London Capital and Finance

jimjames

Sledger wrote: »

when the FCA froze assets anybody got a idea as to the extent of this ie was LOC and other LCF buffer companies frozen

That article you linked would indicate that nothing other than LCF was frozen which would make sense. It's quite a web of companies so would presumably need a court order to freeze along with some justification why a borrower should be frozen.

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/01/lcf-linked-borrowers-company-structure.html

billyolly

Can I thank everyone who spent a lot time looking at LCF, it has been interesting to look at the web of companies involved.Did I read that a Facebook group might or already have been set up by disgruntled LCF bond holders?

bail-in

Wonder where Buss Murton Law fits into this LCF wholesale lending flow chart. They had a company which financially backed the Lakeview Country Club development.

jimjames

billyolly wrote: »

Can I thank everyone who spent a lot time looking at LCF, it has been interesting to look at the web of companies involved.Did I read that a Facebook group might or already have been set up by disgruntled LCF bond holders?

There are 2 Facebook groups, one seems to be somewhat pro LCF and booting off anyone who isn't positive enough which is worrying, the other is called London Capital & Finance Action Group where investors are looking at options to protect their investments with some legal advice there too.

veryintrigued

billyolly wrote: »

Can I thank everyone who spent a lot time looking at LCF, it has been interesting to look at the web of companies involved.Did I read that a Facebook group might or already have been set up by disgruntled LCF bond holders?

This is a tremendous example of the knowledge of the forumites on here.

Whilst a terrible read for those who've invested it's a great example of the time and tenacity some of the good folks on here are willing to sacrifice for others.

Good work.

billyolly

I have been informed that some people on Facebook claim they have it in writing there bonds are covered by the FSCS scheme.I am not on Facebook,has anyone seen these claims?

sully1311

billyolly wrote: »

I have been informed that some people on Facebook claim they have it in writing there bonds are covered by the FSCS scheme.I am not on Facebook,has anyone seen these claims?

They can claim whatever they like. The bonds are unregulated. They're not protected.

jimjames

billyolly wrote: »

I have been informed that some people on Facebook claim they have it in writing there bonds are covered by the FSCS scheme.I am not on Facebook,has anyone seen these claims?

I think what some people are trying to hang on to is that on another unregulated investment scheme that went bust the promotion was approved by a regulated entity and they managed the security trustee. Following a protracted legal battle they have been declared liable and have gone into liquidation. As a result FSCS are inviting claims.

However this is a very different situation so I think they're being a bit ambitious to think that especially when all literature clearly said it was not covered and they would also need to launch a successful legal claim to get to that stage.

https://bondreview.co.uk/2019/01/07/fscs-invites-secured-energy-and-providence-investors-to-submit-claims-over-independent-portfolio-managers/

I definitely don't believe anyone could possibly have in writing that FSCS are covering London Capital's unregulated bonds. There does seem to be some confusion on the Facebook group with people complaining to FCA and FOS about the situation without realising that the whole point of an unregulated bond is that there is no regulator.

Update - the LCF website clearly says that the bonds are NOT covered by FSCS in their latest updates https://www.londoncapitalandfinance.co.uk/

Jelli

Some of the users have verbally spoken to FSCS who have told them they're covered, but they haven't received that in writing yet which is important.

It has been said if the company itself is FCA regulated and liquidates FSCS cover applies, but if borrowers default (or vanish?) then they aren't. It's the regulated company that gives the FSCS protection, not the unregulated bonds or borrowers.

I'm confused and off to bed. Maybe I haven't interpreted things right, but... *snooore!*

masonic

Jelli wrote: »

Some of the users have verbally spoken to FSCS who have told them they're covered, but they haven't received that in writing yet which is important.

It has been said if the company itself is FCA regulated and liquidates FSCS cover applies, but if borrowers default (or vanish?) then they aren't. It's the regulated company that gives the FSCS protection, not the unregulated bonds or borrowers.

I'm confused and off to bed. Maybe I haven't interpreted things right, but... *snooore!*

The important thing to note is the LCF is the borrower in this case and all loans were made directly to LCF. So it is certainly correct to say if the borrower (LCF) defaults then cover would not apply. People have been hoodwinked into thinking they were lending directly to other borrowers via some sort of P2P arrangement, which is also exempt from cover if the platform goes bust, so there is no scenario in which FSCS cover could apply, except in the case people received regulated financial advice from an FCA authorised adviser to invest in these products (which of course would never happen).