London Capital and Finance

masonic

Botheredin wrote: »

But no impropriety or liability back to the operators if it's above board right?

Yes, my previous post was a little unclear - this would be the way to do it without breaking any laws, although I wouldn't describe as above board

Edit: and I should add, while you bear all of the risk of failure, they stand to gain much more than you if the venture happens to succeed (or indeed if it doesn't).

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

Yes, my previous post was a little unclear - this would be the way to do it without breaking any laws, although I wouldn't describe as above board

Edit: and I should add, while you bear all of the risk of failure, they stand to gain much more than you if the venture happens to succeed (or indeed if it doesn't).

Something like this?


The difference would be approx 20%. Notional value = amount of bondholder capital?

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

Something like this?


The difference would be approx 20%. Notional value = amount of bondholder capital?

Nicely found! Yes that unequivocally confirms what has been going on.

Botheredin

masonic wrote: »

Nicely found! Yes that unequivocally confirms what has been going on.

So it was taken upfront or am I missing something?

masonic

Botheredin wrote: »

So it was taken upfront or am I missing something?

All of the money was lent, but part of the loan was retained by LCF. Essentially the borrower paid for the commission using part of the money lent to it.

Botheredin

masonic wrote: »

All of the money was lent, but part of the loan was retained by LCF. Essentially the borrower paid for the commission using part of the money lent to it.

Sounds like tomato / tomatoe... So they get away with it?

System

So say i have a house worth 284k .

I want to borrow 47k to improve it. The bank says that over term it will cost me 11k in interest to borrow, so i borrow 58k.

So dont i then owe interst on the extra 11k?

Sorry for being dim!

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

Nicely found! Yes that unequivocally confirms what has been going on.

Cheers for confirming what I thought. It's been in plain sight of us all since early 2018 when the LCF accounts were filed!

Probably the reason they didn't publish the 2017 accounts as they would have shown a figure of approx £50 million if the same ratio applies. Maybe the auditors refused to sign it off once the numbers were so big?

I guess those sorts of numbers are how you pay for "Surge Fest" for staff including branded sunglasses and all the free perks at the offices where they marketed the LCF bonds

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/02/surge-financial-lcf-blackmore.html

{Edited by Forum Team}

masonic

Botheredin wrote: »

Sounds like tomato / tomatoe... So they get away with it?

They would argue that they lend all of the money and the loans were secured on assets valued at (not necessarily worth ) more than the loans, so the product did what it said on the tin.

What's less clear is how they could operate a regulated lending business that made loans on those terms. But... if those loans are found to be unsound, then bondholders would not benefit from them being voided as that would invalidate any claim they had over the assets.

Botheredin

masonic wrote: »

They would argue that they lend all of the money and the loans were secured on assets valued at (not necessarily worth ) more than the loans, so the product did what it said on the tin.

What's less clear is how they could operate a regulated lending business that made loans on those terms. But... if those loans are found to be unsound, then bondholders would not benefit from them being voided as that would invalidate any claim they had over the assets.

So, if all the common directors are sitting on the same companies and those values of assets assigned to those companies has been overinflated to cover the interest /commission amounts what then?