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
Comments
-
I don't think that is true. As I mentioned in an earlier post Surge say:Malthusian wrote: »inducements to engage in investment activity which were published by a firm not on the FCA register and with no declaration that the promotions were authorised by another FCA-authorised firm. They were therefore a breach of Section 21 of the FSMA 2000.
"All business that the company drew in had been signed off by LCF, which was regulated"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/money/failed-london-capital-finance-isa-netted-60m-for-captain-careless-6pcwkh5wv
So unless failing to mention they were signed off on their adverts is an offence (I think it should be but don't think it is) they are not in breach.
This is why they are brazenly continuing their business model charging 20-25% as if nothing has happened despite all the attention.0 -
Supercalafragalistic wrote: »Sorry, i didnt realize it was vague.
It's vague. You might as well ask whether Mr Bloggs has ever committed a driving offence. Unless he's a non-driver, then the answer is that of course he has.
Similarly, the FSMA is so complex and all-embracing that it's virtually certain that everyone in the country has contravened it at some time or other. Okay, a bit of an exaggeration there, but if you look on the investment-related forums here, there's loads of well-meaning advice freely given out that strictly-speaking needs regulation.
Some minor Surge peccadillo, with an equally minor fine, is not the sort of justice you are after.
A more sensible question is whether Surge has laid itself open to being forced to provide substantial compensation to its customers?No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
Re Surge statement "All business that the company drew in had been signed off by LCF, which was regulated".
Surge were contracted with LCF from the beginning of the bond launch. For approximately the first year I thought LCF were not FCA authorised. The website was approved and signed off by Sentient Capital specifically because LCF were not FCA authorised. There were conversations with LCF during the first year where it was mentioned LCF was in the process of applying for authorisation. So for that initial period, before authorisation, how could Surge state all business was signed off by a regulated LCF? I doubt it is retrospective.0 -
But SURGE=LCF where SURGE were sporting LCF business Cards and signing off correspondence as LCF and announcing when funds had arrived into LCF bank accounts . So how can SURGE claim everything was signed off by LCF when SURGE were doing all the signing. What record do SURGE have of this or will SURGE fabricate one and sign off on it .Re Surge statement "All business that the company drew in had been signed off by LCF, which was regulated".
Surge were contracted with LCF from the beginning of the bond launch. For approximately the first year I thought LCF were not FCA authorised. The website was approved and signed off by Sentient Capital specifically because LCF were not FCA authorised. There were conversations with LCF during the first year where it was mentioned LCF was in the process of applying for authorisation. So for that initial period, before authorisation, how could Surge state all buiness was signed off by a regulated LCF? I doubt it is retrospective.0 -
But SURGE=LCF where SURGE were sporting LCF business Cards and signing off correspondence as LCF and announcing when funds had arrived into LCF bank accounts . So how can SURGE claim everything was signed off by LCF when SURGE were doing all the signing. What record do SURGE have of this or will SURGE fabricate one and sign off on it .
You don't think there'll be a huge file of compliance stuff? They may have slipped up, of course, but I imagine that they have tried to take obvious precautions.
They strike me as quite sensible. For example, now the !!!! has hit the fan with LCF, they are staying very quiet and just continuing with their other customers.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
Supercalafragalistic wrote: »
"Sold" it. I wonder if in the same way that Spencer "sold" his stables that owed £12m to LCF but the person who bought it paid nothing and has no paperwork.
Regardless of that, the company is based in Surge's offices so it's still connected even if not owned by the Captain.Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
Another company lent money by LCF has filed for administration.
https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/04/lcf-another-one-bites-dust.htmlRemember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
I don't think that is true. As I mentioned in an earlier post Surge say:
"All business that the company drew in had been signed off by LCF, which was regulated".
It is true. Read the FCA's Second Supervisory Notice to LCF. LCF disavowed the Surge websites and claimed they were a third party and that LCF was not responsible for their content. While that claim is of course bogus (as the FCA noted), they wouldn't have been even able to attempt it if LCF had given the Surge websites S21 signoff.
Moreover if the Surge websites had been signed off by LCF they should have had a statement to that effect on the website.LCF stated that it has little control over third party websites, claiming that the websites referred to at paragraph 14 above had “independently” removed references to the LCF Bonds following the FCA’s Direction
They are continuing their business model because the FCA doesn't give a s---.This is why they are brazenly continuing their business model charging 20-25% as if nothing has happened despite all the attention.
Right now the FCA are far too busy trying to deflect the "independent" investigation to issue court proceedings against some scummy little outfit from Brighton.0 -
I hope that fails.
Regulated advisers pay levies to the FSCS because the advice they give is regulated. Unregulated advice pays nothing towards the FSCS as the advice is not regulated.
The consumers of regulated firms will be picking up the tab for those that tried to bypass those regulated firms.
Whats next? Buy shares in loads of high risk companies and then let the FSCS kick in when it fails?I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards