London Capital and Finance

robatwork

Incredible how this thread has warnings about LC&F dating back well before the FCA and other institutions had their "suspicions" raised. Let's not forget how one esteemed expert here lost their posting privileges for having the temerity to raise doubts about investing not being a particularly good idea. Even a financial dummy like me looked at this gift horse in the mouth and could see bad teeth.

All of which goes to show either nobody is an "expert" in financial matters, or that a bunch of random forum contributors are actually better informed than people employed and paid to BE informed. 

Reaper

Thanks for the info and article.

There isn't any sign the regulatory authorities and law makers have realised yet that unregulated companies NEED to be watched by the regulators. It's not enough to say they are unregulated and therefore nothing to do with them, even if they break the law.

Over the last 3 years the excellent Bond Review web site has reviewed 115 of these unregulated companies actively seeking to part part UK investors with their money and the FCA has done nothing about the vast majority of them.

Introducers/agents regularity ignore what few laws there are about not promoting unregulated businesses without fear of prosecution (Surge might be the one exception because LCF are in the spotlight but even that I'll only believe when I see it).

Neither the UK's laws nor its regulatory bodies are fit for purpose.

verybigchris

From the full report:

The FCA’s representations suggested that the Investigation had made inappropriate use of hindsight

They still don't get it. Hindsight is irrelevant: if a bunch of amateurs with nothing better to do than waste time on this forum could see through LC&F in an instant, what the hell were the FCA doing and who the hell do they employ?! If they are admitting it would have taken hindsight to act differently then they are simply admitting to their own incompetence.

Like Reaper said, that Bond Review site is just a catalogue of LC&F clones. No doubt when (not if) they fail the FCA will wring their hands again and wish there was only some way anyone could have predicted it.

Alexland

verybigchris said:

Hindsight is irrelevant:

To be fair if FCA had known they would be held to account for it they might have lifted a finger to stop it earlier. As it was they saw it as not their problem as they only wanted to be a regulator for the things that they were generally interested in and not the whole industry including all the grubby stuff. Much easier.

csgohan4

Do we expect the FCA to monitor All bad investments, PONZI schemes e.t.c?? Surely they can't or have the resources for this?

Could one argue, when the line is when people taking responsibility for their own actions, I see people have chosen to ignore advice on here early on and saw greed instead sadly

masonic

csgohan4 said:

Do we expect the FCA to monitor All bad investments, PONZI schemes e.t.c?? Surely they can't or have the resources for this?

No, but if they receive detailed and credible information from an IFA, then they ought to follow up on it within say a couple of years. The financial promotions were approved by an FCA Authorised Firm, and the FCA definitely can be expected to monitor the firms it has authorised - there is a legal requirement for it to do so.

NottinghamKnight

masonic said:

csgohan4 said:

Do we expect the FCA to monitor All bad investments, PONZI schemes e.t.c?? Surely they can't or have the resources for this?

No, but if they receive detailed and credible information from an IFA, then they ought to follow up on it within say a couple of years. The financial promotions were approved by an FCA Authorised Firm, and the FCA definitely can be expected to monitor the firms it has authorised - there is a legal requirement for it to do so.

But no real consequence if they do not.

masonic

NottinghamKnight said:

masonic said:

csgohan4 said:

Do we expect the FCA to monitor All bad investments, PONZI schemes e.t.c?? Surely they can't or have the resources for this?

No, but if they receive detailed and credible information from an IFA, then they ought to follow up on it within say a couple of years. The financial promotions were approved by an FCA Authorised Firm, and the FCA definitely can be expected to monitor the firms it has authorised - there is a legal requirement for it to do so.

But no real consequence if they do not.

Agreed, that is the problem. Although the FCA has had to pay redress for its failings in the past, despite essentially having immunity from legal action.

See, for example: https://www.ftadviser.com/regulation/2019/05/08/fca-told-to-compensate-over-seriously-inaccurate-register/

dunstonh

csgohan4 said:

Do we expect the FCA to monitor All bad investments, PONZI schemes e.t.c?? Surely they can't or have the resources for this?

Could one argue, when the line is when people taking responsibility for their own actions, I see people have chosen to ignore advice on here early on and saw greed instead sadly

They are too busy micromanaging the insignificant to focus on the real areas of concern.  

csgohan4

dunstonh said:

csgohan4 said:

Do we expect the FCA to monitor All bad investments, PONZI schemes e.t.c?? Surely they can't or have the resources for this?

Could one argue, when the line is when people taking responsibility for their own actions, I see people have chosen to ignore advice on here early on and saw greed instead sadly

They are too busy micromanaging the insignificant to focus on the real areas of concern.  

Do you think the FCA could have intervened with the Woodford scandal?