London Capital and Finance

bail-in · 11 January 2019 at 10:04PM

Re: Business focus: Too good to be true - how high-risk bonds are marketed to an unsuspecting public | London Evening Standard by Jim Armitage.

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-focus-too-good-to-be-true-how-highrisk-bonds-are-marketed-to-an-unsuspecting-public-a4035436.html

Published insights by Jim Armitage, Evening Standard, re mini-bonds into the working and marketing relationships between {text removed by MSE Forum Team} and RPDigital. Oh yes, also the officers of Blackmore Bonds. On the subject of Blackmore Bonds and {text removed by MSE Forum Team} see
https://pension-life.com/blackmore-bond-shaken-not-stirred-careless-or-stupid/

Perhaps Jim Armitage could write a similar insiteful article on the hidden workings of the London Capital and Finance Wholesale Lending business using intermediaries for the lending instead of LCF claim as to being a direct lender to the commercial borrowers.

Malthusian · 12 January 2019 at 8:45AM

masonic wrote: »

Global Security Trustees Limited (the purported security trustee for the bondholders) holds a debenture over the assets of LCF, but LCF at the time of its last accounts held net assets valued at £298,827 or less than 1% of the value of bonds issued. The initial costs of an Administrator may eat significantly into any such sum. In theory, that debenture extends to book debts, for what that's worth.

For an estate the size of LCF, £298,827 won't even cover the administrators getting out of bed and making themselves a coffee.

But to be both fair and pedantic, £298,827 should be the surplus after all bondholders are paid.

Everything depends on whether the assets side of that equation is in any way accurate.

masonic · 12 January 2019 at 9:30AM

Malthusian wrote: »

For an estate the size of LCF, £298,827 won't even cover the administrators getting out of bed and making themselves a coffee.

But to be both fair and pedantic, £298,827 should be the surplus after all bondholders are paid.

Everything depends on whether the assets side of that equation is in any way accurate.

The assets in question are the book debts of LCF, which include loans to other companies, some of which are secured by debentures over their assets, which themselves include book debts to yet more companies. Traversing this web of relending will require a lot of duplication of effort and cost.

Administrators will need to make a call as to whether taking enforcement action beyond making a formal demand for repayment is likely to yield a positive result for creditors after they deduct fees from the proceeds of liquidation of these secondary and tertiary debtors. It is certainly possible they would make the judgement that it is not cost effective to pursue those debts through the chain of companies through which it passed.

Of course, this would be done on a case by case basis and there may be some cases where such effort is more likely to lead to a positive result after costs than others. I'm not sure we've seen an example of an end borrower in this thread that would be worth pursuing.

On the other hand, borrowers might repay voluntarily and all will be rosy.

skippie · 12 January 2019 at 3:43PM

pienbeans wrote: »

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question in a positive way. I am not new to forums in other subject matters and I'm aware that Newbies sometimes ask for help when it is staring them in the face but I try to be positive when offering help.

At least I may have done something useful by getting the thread back on to Page 1 and stop someone else from throwing their pension lump sum down the drain.

Thanks again!

Lucky escape!!!:eek:

frank_c · 12 January 2019 at 9:03PM

From what I can see there is serious fraud relevant here. Read the article by the Evening standard just google "Standard & London Capital and Finance", I can't post the link. There is also an article from bond review again google it. Interesting reads....

Friends of mine in New Zealand have heard seemingly everything is run by {text removed by MSE Forum Team} even though he is currently serving a directorship ban, hence his money. Just Google or Facebook him that is where everyone's money has gone plain and simple. The other people are just pawns from what they can gather. Apparently its common knowledge in the show jumping world. Oh and didn't they sponsor showjumping events like Osbourne house?

One does start to wonder how this is legal and It begs the question is money saving expert even independent???

standard.co.uk/business/business-focus-too-good-to-be-true-how-highrisk-bonds-are-marketed-to-an-unsuspecting-public-a4035436.html%3famp

bondreview.co.uk/2019/01/10/london-capital-finance-roundup-investors-money-loaned-out-to-firms-controlled-by-lcf-directors-and-mortgaged-to-a-company-in-malta/

jimjames · 12 January 2019 at 9:04PM

Next week will be an important week for LCF. Will we find out their latest accounts or will they use the account filing loophole to delay again?

