London Capital and Finance

ColdIron

In betting parlance it's known as 'talking up your book'

Malthusian

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Simple self-delusion. Once you've committed, its hard to back pedal and admit you made a mistake, better for your sanity to hope it works out.

Indeed. And why not? LC&F bonds cannot be sold before the end of the term or traded on any exchange. So Holeydel has no option but to wait to the end of the term, and he may as well spend that period thinking that he is a genius who has made a sensible investment and we are all haters, rather than chewing his nails wondering if his ultra-high-risk unregulated investment is going to go !!!!!!. It makes no difference to whether he will get his money back or not. So he may as well spend the investment term in blissful ignorance.

Worrying is only productive if it enables you to take evasive action, but virtually no evasive action is possible with these bonds.

bail-in

masonic wrote: »

There's a reason why you lose all of your normal rights as a consumer (like FSCS compensation and access to the Financial Ombudsman) when you invest in something like this.......

Last time I looked investors nor savers have any legal right to FSCS compensation. Perhaps you are not referring to 'legal' rights. Unlike a legal contract with your bank or investment company, as a depositor or investor, there is no legally enforceable relationship with the FSCS under UK law common law. It is a promise only, hence the repeated FSCS info reminders with our statements, and can be withdrawn by the sovereign bank at any time as I understand has been the case in some European countries; to the great glee of the ECB.

Reaper

bail-in wrote: »

Last time I looked investors nor savers have any legal right to FSCS compensation. Perhaps you are not referring to 'legal' rights. Unlike a legal contract with your bank or investment company, as a depositor or investor, there is no legally enforceable relationship with the FSCS under UK law common law. It is a promise only, hence the repeated FSCS info reminders with our statements, and can be withdrawn by the sovereign bank at any time as I understand has been the case in some European countries; to the great glee of the ECB.

I'm curious as to whether it can be withdrawn. I believe it is a piece of European legislation as described here:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/financial-supervision-and-risk-management/managing-risks-banks-and-financial-institutions/deposit-guarantee-schemes_en
So as long as we are in the EU the scheme has to be in place and it has to be for the agreed amount of cover.
The only somewhat weak link is the fund has to be covered by financial institutions not the tax payer, so in theory it could run out of money in a financial crisis.

Please can you provide a link to an EU country that has withdrawn cover as I didn't think that was allowed.

robatwork

Being something of a linguistic scholar, I sense Holeydel is not from the UK but from the US of A. One wonders how he found his way here and into the welcoming arms of LC&F.

bail-in

Reaper, here is a link re Austria re deposit protection scheme withdrawal. I read some other East European countries had also withdrawn.

https://news.goldcore.com/ie/gold-blog/austria-to-no-longer-guarantee-bank-deposits

EachPenny

robatwork wrote: »

Being something of a linguistic scholar, I sense Holeydel is not from the UK but from the US of A. One wonders how he found his way here and into the welcoming arms of LC&F.

I'm not sure you can reliably draw that conclusion.

The difference in style and content between their (now deleted) first post and subsequent posts (especially the one to dunstonh) would draw me towards the conclusion that Holeydel might be two different people. Or perhaps one person with two very different styles, adopted to suit the purpose.

Reaper

bail-in wrote: »

Reaper, here is a link re Austria re deposit protection scheme withdrawal. I read some other East European countries had also withdrawn.

https://news.goldcore.com/ie/gold-blog/austria-to-no-longer-guarantee-bank-deposits

I think that shows the opposite. Austria has changed from a non-compliant scheme (half tax payer backed) to a compliant scheme (all backed by banks). From that page:

Currently, Austrians have their bank deposits guaranteed to a value of €100,000 – the first half to be provided by the failing bank and the other by the state. From July, however, the state will be removed from the process and a special bank deposit insurance fund is to be set up and paid into by banks to meet potential shortfalls.

So nothing has been withdrawn.

Malthusian

bail-in wrote: »

Reaper, here is a link re Austria re deposit protection scheme withdrawal.

I'm not familiar with the Austrian system but that article isn't about any such thing. It says that deposit protection will now be funded by a levy on banks, rather than the Austrian taxpayer. This is largely how it already works over here. The FSCS is funded by a levy on all financial services firms.

some_gold_ramper_article wrote:

From July, however, the state will be removed from the process and a special bank deposit insurance fund is to be set up and paid into by banks to meet potential shortfalls.

