London Capital and Finance

dunstonh

Without a doubt one of the best threads we've ever had on MSE and all this talk of FSCS raises a wry smile - given posts #4 and #5. This contemporaneous narrative of a financial car crash is why forums are so good, and hopefully instructive.

Although MSE was found wanting in this respect as it generally deleted LC&F threads and even banned some people because of it.   Whilst allowing a poster who has gone very quiet or changed login name to continue posting a self-declared MSE guide to investing in LC&F. Effectively promoting it.

robatwork

dunstonh said:

Without a doubt one of the best threads we've ever had on MSE and all this talk of FSCS raises a wry smile - given posts #4 and #5. This contemporaneous narrative of a financial car crash is why forums are so good, and hopefully instructive.

Although MSE was found wanting in this respect as it generally deleted LC&F threads and even banned some people because of it.   Whilst allowing a poster who has gone very quiet or changed login name to continue posting a self-declared MSE guide to investing in LC&F. Effectively promoting it.

I didn't want to go there dunstonh! 

MSE didn't cover itself with glory on its actions or inactions on this thread, and you can thank me for some vigorous emailling about the person who was banned and reinstated, I think you know him 

csgohan4

dunstonh said:

Without a doubt one of the best threads we've ever had on MSE and all this talk of FSCS raises a wry smile - given posts #4 and #5. This contemporaneous narrative of a financial car crash is why forums are so good, and hopefully instructive.

Although MSE was found wanting in this respect as it generally deleted LC&F threads and even banned some people because of it.   Whilst allowing a poster who has gone very quiet or changed login name to continue posting a self-declared MSE guide to investing in LC&F. Effectively promoting it.

Took the words out of my mouth. I was worried the ban hammer was going to come for me if I mentioned it

jimjames

Bionicbelly said:

However, what put me off is the fact they appear to have changed their name a number if times over the past 4 years or so - not a trait I would expect from such a company. Their latest accounts does not fill me with confidence either which appears to indicate very little in the way of cash.

It makes interesting reading to look at some of the earlier posts in the thread. Even in 2016 the info was there for anyone doing their due diligence - although I'm fully aware that the sales tactics of Surge financial to promote these bonds would have precluded that action for most of the people they sold bonds to. 

As already mentioned it's tragic that your mother was sold these but the company that sold them were scammers and have no moral compass so it's a forlorn hope to expect any remorse. Some others who posted on here happily stated that they were going ahead with the investment regardless of the risks that were outlined, it seems wrong that they are compensated in the same way as victims such as her.

Such as this one

Sledger said:

A previous comment made here states that LCF record on interest for the last 3 years is sound. I have just received my due interest and assuming this trend continues, after 3 years I will have received 24% back in interest l(less tax) reducing a 100% capital risk loss as stated elsewhere on this forum.. Assuming typical interests earned elsewhere are 1%+ compared to LCF 8% were frozen, and LCF continued in business, the break even risk free point to recoup my capital is about 15-16 years (Ignoring Interest compounding and after Tax) . its then interest $$$$$$$ plain sailing from there on with the " secured" capital being returned as a bonus. Any legitimate business wants to succeed and grow and the fundamentals . of matching lenders with investors. and get a operating margin seems sound. and LCF appear to be growing as per their expectations. The hard bit to accept here is our conditioning to anybody offering high interest way above the norm sets up alarm bells and caution. I am remaining positive with LCF and have taken that risk

GDB2222

Malthusian said:

GDB's post above is out of date - the Government has announced that all LCF investors will receive compensation from the taxpayer, with any compensation they have already received from the FSCS deducted.

Excellent news. I had not heard that, and thanks for correcting me.  Worth repeating.

Alexland

GDB2222 said:

Excellent news. I had not heard that, and thanks for correcting me.  Worth repeating.

It would be better for the taxpayer if the government were compensating people by recovering assets from those that took the money and were responsible for the regulatory failings...

dunstonh

Alexland said:

GDB2222 said:

Excellent news. I had not heard that, and thanks for correcting me.  Worth repeating.

It would be better for the taxpayer if the government were compensating people by recovering assets from those that took the money and were responsible for the regulatory failings...

Police time is better served helping people block motorways it appears.

robatwork

dunstonh said:

Alexland said:

It would be better for the taxpayer if the government were compensating people by recovering assets from those that took the money and were responsible for the regulatory failings...

Police time is better served helping people block motorways it appears.

I've rarely felt so insulated!

Sledger

Alexland said:

GDB2222 said:

Excellent news. I had not heard that, and thanks for correcting me.  Worth repeating.

It would be better for the taxpayer if the government were compensating people by recovering assets from those that took the money and were responsible for the regulatory failings...

Good question as why the HMRC,SFO,Treasury and FSCS jointly never carried out an unexplained wealth orders on LCF key players rather than S&W carrying out Civil action against 13 which will have a mega fee cost at £1200/hr eating into recovery where the FSCS is also affected. If the S&W case fails which I understand is a first,what then as to where the assets went.  4 years + recently revealed that the SFO took action against Andy Thompson who is soon facing jail for a mere sum of £100,000 and contempt of Court. Not sure why that minor issue took so long and no announcement of him being charged. There is no mention of him as LCF director allowing £20 million of deposits going into personal Bank accounts of key players and transferring the rest of the £236Million to his chums so called companies which included the so called LCF GST Trustee Sedgewick as director.  LCF is always being referred to as a failed business rather than a PONZI scheme but note Lord Razzall made this comment on MJS Capital where he was a Director " told administrators he suspected it was using money from new investors to pay the old - the definition of a Ponzi scheme.                        https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrIQZPqNvZiyswAjyd3Bwx.;_ylu=Y29sbwMEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1660331883/RO=10/RU=https://www.standard.co.uk/business/collapsed-mjs-bond-company-suspected-of-being-a-ponzi-scheme-a4273306.html/RK=2/RS=PzPDl1whoYkrM9woY74HM0JASrY-

Malthusian

Sledger said:

Good question as why the HMRC,SFO,Treasury and FSCS jointly never carried out an unexplained wealth orders on LCF key players rather than S&W carrying out Civil action against 13 which will have a mega fee cost at £1200/hr eating into recovery where the FSCS is also affected. 

Because there is no point reinventing the wheel. As the FSCS and the Government have compensated LCF investors, any recovered assets will go to the FSCS / Government one way or the other.
The wheels of justice grind slowly and they grind exceeding small, especially in UK fraud cases. Top lawyers cost top fees no matter who hires them.
Much of the money has already been spent on flash cars or moved offshore where it cannot realistically be recovered.
Unlike the USA the UK does not take fraud seriously. I would not be at all surprised if nobody saw the inside of a jail cell over LCF, and the key players successfully mounted the "a bigger boy did it and ran away" defence. (I just ran a failed business guv which ain't no crime, the misselling of its bonds was done by third parties and nothing to do with me.)
If the investigations conclude with no criminal convictions, LCF's ringleaders would be able to sue anyone who called it a Ponzi scheme for libel, and the default position is that they would win.