London Capital and Finance

masonic

billyolly wrote: »

The frustrating thing is that for decades individuals and companies have been able to hide behind multiple names and at the stroke of a pen not be accountable.The people who where trusted with investing peoples money where either totally incompetent for not acting in the investors best intest and I my opinion should be investigated.Where they fit and proper people and company’s to be entrusted with peoples money,they should be checked.As tax payers don’t we all have right to have our voices listened to?

Companies are tax payers too, and generally have better lobbying powers than individuals. Financial companies offering regulated products have a lot more accountability than those offering unregulated products. To buy an unregulated financial product, you need to give up consumer rights you would have had in the case of a corresponding regulated product.

The professional and high net worth/sophisticated investors who are permitted to invest in these products should be expected to do their own due diligence and evaluate these risks for themselves. It is not a good use of taxpayer money to protect rich people from losing money in speculative investments.

LCF was offering unregulated products, which was clear in the contract but not the advertising. LCF is being investigated by the FCA for this reason. If it wasn't for the advertising, there would be no investigation, nor should there be. The FCA should be making an effort to discover and take action against any company that markets high risk, unregulated investments to normal consumers because this is unlawful. But that doesn't mean all high risk, unregulated investments to small unquoted companies should be banned or investigated.

Sledger

Quote "Small business survival rates are as high as 91 per cent after one year of trading, but after five years just four in ten small businesses will still be trading, research finds".
Maybe if Companies House had a much tighter control on the entries made per person and flagged up suspect filing ones to a independent investigative body that would be a deterrent and re categories them as %^*&£$ rather than failures which would also improve the failure statistics. Our maze has a lot of weeding requiring a good dose of Roundup

Jelli

LCF was presenting itself as a FCA regulated company offering products to normal income consumers like me. I had no reason to suspect anything untoward and viewed them like any other UK financial institution that is regulated. I knew they weren't covered by the FSCS but that was all. I still viewed them as a green-lit UK company that followed all laws/rules because of that regulation, but now know the "FCA regulated" label meant something else.

masonic

Jelli wrote: »

LCF was presenting itself as a FCA regulated company offering products to normal income consumers like me. I had no reason to suspect anything untoward and viewed them like any other UK financial institution that is regulated. I knew they weren't covered by the FSCS but that was all. I still viewed them as a green-lit UK company that followed all laws/rules because of that regulation, but now know the "FCA regulated" label meant something else.

What did you think the phrase "Please note that the bonds and ISAs are not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority and not protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme" meant?

What did you think the phrase "Our products are aimed at retail clients who are UK taxpayers & who fall in the category of either High Net Worth Individual, Sophisticated, or Self Certified Sophisticated Investor or Restricted Investor" meant?

bail-in

masonic wrote: »

LCF was offering unregulated products, which was clear in the contract but not the advertising. LCF is being investigated by the FCA for this reason. If it wasn't for the advertising, there would be no investigation, nor should there be. The FCA should be making an effort to discover and take action against any company that markets high risk, unregulated investments to normal consumers because this is unlawful. But that doesn't mean all high risk, unregulated investments to small unquoted companies should be banned.

The FCA admitted by LCF, are concerned in the investigation about protecting the bondholders. Both before and after investing. The FCA in all likelihood as is the usual approach communicated through notices and perhaps interviews with LCF to change their advertising. That change did not happen. So the FCA took the next step. But the steps of freezing LCF accounts and dealing with assets look like taking steps to protect bondholder capital and assets as well as preventing expenditure on advertising. Those steps may or may not have happened anyway if LCF had cooperated. However, I may be wrong.

masonic

bail-in wrote: »

The FCA admitted by LCF, are concerned in the investigation about protecting the bondholders. Both before and after investing. The FCA in all likelihood as is the usual approach communicated through notices and perhaps interviews with LCF to change their advertising. That change did not happen. So the FCA took the next step. But the steps of freezing LCF accounts and dealing with assets look like taking steps to protect bondholder capital and assets as well as preventing expenditure on advertising. Those steps may or may not have happened anyway if LCF had cooperated. However, I may be wrong.

I don't doubt that the FCA is now trying to protect the interests of consumers who were misled by the advertising. We don't yet know why the FCA took the unusual action of freezing LCF's assets. It should be noted that this would have required the FCA to apply to the High Court and present evidence that this was a necessary measure. There could be other reasons to freeze the assets. We don't know what the investigation prior to this step had revealed - perhaps a flight of capital. The trouble is, I don't believe the FCA is sufficiently competent to be effective in outmanoeuvring LCF and friends.