In the headline "Austria to No Longer Guarantee Bank Deposits", "Austria" refers to the Austrian government. Austrian Bank Deposits are still guaranteed. The author of the article appears to be flogging shiny metal so they have a vested interest in using vague language to mislead people into thinking that deposit protection has been withdrawn, whereas in fact it has been shifted from the government to the industry.

However, even when the scheme is fully funded it is clear that €1.5 billion will be woefully inadequate to deal with a bank failure.
€1.5 billion amounts to a mere 0.8% of total deposits in Austria. It is highly unlikely that deposits of any major bank would be adequately covered and in the event of multiple concurrent bank failures it is likely that most savers would be wiped out.

If all the banks in Austria failed then the Austrian government would not be able to cover investors' losses either, so that is neither here nor there. Every bank in Austria failing is an apocalypse scenario and Fraulein Miggins' cash savings would be the least of her worries.

FCA-regulated FSCS-backed deposits are 100% safe, at least as far as the term "100%" has any meaning. Apocalypse scenarios are not important as there is nothing that can usefully be done to prepare for them. If the FSCS didn't have the money the levy on firms would be increased, and as a last resort the taxpayer would step in, and if the taxpayer couldn't stump up the UK Government would print the money. (Not relevant in Austria where they don't have their own currency.)

Let's not muddy the waters and do LC&F's job for them by starting on the "all investments have some risk" duckspeak. If "This ultra-high-risk bond is just as safe as an FSCS deposit because it's asset-backed derp" fails, then the next line in the playbook is "An FSCS-backed deposit is just as risky as an ultra high risk bond, because the Government might withdraw FSCS cover derp". The Government reneging on FSCS cover is an apocalypse scenario. A micro-cap startup defaulting on its borrowings is an extremely commonplace scenario that happens all the time, and should be expected on a regular basis by anyone investing in loans to micro-cap startup businesses.

Holeydel

Blimey, what a response from you guys! bravo, you've genuinely made me laugh. I can't go through the names, but there have been some brilliant, factual posts here by members since my first post (which for some reason has been deleted, but is quoted). To those people, thank you for the info and I appreciate the worthwhile response that has given me real info.

And then there's the others - you guys rock. It doesn't matter if it's a MSE forum, a carpentry forum or a forum for Minecraft, forums are all the same when a newbie joins - you always get those certain members with a big old number next to their post count with nothing to contribute except misquotes which they go off down the rabbit hole with. For example...

AnotherJoe wrote: »

But you are a self confessed know-nothing about financial matters, so your thoughts should be irrelevant even to you.

'Not particularly clued up' does not mean self confessed know nothing - I'm not going to explain the difference either. As for telling me my thoughts should be irrelevant to myself, that's just plain old arrogance from your side.

EachPenny wrote: »

The rapid switch from "I'm new here and don't really know what I'm talking about but..." to "I'm right and you experienced people are wrong" does suggest something fishy is going on... :whistle:

You'd have thought real newbies who are not sure of themselves would be asking a lot of questions by now....

This one was brilliant as it triggered a number of responses. That bold bit EachPenny, the part creating point of your response, well that just a made up blatant lie on your part. I haven't even said anything remotely close to this. Other stuff quoted has been taken out of context but this one here, I'm chuckling to myself as I write this. Now I'm what, a linguistic scholar, genius even, who made a sensible investment and now kicking back in blissful ignorance, Oh and I'm American, or at least one of me is. You guys need to remove the tin foil hat and get out some (I recommend Oman - great place).

All this cos mocking cos I made a naively optimistic investment and I dared to join MSE's forum and say that so far it's going alright? You do realise I've nether praised / recommended / suggested others should follow my lead? No of course not, cos then you'd have nothing to say to add to your post count. I may be foolish, inexperienced and gullible but it could be much worse, I could have the qualities in my persona that you're displaying in this forum.

And I got to say it again cos my post has detracted from the topic. Thanks again to the members who have given sound, solid info - it's a shame your posts are surround by such daft assumptions, but I have taken something from them, ta'.