Investment In Litigation Funding ?

TheNobel1 wrote: »

I thought i done enough research online for what i could find but clearly missing something, and to answer dogs comment . nope not read through the comments on here

You *thought* you done enough research online for what you could find, but then you found this forum thread which had 65 posts of discussion around the merits or otherwise of this high risk unregulated investment. You agree you are clearly missing something. Most people who had read as much as they thought they could find, but realised they may be missing something, and found more insight which had been written by people who understand the investment, insurance or legal landscape.... would read that further information, those forum posts.

But instead, almost proudly, you reiterate that you have not read the comments here. You say that you have a lot of time on your hands but you won't read the information or opinions about the prospective investment here because you are not sad enough to read that stuff. You say everyone should research, but ignorantly claim that you are sure it can't be missold and you have not been misled. Even though people have patiently explained why the protection doesn't mean what you think it means.

i have no need to clutter my brain up reading all the replies and would rather research the actual product.

But your considerations around buying the product involves a consideration of risks to which you'd be exposed. One of the considerations is whether or not you would be adequately protected by FCA/FSCS and from what you have posted, you don't really understand how that works. You say:

Must of missed the answer to the FCA/FSCS feel free to copy and paste so i can read

We don't need to cut and paste it again from this thread to another part of this thread to enable you to read it. You are already reading the thread and you say you have time on your hands, so you can go back and read it, on the thread.

If you think you are 'not sad enough' to read the information people have kindly presented on the thread for the benefit of readers of the thread including yourself, you will have to instead be sad enough to properly read all the FCA regulations and FSCS rules, because otherwise you won't understand the rules, as you currently don't, and may make suboptimal investment decisions due to misunderstanding risk.

Still, no need to clutter up your pretty little head with opinions from people who are investment-savvy. Just do the direct research yourself, to the extent the information is available and reliable and you have a clue what you're doing... Oh wait; you don't.

The problem with posters like you is that it's difficult to know if you are just trolling or are a shill for the investment company itself. And therefore whether we should fear you are here to just waste our time (which is just a bit amusing / annoying) or are actually promoting it as a good investment for your own personal gain when it's super high risk (which is a detestable practice). Either way, we can conclude that if you proudly don't want to read the existing discussion and comment on the "investment", you are not a serious independent investor in it - so either your interest in it is shameless self promotion, or you are a naive idiot.

Of course, we do not believe for one minute that anyone with a genuine interest in the investment would join in and follow along the thread for 20 posts but have a complete lack of interest in the contents of the 65 posts made before they joined the thread. Really, you have read them, but don't fancy challenging their accuracy, so are pretending you have not read them and are putting your head in the sand about the fact that the valid negative points do exist.

Or you genuinely haven't read them, because you're just here to troll and react to new comments rather than debate the merits or demerits of the investment as already put forward. People like that don't get much respect round here.

A friend of mine asked my advice about the Allansons investment. He told me about this forum and that it had put him off the opportunity. I have gone through every message and I felt compelled to respond. So yes I have just made one post and yes this one post is as a direct response to this thread.

The people on here criticising litigation funding have never researched the market. Litigation funding is a lucrative area of investment. I personally know many people including myself who have made fortunes in investing litigation funding. Mostly through personal injury cases. I know someone who made 6 figures from a small investment to obtain medical reports. The firm was a small one and they happened to take on a case where the claimant was disabled for life. The case was insured against the investment and the solicitors costs. The award was over 1.2 million pounds. Now work out 25% of that!. The case did not even get to court. it was settled out of it. Yes it was at the misfortune of someone else but the claimant family was grateful that a solicitor had taken the case on a no-win no fee basis. I could give you thousands of examples of this. Most underwriters are based off shore in places such as Bermuda and Cayman islands for tax purposes.

I really hope that those making defamatory comments against underwriters are sued by them and they need funding to get out of that mess!

I have read the Allansons proposal thoroughly. I have called the FCA, I have spoken to Box Legal and Allansons themselves. I am satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that this is in an excellent opportunity for investors to make returns that they are not seeing in banks.

I cannot see how any investor can lose money on this proposal and I have advised my friend to invest heavily in this project. It is not everyday that good opportunities come along with these type of returns. The investment is secure and the FCA would not authorise these companies if they were not satisfied with their credibility

In 2014 I invest 10k into burford capital at 1.22 a share today that share price is over £10. Burford Capital specialise in litigation funding. If it was such a scam why would the industry be doing so well?

Litigation funding was introduced to help provide justice as it was only available to the rich and powerful - now it comes down to one simple matter how strong is the case?

People who complain about the insurance company or brokers, when you insure a car people do it on the telephone not many people check where the underwriters are!

I find it pathetic that people who know nothing about the litigation funding industry and how lucrative it can be are making such claims as in this thread.

I and many others who I know have made hundreds of thousand from this unique and niche area of investment and it saddens me that people would put others off from making money with baseless posts.