Jelli

masonic wrote: »

What did you think the phrase "Please note that the bonds and ISAs are not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority and not protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme" meant?

What did you think the phrase "Our products are aimed at retail clients who are UK taxpayers & who fall in the category of either High Net Worth Individual, Sophisticated, or Self Certified Sophisticated Investor or Restricted Investor" meant?

I don't think it said "aimed at retail clients" during my application. There were a number of questions and I falled under "restricted investor" at the end.

[X] I confirm that in the past year I have not invested more than 10% of my money, in investments that are not easily cashed in (for example investments that are not listed on a recognised stock exchange, where you could easily sell them).

[_] I undertake that over the next 12 months, I will not invest more than 10% of my net assets in investments that are not easy to cash in (for example investments that are not listed on a recognised stock exchange).

[_] I have an annual income of £100,000 or more in the past year.

[_] I have net assets of £250,000 or more. NB: not including the house I live in and – if applicable – any rights under an insurance contract or pension or termination benefits.

[_] In the last 2 years I have been a director of a company with a turnover of £1 million or more.

[_] In the last 2 years I have made more than one investment in an unlisted company. I.e. not listed on a recognised stock exchange.

[_] Within the past 2 years I have worked in Private Equity or for a company which provides finance to small and medium sized businesses.

[_] Has been certified as a Sophisticated Investor by a suitably qualified and regulated individual.

Based on your answers you fall into the following categories. Please tick the one that is most applicable.

Restricted Investor
I am not investing more than 10% of my net assets

bail-in

Jelli wrote: »

LCF was presenting itself as a FCA regulated company offering products to normal income consumers like me. I had no reason to suspect anything untoward and viewed them like any other UK financial institution that is regulated. I knew they weren't covered by the FSCS but that was all. I still viewed them as a green-lit UK company that followed all laws/rules because of that regulation, but now know the "FCA regulated" label meant something else.

Many new investors think like that. Some simply look on the FCA website to see if the company is authorised often missing or being unaware of the drop down menu with all the specific permissions. There is a lot to know if you decide to do your own investing. Moneysavingexpert is useful and helpful, and there is a lot to learn about the different types of investments and commercial, financial and legal due diligence. As there is in other professions and areas of knowledge and education. For most it is best to stay with protected retail investment products. It is a problem that interest rates are so low.

masonic

Jelli wrote: »

I don't think it said "aimed at retail clients" during my application. There were a number of questions and I falled under "restricted investor" at the end.

[X] I confirm that in the past year I have not invested more than 10% of my money, in investments that are not easily cashed in (for example investments that are not listed on a recognised stock exchange, where you could easily sell them).

[_] I undertake that over the next 12 months, I will not invest more than 10% of my net assets in investments that are not easy to cash in (for example investments that are not listed on a recognised stock exchange).

[_] I have an annual income of £100,000 or more in the past year.

[_] I have net assets of £250,000 or more. NB: not including the house I live in and – if applicable – any rights under an insurance contract or pension or termination benefits.

[_] In the last 2 years I have been a director of a company with a turnover of £1 million or more.

[_] In the last 2 years I have made more than one investment in an unlisted company. I.e. not listed on a recognised stock exchange.

[_] Within the past 2 years I have worked in Private Equity or for a company which provides finance to small and medium sized businesses.

[_] Has been certified as a Sophisticated Investor by a suitably qualified and regulated individual.

Based on your answers you fall into the following categories. Please tick the one that is most applicable.

Restricted Investor
I am not investing more than 10% of my net assets

I took the quotes in my earlier post from the front page of the LCF website as it appeared in August 2018 (link)

The questionnaire is useful, thanks. So you certified that you would not invest more than 10% of your net assets. You invested £61,000, suggesting your net assets are in excess of £610,000, which would put you in the High Net Worth Individual category as you should also have ticked the box "I have net assets of £250,000 or more".

Jelli

Sorry I should of said I invested 61k over 3 years. Each investment was between £5000-£10000 and was from savings, some old 5 year bonds that matured (Castle Trust), a few sold items and LCF interest being re-invested. My net assets are zero with a yearly income of 12k.

Only the first question was relevant to me.