London Capital and Finance

SonOf

in a bit more detail....

https://www.ftadviser.com/regulation/2020/01/09/fscs-to-compensate-159-minibond-holders/

"but it added the 283 bondholders who dealt with the firm before it was authorised would not be covered by the scheme."

"The FSCS still needs to review advice claims — which it says are likely to be the majority of cases — on a case-by-case basis to determine whether misleading advice was given.

However the scheme said today it expected many customers would not be eligible for compensation on an advice basis."

GDB2222

Just a reminder that you can sign up for emails from FSCS about LCF, so you get this info from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Reaper

In short the latest news says on the whole investors were given "incorrect information" not "misleading advice" so are not covered by the FSCS.

All the enquiries were handled by Surge staff, not LCF. I find it staggering that Surge are apparently not in the firing line for anything even though their staff lied to investors. It seems "incorrect information" is no problem. To quote the BBC:

Potential investors say they were told by LCF marketing staff about how their money would be protected, that the mini-bond products they were investing in were regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and that their money was safely invested in dozens of companies to spread the risk - none of which was true

It is no wonder new scams are being continually set up when there is so little action taken against the guilty parties.

jimjames

Reaper wrote: »

It seems "incorrect information" is no problem. To quote the BBC:

One of the issues is the picture in the BBC link where is fairly clearly says underneath the interest rate, admittedly in smaller type but still clearly visible:

"your capital is at risk and payments are not guaranteed" but this seems to have been glossed over and ignored when the Surge staff contradicted it.

Supercalafragalistic

I think its not the ‘capital at risk’ bit thats the problem, its the texts that were sent out saying their capital protection guarantee was better than fscs protection . In addition to the fact they totally lied about the nature of the investment and the money ended in the hands of a handful of people.

Malthusian

jimjames wrote: »

"your capital is at risk and payments are not guaranteed" but this seems to have been glossed over and ignored when the Surge staff contradicted it.

Boilerplate risk warnings do not excuse plastering the website with "secured bonds" or telling investors over the phone that it's safe as houses. Or claiming that the £230m in bonds was backed by £500m in assets which was a complete lie.

If I run a game of Find The Lady and put a sign up saying "You might not win", the fact that I told punters they might not win does not change the fact that I am committing fraud by running a game in which they will never win.

If LCF had included prominent risk warnings on its website which said "This is a Ponzi scheme, and as in all Ponzi schemes there is a 99% chance you will lose money" that would be different.

bowlhead99

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Unrelated but guessing there might be an adviser or two on these threads. If so, can anyone tell me , do IFA’s have to follow the fca’s “The Principles’ (or is that just for product providers?) or do IFA’s have to follow the fca ‘conduct of business rules’ please? Or maybe both?
Thanks in case someone knows!

IFA firms are businesses and the FCA's 'principles for businesses' set out in the FCA's Handbook are the fundamental obligations that FCA wants regulated businesses to follow.

The Conduct of Business Sourcebook (COBS) part of the mentioned Handbook, sets out the conduct of business rules that regulated firms should follow.

Rules are there to be followed or broken. Principles are the high level objectives that guide the development of detailed rules and help to assess behaviour in the context of desirable outcomes.

Malthusian

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Unrelated but guessing there might be an adviser or two on these threads. If so, can anyone tell me , do IFA’s have to follow the fca’s “The Principles’ (or is that just for product providers?) or do IFA’s have to follow the fca ‘conduct of business rules’ please? Or maybe both?
Thanks in case someone knows!

You might get more helpful responses if you ask the underlying question.

bail-in

Principles are not laws of the land. Rules are not laws of the land. That is, from the UK legal perspective, only UK laws can be enforced by the UK legal systems. The FCA Principles in the Handbook are considered as guidelines for good practice for FCA authorised businesses, but there is no legal obligation to put them into practice, nor any legal redress if authorised businesses do not honour the Handbook Principles.

masonic

bail-in wrote: »

Principles are not laws of the land. Rules are not laws of the land. That is, from the UK legal perspective, only UK laws can be enforced by the UK legal systems. The FCA Principles in the Handbook are considered as guidelines for good practice for FCA authorised businesses, but there is no legal obligation to put them into practice, nor any legal redress if authorised businesses do not honour the Handbook Principles.

A decision by a Financial Ombudsman is legally enforceable. The FOS is required to take into account principles and rules laid down by the regulator. So there is legal redress available, stemming from those principles and rules, providing there is a case to answer.