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 Former MSE Andrea; 01-09-2016 at 2:14 PM.
Page 102
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 17th Dec 19, 2:11 PM
    • 13,310 Posts
    • 12,361 Thanks
    jimjames
    Another twist in the LCF saga, the High Court has agreed that the trustees GST can be removed from acting for bondholders of LCF.

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2019/3339.html

    GST has no assets and was essentially a non trading, dormant company so quite how it has any funds to launch legal action at the High Court raises more questions. This was even raised in the judgement as a query about who was funding the legal work.

    https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/12/gst-where-money-coming-from-lcf.html
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • Reaper
    • By Reaper 17th Dec 19, 4:23 PM
    • 6,740 Posts
    • 5,112 Thanks
    Reaper
    I don't think the web site with the questionable name on the blog post is a ploy by LCF. I think it is an investor with little knowledge ranting and seeing conspiracies where there are none.

    The court case link was interesting. GST sounds very much like LCF with linked members and a similar disregard of good business practice. While not core this bit made me chuckle:
    Mr Friedlander does not accept that he is not a suitable director... he does not consider his resignation to be necessary and he points to the assistance he is able to provide in connection with attempts to recover the debt due from Prime. Curiously, he then says he has entered non-disclosure agreements with Prime which prevent him from providing more than the outline information contained in his statements.
    i.e. he can be very useful providing information about Prime therefore he should be kept on - even though he isn't actually able to provide any more information about Prime. Mind boggling. Do they actually hear what is coming out of their mouths?
    • verybigchris
    • By verybigchris 17th Dec 19, 8:02 PM
    • 550 Posts
    • 836 Thanks
    verybigchris
    That website in the blog above (which I won't link to directly for obvious reasons) is extraordinary. I hope it's written by a director of LCF, because it's heart-breaking to think that victims could still be that brain-washed.

    The bit that really got me was:
    We rang Prime who were very forthcoming and said they have over £100million of assets with £70million LCF debt but they are refinancing and Finbarr refuses to engage with them. Unless Prime are lying how can these assets be valued at zero by Finbarr and his team.
    Can you imagine how that conversation went?

    "Hi, I invested in you via LCF, can you tell me if you have assets to back the debt"
    "Yes, of course we do sir. We must have, oooh, about £100m worth"
    "That's great news. Hold on, you're not lying, are you?"
    "No, no, of course not, scout's honour"
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 9th Jan 20, 12:42 PM
    • 13,310 Posts
    • 12,361 Thanks
    jimjames
    Latest update re LCF. FSCS have said they will cover any investors that transferred S&S ISAs to LCF bonds. https://www.fscs.org.uk/failed-firms/lcf/

    Unfortunately this only covers 159 investors out of the 11600 who bought LCF bonds as it doesn't cover cash ISA transfers.

    https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2020/01/london-capital-finance-fscs-compensation.html
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • SonOf
    • By SonOf 9th Jan 20, 1:02 PM
    • 2,240 Posts
    • 2,567 Thanks
    SonOf
    in a bit more detail....

    https://www.ftadviser.com/regulation/2020/01/09/fscs-to-compensate-159-minibond-holders/

    "but it added the 283 bondholders who dealt with the firm before it was authorised would not be covered by the scheme."

    "The FSCS still needs to review advice claims — which it says are likely to be the majority of cases — on a case-by-case basis to determine whether misleading advice was given.

    However the scheme said today it expected many customers would not be eligible for compensation on an advice basis."

    • GDB2222
    • By GDB2222 9th Jan 20, 1:15 PM
    • 16,276 Posts
    • 84,133 Thanks
    GDB2222
    Just a reminder that you can sign up for emails from FSCS about LCF, so you get this info from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
    • Reaper
    • By Reaper 9th Jan 20, 3:05 PM
    • 6,740 Posts
    • 5,112 Thanks
    Reaper
    In short the latest news says on the whole investors were given "incorrect information" not "misleading advice" so are not covered by the FSCS.

    All the enquiries were handled by Surge staff, not LCF. I find it staggering that Surge are apparently not in the firing line for anything even though their staff lied to investors. It seems "incorrect information" is no problem. To quote the BBC:
    Potential investors say they were told by LCF marketing staff about how their money would be protected, that the mini-bond products they were investing in were regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and that their money was safely invested in dozens of companies to spread the risk - none of which was true
    It is no wonder new scams are being continually set up when there is so little action taken against the guilty parties.
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 9th Jan 20, 5:51 PM
    • 13,310 Posts
    • 12,361 Thanks
    jimjames
    It seems "incorrect information" is no problem. To quote the BBC:
    Originally posted by Reaper
    One of the issues is the picture in the BBC link where is fairly clearly says underneath the interest rate, admittedly in smaller type but still clearly visible:

    "your capital is at risk and payments are not guaranteed" but this seems to have been glossed over and ignored when the Surge staff contradicted it.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • Supercalafragalistic
    • By Supercalafragalistic 15th Jan 20, 9:07 AM
    • 138 Posts
    • 60 Thanks
    Supercalafragalistic
    I think its not the ‘capital at risk’ bit thats the problem, its the texts that were sent out saying their capital protection guarantee was better than fscs protection . In addition to the fact they totally lied about the nature of the investment and the money ended in the hands of a handful of people.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 15th Jan 20, 9:45 AM
    • 7,386 Posts
    • 11,856 Thanks
    Malthusian
    "your capital is at risk and payments are not guaranteed" but this seems to have been glossed over and ignored when the Surge staff contradicted it.
    Originally posted by jimjames
    Boilerplate risk warnings do not excuse plastering the website with "secured bonds" or telling investors over the phone that it's safe as houses. Or claiming that the £230m in bonds was backed by £500m in assets which was a complete lie.