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/01/london-capital-finance-what-happens-next.html

With all the focus on them now from investors we'll know by the end of the week if they're going to try to allay worried bondholders or if they will try to keep the information secret for another 3 months while the FCA investigate. Previously unless investors were eagle-eyed monitoring MSE they would have no clue that LCF were doing this.

frank_c wrote: »

One does start to wonder how this is legal and It begs the question is money saving expert even independent???

What has it got to do with MSE? Posters on here have been warning about LCF since 2015 with sufficient information to warn off most of the people who thought it was a bank account. There's only one bold enough to admit they accepted the risk and went ahead in full knowledge.

It's an unregulated investment. Not regulated by anyone. So you can't complain to a regulator if it all goes wrong. Lending money to timeshares and small oil companies is incredibly high risk - for the lenders at least.

masonic · 12 January 2019 at 9:09PM

frank_c wrote: »

Oh and didn't they sponsor showjumping events like Osbourne house?

Yes, covered earlier in the thread. A lot of money was spent on such things. Probably borrowed money.

One does start to wonder how this is legal and It begs the question is money saving expert even independent???

Clearly MSE is not independent, having been bought by MoneySupermarket. But MSE never promoted LCF. It's clear if you've followed events on the forums that posts have been redacted and removed at the behest of companies like LCF, and posters have even faced warnings and temporary bans, but the message has still been loud and clear not to touch such products with a bargepole.

Libel laws are a big problem in the UK, and I don't blame MSE for taking action to avoid being taken to court.

masonic · 12 January 2019 at 9:17PM

jimjames wrote: »

Next week will be an important week for LCF. Will we find out their latest accounts or will they use the account filing loophole to delay again?

Late accounts will result in strike off action being initiated, but there's a 2 month window in which they can deal with that by filing or using the loophole. Or perhaps the company being dissolved wouldn't be such a bad outcome at this point. Normally creditors get very jumpy in such a situation as assets are deemed bona vacantia and revert to the Crown. In this case, the main creditor would be Global Security Trustees Limited... :think:

jimjames · 12 January 2019 at 9:21PM

masonic wrote: »

Late accounts will result in strike off action being initiated, but there's a 2 month window in which they can deal with that by filing or using the loophole. Or perhaps the company being dissolved wouldn't be such a bad outcome at this point. Normally creditors get very jumpy in such a situation as assets are deemed bona vacantia and revert to the Crown. In this case, the main creditor would be Global Security Trustees Limited... :think:

I'd assumed that they might use the loophole to avoid a breach with the spotlight on them but we'll know by the end of the week. The ultimate owner of LCF is a company called London Financial Group, also due to file accounts this month.

Last accounts showed the owed £2007 more to creditors than their assets.
https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/01/who-owns-london-capital-finance.html

I'm sure the bondholders will be fascinated to see where some of their money might have gone

https://www.facebook.com/bedemanagement/videos/2059062010792945/

masonic · 12 January 2019 at 9:48PM

jimjames wrote: »

I'd assumed that they might use the loophole to avoid a breach with the spotlight on them but we'll know by the end of the week. The ultimate owner of LCF is a company called London Financial Group, also due to file accounts this month.

Last accounts showed the owed £2007 more to creditors than their assets.
https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/01/who-owns-london-capital-finance.html

Interesting, it looks like more than one member of the {text removed by MSE Forum Team} family is involved in that holding company. I'm struggling to make the connection given {text removed by MSE Forum Team} had a 100% shareholding of LCF according to the last set of LCF accounts and was named as ultimate controlling party.

Edit: I see the share transaction was filed in the confirmation statement made on 1st July 2018, but as the date of the transfer was 20th December 2016, it seems the accounts made up to 30th April 2017 should have disclosed this change.

London Capital and Finance

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free