We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
London Capital and Finance
Options
Comments
-
If folk are concerned about the company mentioned, don't post any more on this. Any thread that is unposted on quickly becomes obsolete. In a few weeks it should move down the pages. Use the way forums work to your advantage.Paid off the last of my unsecured debts in 2016. Then saved up and bought a property. Current aim is to pay off my mortgage as early as possible. Currently over paying every month. Mortgage due to be paid off in 2036 hoping to get it paid off much earlier. Set up my own bespoke spreadsheet to manage my money.0
-
You seem to be missing the point of threads like this: to warn potential investors before they part with their money.If folk are concerned about the company mentioned, don't post any more on this. Any thread that is unposted on quickly becomes obsolete. In a few weeks it should move down the pages. Use the way forums work to your advantage.Eco Miser
Saving money for well over half a century0 -
If folk are concerned about the company mentioned, don't post any more on this. Any thread that is unposted on quickly becomes obsolete. In a few weeks it should move down the pages. Use the way forums work to your advantage.
That's a disadvantage surely, unless you are the company in question.0 -
So just to summarise....
London Capital and Finance offer extremely high risk investment opportunities that are not FSCS protected.
High Risk = possibility of loosing 100% of your investment.
No FSCS Protection = You are not covered by the FSCS £85k deposit protection on your investment.
What's not to like
I am post No. 150, and i endorse this post
My research into this company confirmed that their was a 100% possibility of losing my investment, and that it would not be covered by the normal FSCS £85K deposit protection scheme. It seemed very high risk, so I decided not to invest.
I post this so that it might be of some help to all the first time posters who are interested in this. I hope this is helpful.Total - £340.00
wins : £7.50 Virgin Vouchers, Nikon Coolpixs S550 x 2, I-Tunes Vouchers, £5 Esprit Voucher, Big Snap 2 (x2), Alaska Seafood book0 -
Of course there's a possibility of losing one's investment (as per their website small print) but on what basis did you conclude that this is 100%, i.e. that you'd definitely lose it? It'll be far more helpful to readers if you show your workings rather than just making an unsupported statement and expecting everyone to simply take it at face value, especially given the lack of credibility of someone who doesn't even appear to have researched the difference between 'their' and 'there'....My research into this company confirmed that their was a 100% possibility of losing my investment, and that it would not be covered by the normal FSCS £85K deposit protection scheme. It seemed very high risk, so I decided not to invest.
I post this so that it might be of some help to all the first time posters who are interested in this. I hope this is helpful.
Your due diligence on their FSCS eligibility can simply be accomplished by scrolling to the foot of each of their pages where it states twice in bold that "investments into the LC&F bonds are not protected by the Financial Services Compensation scheme (FSCS)" so it's a bit rich to trumpet this as a finding from 'research'!0 -
Of course there's a possibility of losing one's investment (as per their website small print) but on what basis did you conclude that this is 100%, i.e. that you'd definitely lose it?
You could say it's possible to lose 100% of one's investment. And nobody would dispute it because it says so in the promotion and is common sense for investment into an unlisted bond with significant commercial risk, like this one.
On that basis, you could also say it's 100% possible to lose one's investment. Because flipping it around, 100% possible just means zero percent impossible. And we're agreed that we wouldn't say it's even a bit impossible to lose your money, because the website says there's a possiblity to lose your investment (as you noted above).
In other words, it's definitely possible to lose your money. There is a 100% possiblity that you could lose your money. That doesn't mean there's close to 100% likelihood of losing your money. The probability is unknown
, especially given the lack of credibility of someone who doesn't even appear to have researched the difference between 'their' and 'there'....
I do agree that if someone says they researched something and that they said "their was" a certain conclusion, you could doubt that conclusion - because if they really had the necessary attention to detail for the task, they might proofread their grammar, and if not, not. However to pick holes in grammar rather than the content probably makes us look like arrogant jerks.
