London Capital and Finance

ValiantSon

Malthusian wrote: »

The point bail-in is making is that LC&F claim to be generating returns to its investors by lending to SMEs, but a website for SMEs to apply for said loans has only just appeared, several years after LC&F started not just taking investors' money but making capital repayments.

This, bail-in implies, means that LC&F do not actually lend out investors' money; or if they do, they have only just started. This would mean LC&Fs interest and capital payments to existing investors up until now have been paid using new investors' money, which would make LC&F a Ponzi scheme. I thought it was pretty obvious what bail-in's point was.

This point is, of course, libellous. The fact that this website for applying for loans from LC&F is new is no evidence that LC&F have not been making loans. They could easily have been making loans via other channels. But LC&F have no need to say how, as under English libel law the burden of proof is on the person making the defamatory statement to show it is true.

Hence bail-in not making his point explicitly and asking if someone can ring LC&F to see if they can fool them into voluntarily revealing a smoking gun that proves his conspiracy theory is correct. The chances of LC&F doing so are, of course, nil.

I didn't think it was obvious at all. Overly verbose, to the point of being obscure, yes, but obvious, no. Thanks for clarifying.

cloud_dog

Malthusian wrote: »

The point bail-in is making is that LC&F claim to be generating returns to its investors by lending to SMEs, but a website for SMEs to apply for said loans has only just appeared, several years after LC&F started not just taking investors' money but making capital repayments.

This, bail-in implies, means that LC&F do not actually lend out investors' money; or if they do, they have only just started. This would mean LC&Fs interest and capital payments to existing investors up until now have been paid using new investors' money, which would make LC&F a Ponzi scheme. I thought it was pretty obvious what bail-in's point was.

This point is, of course, libellous. The fact that this website for applying for loans from LC&F is new is no evidence that LC&F have not been making loans. They could easily have been making loans via other channels. But LC&F have no need to say how, as under English libel law the burden of proof is on the person making the defamatory statement to show it is true.

Hence bail-in not making his point explicitly and asking if someone can ring LC&F to see if they can fool them into voluntarily revealing a smoking gun that proves his conspiracy theory is correct. The chances of LC&F doing so are, of course, nil.

Yes, I am able to read and digest text (most of the time) but, as you mentioned there so many other channels available that makes his point well, pointless.

eskbanker

Malthusian wrote: »

This point is, of course, libellous.

Only if it's untrue, although I take your point about the onus being on the accuser to be able to prove it!

Also, without detailed knowledge of libel law, I'd have thought that it would need to be expressed reasonably explicitly rather than implied, but who knows, bail-in may need to be bailed out at some point in the future....

bail-in

Thanks to the Defamation Act 2013 it is now much harder for companies to sue individuals for libel. It is true the onus is on the defendant to prove the truth of the claim and libel can be implied or expressed, but the plaintiff company now has to prove serious harm has been caused to the company, usually financial, as a direct result. That can be very difficult to prove, especially for a company like London Capital and Finance with little capital and cash.

The Act also creates the new defence of 'honest opinion' and here in this forum and other forums and websites along with cases of similar unregulated investments failing, there is ample supportive information of a similar nature to support this defence of honest opinion.

ValiantSon

Bail-in, just to be clear, have you now changed your view of both this company and this type of investment?

bail-in

ValiantSon wrote: »

Bail-in, just to be clear, have you now changed your view of both this company and this type of investment?

Rhetorically, why do you ask this question? What makes you think there is a change? There has been no change in my view of this company or unregulated and regulated investments. My view in my posts and LC&F review of the London Capital and Finance Investment Bond tends to be the same. It always has been, which is honestly looking at facts and figures on both sides objectively with the info I have to hand and searching for truth. No reader would give credence to all posts or a review which were totally negative nor totally positive, whatever type of investment. With my posts, the few there are, what you see is what you get. There is nothing hidden. I am an outsider, a newcomer to the forum so long term members are suspicious. However, I have no hidden promotional agenda, or any other agenda, that some members here have mistakenly accused me of. In my approach I have always looked from the information angle of both pros and cons. What you have read in my recent posts is also in my review, just taking the negative angle. There has been no change in my view. I never have had a solely negative or positive view. I am still objectively enquiring, looking for answers. That dog and bone thing.

Lungboy

You started off coming across as a huge shill for LC&F, and now you seem to think they are cooking their books. Rather a pronounced change of opinion.

Reaper

Lungboy wrote: »

You started off coming across as a huge shill for LC&F, and now you seem to think they are cooking their books. Rather a pronounced change of opinion.

I don't think he ever did. He was trying to be even handed and do a fair review but the length of his posts and unclear text meant people tended not to read to the end and missed the point.

Less is more

Lungboy

Reaper wrote: »

I don't think he ever did. He was trying to be even handed and do a fair review but the length of his posts and unclear text meant people tended not to read to the end and missed the point.

Less is more

It wasn't overt so shill was probably the wrong term, but his walls of text seemed designed to confuse people who would otherwise have found these investments too risky and trick them into thinking they were mainstream and safe. On top of that he tried to convince investors to post here, presumably to also convince people that it's safe.

ValiantSon

bail-in wrote: »

Rhetorically, why do you ask this question? What makes you think there is a change?

Rhetorical, or not, I'll answer your questions. I wondered if there was a change in your view because your more recent posts seem to be calling into question whether they are an honest and fit and proper company.

bail-in wrote: »

There has been no change in my view of this company or unregulated and regulated investments. My view in my posts and LC&F review tends to be the same. It always has been, which is honestly looking at facts and figures on both sides objectively with the info I have to hand and searching for truth. No reader would give credence to all posts or a review which were totally negative nor totally positive, whatever type of investment. With my posts, the few there are, what you see is what you get. There is nothing hidden. I am an outsider, a newcomer to the forum so long term members are suspicious. However, I have no hidden promotional agenda, or any other agenda, that some members here have mistakenly accused me of. In my approach I have always looked from the information angle of both pros and cons. What you have read in my recent posts is also in my review, just taking the negative angle. There has been no change in my view. I never have had a solely negative or positive view. I am still objectively enquiring, looking for answers. That dog and bone thing.

Okay.

These types of products are not retail investments and are extremely high risk. They are being marketed as retail investments and, even worse, they are being presented as if they are savings bonds. This is why so many of us are unhappy about this company (and others operating in the same way).