London Capital and Finance

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

Watch the wording. I think you'll find it was "up to 20%". I'm guessing that it would be lower for shorter term bonds

EDIT - just checked latest version and it's doesn't say "up to" but I believe previous articles did

The article I linked stated "commissions of 20% or more".

jimjames

Holeydel wrote: »

Maybe it doesn't help, it is solely my point of view and I'm neither praising LCF or suggesting people should avoid LCF. I simply decided to wrote as perspective from an average joe who's put funds into the company. At the moment it's been beneficial. Come January it might be a disaster. This is a risk I've chosen to take, which seems to be the deal when it comes to investing of any nature.

Fascinating that you could predict the future! Any more sage insights?

londoninvestor

Holeydel wrote: »

dunstonh wrote:

Simplicity? Loan notes are not simple. OK, tell us who the top 10 beneficiaries of your money? i.e. who is your money being loaned to?

I have no idea, that's the simplicity of it as a consumer.

Oof. It really was worth insisting on seeing who the money was being lent to...

Malthusian

masonic wrote: »

Property developers and start-up companies are typical borrowers. There have certainly been instances in P2P where borrowers have borrowed all of the money they needed to fund the purpose of the loan, plus all of the money they would need to pay back in interest and fees, and secured it on the assets they needed to buy, with not a penny of their own money at risk.

Which is also a scam, in case anyone is wondering, just one targeting a slightly less unsophisticated audience (P2P punters rather than the general public).

Corporate finance does not work like this.

bail-in

https://www.smithandwilliamson.com/london-capital


London Capital & Finance Plc (in administration)

Finbarr O’Connell, Adam Stephens, Colin Hardman and Henry Shinners all of Smith & Williamson LLP were appointed Joint Administrators of London Capital & Finance Plc on 30 January 2019.

This website will be used to provide clients and creditors with information, and will be updated when information becomes available on the administration of London Capital & Finance Plc (“the Company”).

For further information please refer to the Joint Administrators’ Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) or the Company’s website https://www.londoncapitalandfinance.co.uk

The joint administrators also have a dedicated call centre helpline, website and email address for affected parties. These are:

UK: 0800 046 7006

International: +44 (0)20 3281 1808

(Available Monday – Friday 0800 – 1900 GMT Saturday – 0900 – 1700 GMT)

Email: LondonCapital@smithandwilliamson.com

Website: https://www.londoncapitalandfinance.co.uk

For all press related queries please contact Mark Gee on 0207 131 4597.

The affairs, business and property of the Company are being managed by the joint administrators Finbarr O'Connell, Adam Stephens, Colin Hardman and Henry Shinners who act as agents of the Company and without personal liability. Finbarr O'Connell, Adam Stephens, Colin Hardman and Henry Shinners O'Connell are licensed as insolvency practitioners in the UK by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. London Capital & Finance Plc is incorporated in England and Wales under the Companies Act 2006 with registered number 08140312. The Company is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority with FRN 722603. The Fair Processing Notice in relation to the General Data Protection Regulation can be accessed at https://smithandwilliamson.com/rrsgdpr Should you wish to be supplied with a hard copy, free of charge, please contact Smith & Williamson’s offices.

Supporting documents
Frequently asked questions
Notice of appointment
Press release

Jelli

Regarding Finbarr O’Connell and Adam Stephens who are apart of the Administrators. I was pointed to this video that left me slightly cold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98JtgtnmoB8&list=FLkJIk4hEKmUei0YLqVBuJGQ

Malthusian

Jelli wrote: »

Regarding Finbarr O’Connell and Adam Stephens who are apart of the Administrators?

I lasted about three minutes then gave up. Are there any facts in this video to suggest that {text removed by MSE Forum Team} and {text removed by MSE Forum Team} have done anything illegal, or failed to exercise due care and skill in their insolvency practice? Or is this a case of someone who is just unhappy that the administrators of this Aston Lloyd scheme didn't magically recover money that was already long gone?

The accompanying article suggests the latter. I don't have a long enough lifespan to watch people mumble into a webcam for 20 minutes so if I've missed some facts that were in the video and not in the article, I'm happy to be corrected. The specific allegation appears to be that the victim handed over money to Aston Lloyd for a flat in Turkey but title was never transferred to him, and {text removed by MSE Forum Team} in his capacity as administrator arranged for the flat to be sold as part of the company's assets.

In the absence of Mr {text removed by MSE Forum Team} legally establishing that he had title to the flat, and hadn't simply handed over a load of money to a Ponzi scheme which was then stolen from him, there's no concrete evidence that {text removed by MSE Forum Team} or {text removed by MSE Forum Team} did anything wrong.

I don't have much confidence that LCF's pet administrators are the right people for the job, given that they were appointed by LCF and have shown a disturbing inclination to swallow what they say at face value, but playing devil's advocate, this seems shaky grounds to attack them on.

Jelli

It just sounded like the admin was also in on it, and was their job to finish the screw. I'll take your point on needing proper evidence though.

jimjames

Malthusian wrote: »

I don't have much confidence that LCF's pet administrators are the right people for the job, given that they were appointed by LCF and have shown a disturbing inclination to swallow what they say at face value, but playing devil's advocate, this seems shaky grounds to attack them on.

I think the fact they are appointed by LCF should be of concern to bondholders as I'm sure an administrator that was trying to maximise their return would be better for their chances.

Of more concern is the fact that S&W have already referred to those who bought bonds as ALL being High Net worth or sophisticated investors which might limit action about mis-selling and certainly goes against the FCA ruling from last week.

Secondly I thought the interview with Finbarr of S&W on BBC Moneybox was very odd. On the one hand was saying it was early days but alongside that saying that all money was accounted for in loans that were being repaid and sounding like it was a very positive situation. If it's early days then surely it is far too early to know.

The biggest red flag to me was that LCF had 11 borrowers in 2017 when the loans totalled £60 million. With the current total at £236 million there are only 12 borrowers which means that existing ones have been lent significantly more money rather than spreading the risk across more companies.

Some analysis of the borrowers/loans from LCF is here. It's interesting that a numer of the companies have used the account period loophole to avoid filing accounts meaning the value of loans made are not known.

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/02/london-capital-finance-borrowers-loans.html

Finally and a minor point but I hope that their attention to detail is better for the work they are doing with the administration than their website when they manage to get a typo in the company name

Jelli

jimjames wrote: »

Of more concern is the fact that S&W have already referred to those who bought bonds as ALL being High Net worth or sophisticated investors which might limit action about mis-selling and certainly goes against the FCA ruling from last week.

I wish I could remember where I read things, but someone in the Admin said that was a mistake.

Them being happy with only having to deal with a few borrowers seems to forget the security aspect of only having a few borrowers. If the money was spread across hundreds of companies, instead of 11-12, then a good admin might prefer that? The admin seems just as bs as LC&F.