London Capital and Finance

billyolly

It just says LONDON & CAPITOL FINANCE PLC FORUM

bail-in

I wonder how it is the once frequently updated LC&F website claimed hundreds of LC&F commercial borrowers, confirmed by telephone with LC&F staff and directors, yet the Accounts only show 11 or so wholesale borrowers. There is little evidence in the Returns at Companies House of the 11 or so borrowers to support that they were relending to hundreds of borrowers thereby supposedly supporting the claim the risk of default was well spread. LC&F directors always refused to give any info or evidence of any commercial lending, including insurance underwriting. I doubt very much the administrators will find any secured assets re these hundreds of virtual borrowers.

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

The potential consequences of submitting false information verified by a statement of truth would be contempt of court sanctions or prosecution for perjury. So it is reasonable for the administrators to accept the statement of affairs as being accurate in the first instance. Of course it should be carefully checked in the fullness of time.

I'd agree that a statement of facts would be appropriate. To go beyond that would seem to be both unnecessary and potentially misleading.

For example saying you have a list of loans and the assets is factual. To say that all loans are performing and that the assets are in place could be misleading unless they have checked & valued the security of all collateral in the space of 2 days. If they've done that then job over.

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/02/lcf-administrators-issues.html

They also failed to mention that LCF may only have 12 borrowers but if those companies lent money on then the tracing assets will be substantially harder as well as LCF not having any charge over those assets.

rr755507

{text removed by MSE Forum Team}

Completely agree with everything, intrigued by your username.

robatwork

billyolly wrote: »

The bond holders seem to say keep calm and carry on the Action Group don’t seem so positive and seem to be lead by some one from a claims management company.
I personally like a lot of the information on this site ,I don’t feel confident that I will be much of my money back.

I guess by its nature, everyone who invested in LC&F is a betting (wo)man.

So my bet is you will get back 0p in the £.

Anything you get back should be seen as a bonus. As said ^^^ it would be good to see a criminal investigation launched once the administrators have finished.

Malthusian

rr755507 wrote: »

Completely agree with everything, intrigued by your username.

{text removed by MSE Forum Team} is closely associated with London Capital & Finance, although not a director (he is serving a ban from acting as a director until this April).

{text removed by MSE Forum Team} is connected with an individual named {text removed by MSE Forum Team} or {text removed by MSE Forum Team}. They were both directors of a company called Clydesdale Property Developments which was dissolved in 2015. They were also both directors of another company called S.G. Autos Limited which was dissolved in 2004 (where {text removed by MSE Forum Team} first name was listed as {Text removed by MSE Forum Team}). A quick Google suggests that {text removed by MSE Forum Team} is, like {text removed by MSE Forum Team}, a significant figure in the horse racing world.

Given the unusual spelling of "{text removed by MSE Forum Team}", it would be surprising if "{text removed by MSE Forum Team}"'s username was purely coincidental.

Only the OP knows how they are acquainted with {text removed by MSE Forum Team} and {text removed by MSE Forum Team}.

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

I'd agree that a statement of facts would be appropriate. To go beyond that would seem to be both unnecessary and potentially misleading.

For example saying you have a list of loans and the assets is factual. To say that all loans are performing and that the assets are in place could be misleading unless they have checked & valued the security of all collateral in the space of 2 days. If they've done that then job over.

It was stressed in the interview that bondholders loans to LCF are only secured on the assets of LCF, which doesn't really offer any additional security because LCF owes them the money anyway (this isn't true BTW, as bondholders will rank ahead of other unsecured creditors). I don't believe any comment was made relating to bondholders having additional protection by way of charges against other companies registered in favour of LCF.

I only listened to the interview once, but my takeaway was that at best S&W had verified that LCF had charges registered against each of the companies it lent money, that none of those loans were non-performing, and that the "hope" was that they'd repay. There wasn't any discussion about what could happen if they didn't, or if those charges were worth anything - although I might be misremembering.

From what I've seen, charges are just debentures over any unspecified assets of the companies. If, as suspected, loans were interest only and made with retained interest, loans would be performing regardless of the ability of the companies to make any repayments. Loans of this type get tested at the final bullet repayment. Some companies may well have become accustomed to renewing with rolled up interest added to the loans.

bail-in

The description "uneducated, rough talking" applies to who? Names please. Certainly does not apply to the directors of LC&F who are, at least in my limited conversational experience and reading their CVs, polite, hard working, well-educated and well spoken; as I am!

bail-in

The description "uneducated, rough talking" applies to who? Names please. Certainly does not apply to the directors of LC&F who are, at least in my limited conversational experience and reading their CVs, are polite, hard working, well-educated and well spoken, as I am

jimjames

Looks like the alarm was raised on LCF even earlier than originally thought. An IFA reported them to FCA back in 2015 according to the Evening Standard

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/watchdog-was-warned-early-on-highrisk-lender-a4059191.html