London Capital and Finance

edited 1 September 2016 at 1:14PM in Savings & Investments
2.1K replies 432.3K views
134689208

Replies

  • dunstonhdunstonh Forumite
    107.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    formidible wrote: »
    London Capital & Finance have a 100% payout record over the last three years.

    https://www.londoncapitalandfinance.co.uk/?term=3&utm_source=BSR&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=3%20year

    Bernie Madoff managed 49 years. Although his bent activity didnt come until later.

    Endowments paid surpluses without fail for over 100 years.

    No retail bank had failed in the modern era until 2008 when several did.

    Risks are risks because they could happen or will happen but you dont know when. Complacency can set in the longer a risk fails to happen. However, it does not mean the risk is not present. Run across a road without looking 10 ten times and you may survive all ten times or you may be killed on your first go.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • jimjamesjimjames Forumite
    15.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    formidible wrote: »
    London Capital & Finance have a 100% payout record over the last three years.

    https://www.londoncapitalandfinance.co.uk/?term=3&utm_source=BSR&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=3%20year

    Nice independent source for that statement there! I'm not claiming it's untrue but relying on a company's website for facts to base a decision that could lose 100% of your money seems a little bit unsafe to me.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
  • SledgerSledger Forumite
    106 Posts
    Fifth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    I recently invested the min 10k with them and the principal of their business seems sound in that they lent money to companies who secure the loan with company assists. Similar to PEER to PEER lending but with LCF you have the additional company asset guarantee if the borrowing Company defaults, . Basically the logic seems sound as if you lent out money at say 12-15% and pay investors 8% there is a nice margin to be made. Building Societies succeed on the same principle but with a lot lower margin but have a higher turnover. Price Waterhouse audited their April 2016 accounts positively which LCF gave me the link which I still need to verify as legitimate. I am still cautious as want to invest a lot more so need to visit LCF offices and get further clarification on the numerous Company House PDF's that are freely available. The change in company name and turnover of Directors being the main issue
    .LONDON CAPITAL & FINANCE LIMITED 01 Jul 2015 - 11 Nov 2015
    SALES AID FINANCE (ENGLAND) LIMITED 18 Feb 2013 - 01 Jul 2015
    SOUTH EASTERN COUNTIES FINANCE LIMITED 28 Jan 2013 - 18 Feb 2013
    SALES AID FINANCE (ENGLAND) LIMITED 21 Sep 2012 - 28 Jan 2013
    SOUTH EASTERN COUNTIES FINANCE LIMITED 12 Jul 2012 - 21 Sep 2012
    I would like some positive feedback from some of the past investors whose Bonds have matured. Another issue here is marketing as I found out about them only by chance. If my Building society charged Mortgage customers 14% and paid investors 8% the only question asked would be they are greedy and should pay me 10%. If LCF borrowing increases they need the punters to buy Bonds and the 8%is is the lure. I would really be pleased to get any feedback to convince me to invest with LCF or avoid them like the Plague. so I can get off the barb wire on top of the fence.
  • edited 22 February 2019 at 11:17AM
    HarryhindsightHarryhindsight Forumite
    1 Post
    edited 22 February 2019 at 11:17AM
    First time on this forum. I am looking to invest a small chunk of my savings in something perhaps more higher risk but with higher return.

    I have looked at who owns the company. The CEO {Text removed by MSE Forum Team} is on LinkedIn which for me is a small plus.

    What worried me is that they market themselves as a PLC when in fact they are Ltd. This could be for a number of reasons but I remember when my family's company wanted to be listed on the AIM. They began the process... changed their name to a PLC and then banks wanted a massive increase in fees to finish the job so we were forced to procrastinate. So even though they were Ltd they could in theory call themselves a PLC.

    I want the bulk of my savings in something that is not risky and provides a regular return. If I have a small amount in more risky assets but can like with that being wiped out then that is my choice and that is how I would approach my savings goal. If this business is investing the bulk of its cash in building/construction then I would avoid it as imho house prices are likely to fall.