    If I run a game of Find The Lady and put a sign up saying "You might not win", the fact that I told punters they might not win does not change the fact that I am committing fraud by running a game in which they will never win.

    If LCF had included prominent risk warnings on its website which said "This is a Ponzi scheme, and as in all Ponzi schemes there is a 99% chance you will lose money" that would be different.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 15th Jan 20, 9:52 PM
    • 9,804 Posts
    • 17,930 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    Unrelated but guessing there might be an adviser or two on these threads. If so, can anyone tell me , do IFA’s have to follow the fca’s “The Principles’ (or is that just for product providers?) or do IFA’s have to follow the fca ‘conduct of business rules’ please? Or maybe both?
    Thanks in case someone knows!
    Originally posted by Supercalafragalistic
    IFA firms are businesses and the FCA's 'principles for businesses' set out in the FCA's Handbook are the fundamental obligations that FCA wants regulated businesses to follow.

    The Conduct of Business Sourcebook (COBS) part of the mentioned Handbook, sets out the conduct of business rules that regulated firms should follow.

    Rules are there to be followed or broken. Principles are the high level objectives that guide the development of detailed rules and help to assess behaviour in the context of desirable outcomes.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 15th Jan 20, 10:13 PM
    • 7,386 Posts
    • 11,856 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Unrelated but guessing there might be an adviser or two on these threads. If so, can anyone tell me , do IFA’s have to follow the fca’s “The Principles’ (or is that just for product providers?) or do IFA’s have to follow the fca ‘conduct of business rules’ please? Or maybe both?
    Thanks in case someone knows!
    Originally posted by Supercalafragalistic
    You might get more helpful responses if you ask the underlying question.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 18th Jan 20, 2:45 PM
    • 163 Posts
    • 59 Thanks
    bail-in
    Principles are not laws of the land. Rules are not laws of the land. That is, from the UK legal perspective, only UK laws can be enforced by the UK legal systems. The FCA Principles in the Handbook are considered as guidelines for good practice for FCA authorised businesses, but there is no legal obligation to put them into practice, nor any legal redress if authorised businesses do not honour the Handbook Principles.
    • masonic
    • By masonic 18th Jan 20, 3:12 PM
    • 12,753 Posts
    • 10,252 Thanks
    masonic
    Principles are not laws of the land. Rules are not laws of the land. That is, from the UK legal perspective, only UK laws can be enforced by the UK legal systems. The FCA Principles in the Handbook are considered as guidelines for good practice for FCA authorised businesses, but there is no legal obligation to put them into practice, nor any legal redress if authorised businesses do not honour the Handbook Principles.
    Originally posted by bail-in
    A decision by a Financial Ombudsman is legally enforceable. The FOS is required to take into account principles and rules laid down by the regulator. So there is legal redress available, stemming from those principles and rules, providing there is a case to answer.
    Last edited by masonic; 18-01-2020 at 3:17 PM.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 20th Jan 20, 6:30 AM
    • 163 Posts
    • 59 Thanks
    bail-in
    Corporate Debt Article
    The following article helps to understand corporate debt funding and it's rapid growth since 2010.

    Corporate debt is at record levels – here’s what the risks are | MoneyWeek
    https://moneyweek.com/519036/corporate-debt-is-at-record-levels-heres-what-the-risks-are
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 20th Jan 20, 7:15 AM
    • 9,804 Posts
    • 17,930 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    The following article helps to understand corporate debt funding and it's rapid growth since 2010.

    Corporate debt is at record levels – here’s what the risks are | MoneyWeek
    https://moneyweek.com/519036/corporate-debt-is-at-record-levels-heres-what-the-risks-are
    Originally posted by bail-in
    Pretty standard moneyweek conclusion to a bearish article (they print both bearish and bullish articles each month so that they can always say they told you so whatever happens and however long it takes to happen):

    When the next recession comes we'll probably see more companies go bust. And the amount of money that can be salvaged from the carcasses of said companies, will be lower than ever before.
    Their standard action plan: what can you do about it?

    - don't panic, look out for warning signs

    - be aware of how much debt the companies you own have

    - own a bit of gold

    These gloriously insightful articles from Moneyweek are no doubt well worth their price (i.e. free to the end user, subsidised by advertisers and subscribers to their "share tips and advice"). If only LCF investors had read them they would be well informed about global macroeconomics and well-equipped to avoid products from charlatans such as LCF... I'm sure that's the theory.

    Ironically the kind of people who think their doom-mongering Moneyweek subscription is well worth the '12 issues for £12' are probably the kind of people who think that they should look for the safety of a fixed rate ISA which has a 'guarantee' from a security trustee and some sort of FCA approval, without looking at the fine print.
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

19Posts Today

3,911Users online

Martin's Twitter