Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • daniel80
    • By daniel80 22nd Oct 15, 6:31 PM
    • 230Posts
    • 48Thanks
    daniel80
    London Capital and Finance
    • #1
    • 22nd Oct 15, 6:31 PM
    London Capital and Finance 22nd Oct 15 at 6:31 PM
    Anyone had any dealing with this company. My son has 25k to invest for only 2 years as it will be a house deposit. Iv`e told him to stay away from the stock market as 2 years is not long enough. As he is not overly keen with saving accounts cash isa`s etc due to low interest rates I said what about premium bonds a gamble on winning but stake is safe only loss would be inflation. When I googled investment ideas a link came up who were called specialist investment ideas with free advice. I put in my details..I received a call about half an hour later the guy recommended the above company which was based in Mayfair. he sounded very posh. He said London Capital and Finance were offering bonds paying 8% the money being lent to various companies to a maximum of 60% of their assist. He seems more of a salesman than an advisor and wants to phone back Monday. Brochure looks ok online but something does not seem right. Anyone dealt with these.

    MSE Insert

    Check out our Where to Start Saving guide for help.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 01-09-2016 at 2:14 PM.
Page 31
    • masonic
    • By masonic 11th Jan 19, 6:28 PM
    • 10,639 Posts
    • 8,017 Thanks
    masonic
    Not for corporation tax and other taxes owed by the business, if it's the change in the recent Budget you're referring to. Only on taxes owed by others and collected by companies on their behalf like National Insurance. For taxes owed directly by the business, HMRC is still at the back of the queue with the other unsecured creditors.

    I imagine that withholding tax on investors' interest would come under the preferred creditor category, as it is owed by investors and not LCF.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    Yes, of course. I am misremembering the Budget changes.

    In theory LCF bondholders might rank ahead of HMRC for taxes owed by LCF, as they are supposedly secured creditors, but as secured creditor status is worthless without professional due diligence into the security (which hasn't happened), it's moot. (This applies to both P2P and unregulated investments.) If LCF has no assets then it doesn't matter.
    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.

    It's not yet clear that the charges LCF holds over other companies to which it relent money, by way of regulated loan agreements (as opposed to the unregulated agreements by which it borrowed this money), are sound and enforceable. Absurdly, these borrowing companies have more regulatory protection than bondholders. It could be a lot of work, and very costly, for recovery action to be pursued against each of these companies - and likely futile based on the examples identified in this thread.
    Last edited by masonic; 11-01-2019 at 6:54 PM.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 11th Jan 19, 9:04 PM
    • 116 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    bail-in
    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 Spencer John Golding, Paul Careless, Simon Hume-Kendall, Michael Andrew Thomson and RPDigital. Oh yes, also the officers of Blackmore Bonds. On the subject of Blackmore Bonds and Paul Careless 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.
    Last edited by bail-in; 13-01-2019 at 9:07 PM.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 12th Jan 19, 7:45 AM
    • 5,143 Posts
    • 8,387 Thanks
    Malthusian
    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.
    Originally posted by masonic
    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
    • By masonic 12th Jan 19, 8:30 AM
    • 10,639 Posts
    • 8,017 Thanks
    masonic
    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.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    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
    • By skippie 12th Jan 19, 2:43 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    skippie
    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!
    Originally posted by pienbeans
    Lucky escape!!!
    MFW #144 0/5000 2019
    • frank c
    • By frank c 12th Jan 19, 8:03 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    frank c
    Fraud
    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 Spencer Golding 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
    • By jimjames 12th Jan 19, 8:04 PM
    • 12,962 Posts
    • 11,799 Thanks
    jimjames
    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.

    One does start to wonder how this is legal and It begs the question is money saving expert even independent???
    Originally posted by frank c
    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.
    Last edited by jimjames; 12-01-2019 at 8:09 PM.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • masonic
    • By masonic 12th Jan 19, 8:09 PM
    • 10,639 Posts
    • 8,017 Thanks
    masonic
    Oh and didn't they sponsor showjumping events like Osbourne house?
    Originally posted by frank c
    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
    • By masonic 12th Jan 19, 8:17 PM
    • 10,639 Posts
    • 8,017 Thanks
    masonic
    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?
    Originally posted by jimjames
    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...
    Last edited by masonic; 12-01-2019 at 8:19 PM.
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 12th Jan 19, 8:21 PM
    • 12,962 Posts
    • 11,799 Thanks
    jimjames
    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...
    Originally posted by masonic
    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/
    Last edited by jimjames; 12-01-2019 at 8:34 PM.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • masonic
    • By masonic 12th Jan 19, 8:48 PM
    • 10,639 Posts
    • 8,017 Thanks
    masonic
    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
    Originally posted by jimjames
    Interesting, it looks like more than one member of the Thomson family is involved in that holding company. I'm struggling to make the connection given M A Thomson 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.
    Last edited by masonic; 13-01-2019 at 8:40 AM.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 13th Jan 19, 12:25 AM
    • 5,143 Posts
    • 8,387 Thanks
    Malthusian
    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/
    Originally posted by jimjames
    At least MJS Capital had the decency to blow investors' money on a ball at the Tower of London featuring cigar tasting and a solid gold AK-47, not some crappy fete. And MJS Capital took in a tenth of the money that LCF did.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 13th Jan 19, 6:49 AM
    • 116 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    bail-in
    Has anyone else here noticed the Forum Team editing out again LCF and related companies' names of directors as in my post and the preceding #460 post by Sledger. The lists of names of company directors is in the public domain and can be found in company credit reference agencies and Companies House. If a list was made of all the LCF linked companies with the names of the directors and posted here I do not see the reasoning behind why the directors would request the names to be removed and that request acted on. Perhaps it is an issue of context.