    Hope this helps but in any case good luck with your son's new home - he may be entering the market just at the right time!
  • MalthusianMalthusian Forumite
    9.3K Posts
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    Sledger wrote:
    Similar to PEER to PEER lending but with LCF you have the additional company asset guarantee if the borrowing Company defaults

    This guarantee is only as good as the company behind it. Such guarantees are often worth little more than the paper they are written on.
    Building Societies succeed on the same principle but with a lot lower margin but have a higher turnover.
    Building societies accept deposits, are subject to stringent capital adequacy regulations, and if they do go bust their depositors are covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. None of that applies to LC&F so they cannot be compared.
    Price Waterhouse audited their April 2016 accounts positively which LCF gave me the link which I still need to verify as legitimate.
    PWC would have done nothing more than audit the accounts and issue an unqualified opinion that as far as they can tell the books are in order, the assets and liabilities are what they say they are and no dodgy accounting is taking place. That doesn't tell you anything about whether the business will remain viable in the near or distant future. (That is assuming that they did issue an unqualified opinion, but you have to be really brazenly dodgy for an accountant to bring himself to issue a qualified opinion.)
    I am still cautious as want to invest a lot more so need to visit LCF offices and get further clarification on the numerous Company House PDF's that are freely available.
    You are considerably overestimating your ability to predict the future profitability and creditworthiness of a privately run limited company.
    I would like some positive feedback from some of the past investors whose Bonds have matured

    I have no reason to think they haven't been paid back what they owed, but it's of little relevance as you aren't investing your money when they did.
  • edited 22 February 2019 at 11:17AM
    MalthusianMalthusian Forumite
    9.3K Posts
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 22 February 2019 at 11:17AM
    I have looked at who owns the company. The CEO {Text removed by MSE Forum Team} is on LinkedIn which for me is a small plus.

    Seriously? Anyone can create a social media profile. There are some outright scams (not that I believe this is one of them) whose perpetrators have very active profiles on Twitter and the like.
    What worried me is that they market themselves as a PLC when in fact they are Ltd.

    Well, they are a PLC in the strict sense - although the point of a PLC is that its shares can be sold to the public they don't have to. But I agree with what you are driving at. They do seem to be using the letters PLC for marketing purposes. But really this is a trivial issue as far as the risk of investing your money in a single company that could see a total and permanent 100% loss is concerned.
  • edited 22 February 2019 at 11:17AM
    dunstonhdunstonh Forumite
    107.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 22 February 2019 at 11:17AM
    I have looked at who owns the company. The CEO {Text removed by MSE Forum Team} is on LinkedIn which for me is a small plus.

    Being on social media is no indication of anything. In fact, there was a recent dodgy scheme that got a lot of coverage on this site and ended up in the financial press where they had active social media but it turned out the person was made up and was using stock photos. The scheme was also unregulated and being incorrect promoted.

    You cannot use social media activity or existence as a badge of security.
    I want the bulk of my savings in something that is not risky and provides a regular return. If I have a small amount in more risky assets but can like with that being wiped out then that is my choice and that is how I would approach my savings goal. If this business is investing the bulk of its cash in building/construction then I would avoid it as imho house prices are likely to fall.

    So, use conventional options then. Dont use unregulated stuff with 100% capital loss potential. It seems daft to have a bulk at one end of the risk scale and a little right at the other end but ignore all the options in between.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • Steve: saw your posts earlier this year. Curious to know your position on LC&F now? They are member of FCA reg no 722603 - whatever that means. I am trying to keep safe, savings for personal health care in future as I have life-quality-reducing and life-limiting condition. Actually would rather give it to charity if i had normal health :)
  • bowlhead99bowlhead99 Forumite
    12.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Post of the Month
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Steve: saw your posts earlier this year. Curious to know your position on LC&F now?
    The LC&F offering has not changed substantially, remaining unsuitable for savers or mainstream investors. It is a specialist offering for sophisticated, high net worth or restricted investors (FCA definitions).
    They are member of FCA reg no 722603 - whatever that means. I am trying to keep safe, savings for personal health care in future as I have life-quality-reducing and life-limiting condition
    It means that they are licensed for secondary credit broking, which is far removed from the regulated activities which would be useful to you, such as taking customer deposits. Their investment options involve potential 100% loss of capital without any FSCS protection.

    Would you qualify as a sophisticated or high net worth investor? Like, you have income over £100k a year, net assets of over £250k excluding your home and value under insurance or pension contracts, or you work in private equity, or as a director of a company turning over £1m+ and have made multiple investments in unlisted companies in the last couple of years. Or you always invest under 10% of you money in things that can't be easily cashed in (restricted investor).

    Given your goal of keeping your money safe over a limited lifespan, it seems like investing in bonds which offer 100% loss potential would seem unwise. Did you read all the other posts in the thread from experienced and longstanding forum members? If not, do that.
Sign In or Register to comment.
LATEST NEWS AND DEALS