Funding Circle vs London Capital

eskbanker

dont_use_vistaprint wrote: »

So basically, what you saying is that when they they paid 100% of promised interest on time over the last 5 years are lying ?

I understand now, thank you for enlightening me

If that's the message you took from what Malthusian posted, then it's not surprising that you've fallen for what LC&F are telling you!

Malthusian

dont_use_vistaprint wrote: »

So basically, what you saying is that when they they paid 100% of promised interest on time over the last 5 years are lying ?

No.

I understand now

No you don't.

Thank you for providing further data on the question of whether London Capital & Finance bonds are only being promoted to sophisticated and high net worth investors, as required by law.

dunstonh

So basically, what you saying is that when they they paid 100% of promised interest on time over the last 5 years are lying ?

Clearly, his words are not saying that. However, you do have a habit of not taking in what is being said. Slow down a bit and try and understand as it is clear you are not.

Lets say I borrow £100 from you. I tell you that I guarantee to pay you back. However, i then go insolvent/bankrupt. So, there is no money there to pay you back. That is the issue with LC&F. The guarantee is only good if they have the money. If they fail, the guarantee goes with it.

In regulated financial services, firms are not allowed to use the word guaranteed unless there is actual money put aside to cover the guarantee. In the unregulated world (such as LC&F) they can use the word guaranteed without that financial backup.

LC&F is not a scam. It is a very high risk, 100% capital loss potential, unregulated investment. It is not a retail financial services product. These things work until they stop working and there have been a number of failures. The point of failure may be a long time down the road or it could be the next recession or next week. But up to that point, they would have paid all the money correctly. As its not a retail financial services product, there is no FSCS protection and you would lose all your money.

Plus

Picture the scene in the old Western film. The train going over the wooden trestle bridge over the canyon.

I'm a passenger on the train, and I want to safely get to the other side. I don't want to fall to my death in the canyon.

Now, 100% of trains have successfully crossed over the bridge. But that is no comfort to me. If just one hadn't the bridge would have collapsed, they would have immediately closed the line and there would be no trains any more. That it hasn't collapsed yet gives no indication whether it won't in future.

What is a comfort is to know that someone has inspected the bridge, that the timber isn't rotten and the foundations are solid.

What people are trying to convey about this type of investment is it has been inspected and the foundations are shaky. That's why the ticket on this train is cheap. Maybe it will collapse, maybe it won't. If it doesn't collapse, you've done well. If it does collapse, you may end up dead (in the train analogy) or here losing your investment. It isn't good enough to say 'well the people who went before me didn't die so I won't'.

Sometimes it's worth taking risk, but if you accept you want to take risks there are a lot better options out there.

dunstonh

We should have an analogy competition.