implied that the performance of the borrowing company over the last three years was assessed to determine whether it is sustainable, when in fact this level of due diligence was only sought and in fact borrowing companies didn't even have a 3 year track record. Fees paid by the borrowers were implied to be only 2%pa, but those were only the fees to LCF and the 25% fee to Surge wasn't mentioned. This was a regulated Financial Promotion that was signed off by an FCA authorised firm.

Yes, true - I wasn't seeking to imply that everything on the LC&F site was accurate and honest, but was just commenting on the presence and prominence of the requisite FCA-approved wording about investor risk and self-certification declaration.