London Capital and Finance

Alexland

rr755507 wrote: »

UK watchdog to investigate handling of London Capital & Finance failure

FCA to reluctantly investigate, after pressure from everyone, because there are so many more comfortable, enjoyable and intellectualy satisfying things they could be doing with their ample government funding to further their strategic objectives. Why would they willfully lower themselves to look into and stop grubby little scams?

antrobus

Alexland wrote: »

FCA to reluctantly investigate, after pressure from everyone, because there are so many more comfortable, enjoyable and intellectualy satisfying things they could be doing with their ample government funding to further their strategic objectives. Why would they willfully lower themselves to look into and stop grubby little scams?

The FCA is not government funded.

We are an independent public body funded entirely by the firms we regulate, by charging them fees.
https://www.fca.org.uk/about/the-fca

Alexland

antrobus wrote: »

The FCA is not government funded.

Ok fair point but they certainly seem very adequately resourced and the money that they levy on the financial services must come from those that use the products.

GDB2222

Reaper wrote: »

To regulars on here it was obvious from the start it should be avoided, but to the average punter it was not. .

I received an email from a firm I had never heard from, and I could do with some advice please. It reads as follows:

15% Returns within ONLY 10 MONTHS

Dear Client [which I most definitely am not!],

Similar to the below, we have a one-off opportunity for you to earn a 15% return within only 10 months.

This is a site-specific investment in Birmingham where HSG (High Street Group) are trying to increase the number of apartments. The total fund required was £4.5m but they have already raised £4.1m so there is ONLY 400k remaining to raise.

Ordinarily, they offer 12% return after 1 year and 15% return after 2 years.

However, with this one-off opportunity you can earn a 15% return within ONLY 10 months.

The site already has planning and they have already exchanged Heads of Terms with the end-buyer.

This fund is being raised for the land acquisition.

Kindly let us know if you need any further information….

Best wishes,

Andy





We have an amazing investment opportunity where you can earn from 12% p.a. interest up to trebling your investment capital in as little as 7 years.

Fixed minimum return of 12%.
Deferred and Income options - quarterly payments available.
Option to roll over initial capital, capital + return, or simply compound the investment on its anniversary for up to 7 years.
Award winning developer, with over 11 year track record.
Security Trustee in place, investment is backed against £68 million property portfolio.
£50 million raised in 5 years, all previous investors have been paid back their original capital and return.
Over £1 billion GDV of PRS Scheme in the current pipeline.
Partnerships with some of the UK’s largest blue chip Asset Management Companies
Invest from £25,000

GDB2222

Alexland wrote: »

FCA to reluctantly investigate, after pressure from everyone, because there are so many more comfortable, enjoyable and intellectualy satisfying things they could be doing with their ample government funding to further their strategic objectives. Why would they willfully lower themselves to look into and stop grubby little scams?

The FCA have already had a preliminary look, of course. They are only responsible for regulating the sale of regulated products and/or advice by regulated firms. This was, supposedly, neither.

The FCA are reluctant about investigating more thoroughly, because they think the investigation will just show that any malfeasance was outside their remit.

The FCA has to put a limit on their responsibility, as otherwise it could be endless. (Should they be responsible because a regulated individual causes a car crash, for example?)

Some individual investors may have received what amounts to advice, and they will be protected by FSCS, if they can prove their case, and there's no need for FCA to investigate.

I'm not saying the FCA is right in all this, but roughly speaking that is their case.

Seabee42

I understand we live in a compensation culture but its your money and you have a duty of care to check yourself. The government cannot and will not ever be able to police the crooks appropriately and has never shown any signs of being able to do so. In this case people where greedy, greedy people seem to not understand the very basics of too good to be true so we should compensate them ?

AnotherJoe

GDB2222 wrote: »

The FCA have already had a preliminary look, of course. They are only responsible for regulating the sale of regulated products and/or advice by regulated firms. This was, supposedly, neither.

The FCA are reluctant about investigating more thoroughly, because they think the investigation will just show that any malfeasance was outside their remit.

The FCA has to put a limit on their responsibility, as otherwise it could be endless. (Should they be responsible because a regulated individual causes a car crash, for example?)

Some individual investors may have received what amounts to advice, and they will be protected by FSCS, if they can prove their case, and there's no need for FCA to investigate.

I'm not saying the FCA is right in all this, but roughly speaking that is their case.

To me the issue is, FCA allowed parallel advertising of their FSCS protection and FCA regulation alongside non regulated/protected products, for what, three years before pulling the plug?

Ok it turned out to have been a scam rather than just an incompetent company, But I think there's a case to say that FCA enabled them pulling in more suckers by letting them run for so long. Let's not forget the initial pulling of ads by FCA was about misleading wording it was only later it was discovered it was an out and out scam. It could simply have been a poorly run company and the same issue woudl be there, why didn't FCA disallow their marketing material years ago.

rr755507

GDB2222 wrote: »

The FCA has to put a limit on their responsibility, as otherwise it could be endless.

If the FCA have no responsibility why did they investigate LCF in December and tell them to pull their marketing?

dunstonh

Alexland wrote: »

Ok fair point but they certainly seem very adequately resourced and the money that they levy on the financial services must come from those that use the products.

Regulated firms pay levies every year on a percentage basis of their turnover in regulated activity. This covers the FCA, FOS, FSCS, MAS, Pensionwise etc. The levy rates are fee blocks based on product type.

Levies are not charged on unregulated business.

In cost terms for an adviser firm charing the typical 0.50% p.a. ongoing charge, you could knock of 0.05% p.a. if there were no levies and an additional almost 0.15% for the cost of compliance of regulations. PI insurance is another 0.05%.

Firms do not pay any FSCS levies in their first year and levies are charged in arrears. So, a firm that exists for 2 years and then closes can usually get away with paying virtually nothing in levies.

It is generally regarded that it is the good long term firms that pay for the bad.

dunstonh

rr755507 wrote: »

If the FCA have no responsibility why did they investigate LCF in December and tell them to pull their marketing?

Because they entered into an area that is regulated without having the required permissions.

Mini bonds are like shares. They are not retail investments and are not regulated. However, they are not allowed to be retailed in the same way as retail investments. Yet, LC&F were.

The FCA was slow. I, like others on this site, reported them to the FCA many years ago. I got no contact from them. I have reported several scams over or breaches over the years and only one of the reports have seen the regulator come back to me for further information. In most cases there is not even an acknowledgement. In one case (a mortgage adviser firm with no investment permissions selling SIPPs with unregulated investments in biofuels, forestry etc), they admitted that they didn't want to know and could tell the lady was frustrated by me calling to report it. That firm later went into liquidation and held its permissions for more than 6 months after a high court striking off order. Thhe FOS had been upholding complaints on investment business for a firm that had no investment permissions. The FCA took no action.

There are a lot of faults with the FCA. They are a bit better than the FSA. However, they do tend to micromanage the insignificant and miss the big ticket issues.