London Capital and Finance

If I was in the dubious business of introducing customers to LCF then I would want to be paid upfront rather than accepting trail commission. Surely these introducers must have known how unstable the LCF business model would be?

Poorlyone wrote: »

I agree. It would seem the introducing company and the ‘comparison’ website company, as well as operating from the same building, may have another business on companies house where the comparison website director and the introducer director , are co directors.

Insofar as the introducing company having relationships with the bond operators themselves and knowing what they were doing, it seems they have a relationship with another such bond company and also if they are smart enough to operate such a system, and lets say they were involved in the comparison site too, its unlikely they didnt know what was what.

It seems the introducer company directors may also have other companies (service orientated) which also have less than glowing reviews.
It may be possible They also have connections with companies which in the recent past have also been subject to consumer action due to dubious activities.

Oh, so the introducers are part of the LCF family? Well that might explain why they would be willing to wait for their money, assuming they do have to wait for their money. As Alex says, 20% is a lot for LCF to pay up front and it isn't coming out of bondholders capital (not directly anyway). Some lenders will retain interest up front, perhaps 6 months, but that would cover less than a third of the commission, allowing for interest payments to bondholders.

Of course, the 20% came from a hypothetical example, and might not bear any relation to the actual percentage received by LCF introducers. In the case of the LCF introducers, it will be interesting to see if any of them pop up bearing creditor claims - probably not if they understand the business.

Re LCF, where did this 20% commission figure re Surge Financial come from?

Over the last three years, since 2015 Surge Financial has received three million pounds very approx according to CH Accounts over the three year period. There have been approx £200,000,000 in bond issues by LCF and sales over the three years. At 20% commission Surge would have received £40,000,000 not £3,000,000 over three years.

According to a statement by {text removed by MSE Forum Team} CEO Surge Group Plc, founded 2015, would earn 50,000,000 pa by 2018. That amount would be coming from other Surge clients in addition to LCF and to other Surge Group companies besides Surge Financial Ltd.

Can the LCF administrators trace, and recover, bondholder capital paid as commission to Surge as bondholder capital can only be used as corporate loans not for commission or promotion according to the LCF bond memorandum? Payments to Surge by LCF can only come from LCF earnings on the corporate loans not directly from the capital.

bail-in wrote: »

Re LCF, where did this 20% commission figure re Surge Financial come from?

The 20% figure was used in a hypothetical example for discussion purposes. I'm not sure why it has been attributed to an actual amount of commission paid to a specific company by LCF.

As I mentioned in previous posts "likely the split between introducer and LCF would be more in LCF's favour" and "the 20% came from a hypothetical example, and might not bear any relation to the actual percentage received by LCF introducers"

Can the LCF administrators trace, and recover, bondholder capital paid as commission to Surge as bondholder capital can only be used as corporate loans not for commission or promotion according to the LCF bond memorandum? Payments to Surge by LCF can only come from LCF earnings on the corporate loans not directly from the capital.

It can't have come from bondholder capital. It probably came from interest and fees charged to the borrowers - and no that wouldn't be recoverable.

digannio wrote: »

The Evening Standard certainly reported that [FONT=&quot]"LCF paid Surge 20% of all the investors’ money it brings in."[/FONT]

So it did. I guess this is all part of the plan. It would have been very {text removed by MSE Forum Team} to leave the profits in LCF I suppose.