    To add:
    "I posted a company director's name and address but it's gone, why?
    Forum users should not post their personal details (full names, email addresses, home addresses or telephone numbers) or anyone else's on the forum or send them via private message.
    This includes personal details found on public look-up sites such as Whois.com and Companies House."

    However, if enforced, this would mean that no personal name of anyone in the world could be posted in any of the forums, including the forums' founder's name. If it only applied to forum users, the director names would not have been removed.
    Last edited by bail-in; 13-01-2019 at 9:44 AM.
    • masonic
    • By masonic 13th Jan 19, 8:33 AM
    • 10,639 Posts
    • 8,017 Thanks
    masonic
    Has anyone else here noticed the Forum Team editing out again LCF and related companies' names of directors as in my post and the preceding #460 post by Sledger. The lists of names of company directors is in the public domain and can be found in company credit reference agencies and Companies House. If a list was made of all the LCF linked companies with the names of the directors and posted here I do not see the reasoning behind why the directors would request the names to be removed and that request acted on. Perhaps it is an issue of context.
    Originally posted by bail-in
    There is a rule about sharing personal information on the forum. It's notable that the links to companies house pages were not removed, so it is probably necessary to provide offsite links to the information and only discuss it in general terms in the thread.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 13th Jan 19, 9:54 AM
    • 116 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    bail-in
    At least MJS Capital had the decency to blow investors' money on a ball at the Tower of London featuring cigar tasting and a solid gold AK-47, not some crappy fete. And MJS Capital took in a tenth of the money that LCF did.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    That "c....y" fete you refer to cost 60 a ticket!
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 13th Jan 19, 11:58 AM
    • 12,962 Posts
    • 11,799 Thanks
    jimjames
    That "c....y" fete you refer to cost 60 a ticket!
    Originally posted by bail-in
    To be fair they do appear to have invited investors to attend. Surprised that didn't start to ring any alarm bells over the use of their money a bit earlier.

    Using the figures from the Evening Standard suggesting that LCF were paying Surge Financial up to 20% commission for bonds that they introduced that could mean that up to 40 million of the 200 million money that investors thought was being loaned out never was. It also means that for an investor in a 1 year bond the guaranteed return that LCF would need to obtain would be 33% in order to be able to return the investor's capital at the end of the year.

    Even worse the money from investors wasn't received in one hit, different people paid in over a period of time so money could not be lent immediately. LCF claimed that one bond sold in 7 months. Even if you assume an optimistic 3 months to collect enough money to be able to lend it out to companies that means the 33% return has to be made in only 9 months. If it actually took 6 months to collect enough money to loan out then they'd need a 66% return to be generated to pay back the investors.

    The numbers just don't add up to be able to make this work in reality. No wonder FCA are digging into it.

    However, if enforced, this would mean that no personal name of anyone in the world could be posted in any of the forums, including the forums' founder's name. If it only applied to forum users, the director names would not have been removed.
    Originally posted by bail-in
    Hence the reason I've been posting a lot of details elsewhere to avoid information being removed. I'd suggest posting the names as comments in one of the posts here so they remain visible.

    https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/01/who-owns-london-capital-finance.html
    Last edited by jimjames; 13-01-2019 at 12:03 PM.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 13th Jan 19, 12:07 PM
    • 116 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    bail-in
    Another scheme involving Spencer Golding, BAVINGTON Consultants.

    Michael Andrew Thomson, CEO of LCF, was involved as a director in the Lakeview, Cornwall development with financier Buss Murton Law who later sold it on.

    This is Money Article, 2010
    Hetherington: Timeshare 'chat' cost 3,000

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1709036/Hetherington-Timeshare-chat-cost-3000.html
    Last edited by bail-in; 13-01-2019 at 12:27 PM.
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 13th Jan 19, 1:18 PM
    • 12,962 Posts
    • 11,799 Thanks
    jimjames
    An excellent summary of the situation from Jane Sanders here

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/400375487372850/

    Unfortunately it may bring some investors who are ignoring facts back down to earth with a bump
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • sully1311
    • By sully1311 13th Jan 19, 2:34 PM
    • 113 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    sully1311
    Could you copy and paste what she has written as it's a closed group?
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 13th Jan 19, 4:17 PM
    • 12,962 Posts
    • 11,799 Thanks
    jimjames
    Could you copy and paste what she has written as it's a closed group?
    Originally posted by sully1311
    It's a video, so might be worth joining to view it. It's to help bondholders so anyone with info might be able to contribute

    Upshot is that FCA have a lot of tools available to them to deal with issues but once it gets to the bank account freezing stage then it's pretty likely that they have already identified problems that may involve liquidation of the company. Very brief summary of what was a 15 min or so video explanation
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,922Posts Today

9,555Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @paullewismoney: People who were students 1990-97 are being offered the chance to pay off half their unpaid student loan and the other h?

  • As normal I am signing off twitter for the weekend - to spend time with mini and Mrs MSE. Hope you have a wonderfu? https://t.co/FG3sRfkIgA

  • RT @LauraFrancis9: Top crew! We may film in the freeeeeeeezing cold every week, but this bunch make it fun. (And huge thanks as always to @?

  • Follow Martin