The key point is that if you are looking for £85k (deposit) protection on something that self-describes as an investment rather than a deposit, you're looking in the wrong place. So even before they admit there's no FSCS protection you should have already turned tail and run, if you are looking for something to be deposited for safekeeping and a small amount of interest rather than something that grows your money from investment returns in exchange for taking investment risk.0 -
bowlhead99 wrote: »In other words, it's definitely possible to lose your money. There is a 100% possiblity that you could lose your money. That doesn't mean there's close to 100% likelihood of losing your money. The probability is unknown
Something I find useful is quantitative measures of risk. For example Trustnet give the 'FE risk score', with 100 being the risk of the FTSE 100.
Obviously I know roughly what that means, while a novice investor won't. And there are questions about how the score is calculated (accounting for black swans and all).
I suspect the LC&F offer is above 100, not least due to the lack of transparency - they don't say what the bonds are invested in. There is some information about their process, but not as much as traditional P2P.
And if you want to do that - P2P returns with P2P risks, then why not do that instead?
Not sure if anyone already posted links to the marketing material, BTW:
https://dozvt7oafrsnm.cloudfront.net/series-4/brochure.pdf
https://dozvt7oafrsnm.cloudfront.net/series-4/information-memorandum.pdf
https://dozvt7oafrsnm.cloudfront.net/series-7/brochure.pdf
https://dozvt7oafrsnm.cloudfront.net/series-7/information-memorandum.pdf0 -
Something I find useful is quantitative measures of risk. For example Trustnet give the 'FE risk score', with 100 being the risk of the FTSE 100.
Obviously I know roughly what that means, while a novice investor won't. And there are questions about how the score is calculated (accounting for black swans and all).
I suspect the LC&F offer is above 100, not least due to the lack of transparency - they don't say what the bonds are invested in. There is some information about their process, but not as much as traditional P2P.
If you have questions about how the FE Risk score is calculated, you could find the answers here: https://www2.trustnet.com/learn/learnaboutinvesting/FE-Risk-Scores.html
So it would not be possible to assign an FE Risk Score to a London and Capital Finance Bond because there is no measure of volatility, given that the bonds cannot be traded.FE Risk Scores define risk as a measure of volatility relative to the UK Leading 100 shares, which has a risk rating of 100, and rebased to sterling.0 -
I guess it comes down to interpretation and semantics but to me "a possibility of losing my investment" and "a 100% possibility of losing my investment" aren't synonymous.bowlhead99 wrote: »You could say it's possible to lose 100% of one's investment. And nobody would dispute it because it says so in the promotion and is common sense for investment into an unlisted bond with significant commercial risk, like this one.
On that basis, you could also say it's 100% possible to lose one's investment. Because flipping it around, 100% possible just means zero percent impossible. And we're agreed that we wouldn't say it's even a bit impossible to lose your money, because the website says there's a possiblity to lose your investment (as you noted above).
In other words, it's definitely possible to lose your money. There is a 100% possiblity that you could lose your money. That doesn't mean there's close to 100% likelihood of losing your money. The probability is unknown
Speak for yourself!bowlhead99 wrote: »I do agree that if someone says they researched something and that they said "their was" a certain conclusion, you could doubt that conclusion - because if they really had the necessary attention to detail for the task, they might proofread their grammar, and if not, not. However to pick holes in grammar rather than the content probably makes us look like arrogant jerks. But yes, agreed it's a bit of a cheap shot, but it was only said as a secondary passing comment and I stand by my main point that the poster should be able and willing to offer something more concrete than 'trust me, I've researched this....', especially given the apparent consequences of posting unsubstantiated allegations on here, perhaps they'll be back to post something substantive.... 0 -
someone who doesn't even appear to have researched the difference between 'their' and 'there'....
Sorry - English is not my first language.Total - £340.00
wins : £7.50 Virgin Vouchers, Nikon Coolpixs S550 x 2, I-Tunes Vouchers, £5 Esprit Voucher, Big Snap 2 (x2), Alaska Seafood book0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards