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, 5:31 PM
    • 230Posts
    • 48Thanks
    daniel80
    London Capital and Finance
    • #1
    • 22nd Oct 15, 5:31 PM
    London Capital and Finance 22nd Oct 15 at 5:31 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 1:14 PM.
Page 91
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 11th Apr 19, 10:57 AM
    • 10,107 Posts
    • 12,176 Thanks
    eskbanker
    What am I missing???
    Originally posted by Sledger
    Something that in any way connects an AML investigation into a bank with this thread about LC&F?
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 11th Apr 19, 11:20 AM
    • 5,636 Posts
    • 9,340 Thanks
    Malthusian
    On 10 Dec2018 they knocked on LCF door where we were led to believe they were using their powers on fraud
    Originally posted by Sledger
    No, on 10 December the FCA was investigating potential misselling. Misselling is a regulatory breach, not fraud.

    and they appear to have done nothing allowing further millions to go where.
    The FCA froze LCF's accounts on 30 December. The "millions" disappeared long before the FCA entered the building.

    What am I missing??? What authority to they have to set such fines and money laundering fines should go to victims of money laundering and that would have prompted them to pursue LCF.
    An example of the money laundered via Standard Chartered includes "opening an account with 3 million UAE Dirham in cash in a suitcase (just over 500,000)". Do you really expect the FCA to open an investigation to find out where the money in that suitcase came from, and compensate whoever it was stolen from, which could be literally anyone anywhere in the world? And do the same for all the other dodgy money that Standard Chartered waved through?
    • GDB2222
    • By GDB2222 12th Apr 19, 12:51 PM
    • 15,129 Posts
    • 81,837 Thanks
    GDB2222
    General Question. Has Surge broken any of the rules of FSMA 2000?
    Originally posted by Supercalafragalistic
    What sort of answer do you expect to such a vague question?

    Supposing they have broken every rule there is, and they return say half of the money they received (the rest having been spent on reasonable business expenses), have you worked out whether that will make a significant difference to your losses? Well, I suppose that 10% would make a bit of a difference.

    It's actually worse for you if the FCA fines Surge for regulatory breaches, as that's money that can't come back to you.
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 12th Apr 19, 1:12 PM
    • 5,636 Posts
    • 9,340 Thanks
    Malthusian
    It wasn't a vague question at all.

    General Question. Has Surge broken any of the rules of FSMA 2000?
    Originally posted by Supercalafragalistic
    The answer to this excellent and well-defined question is yes. The top-isa-rates and best-interest-rates websites were unauthorised financial promotions, being inducements to engage in investment activity which were published by a firm not on the FCA register and with no declaration that the promotions were authorised by another FCA-authorised firm. They were therefore a breach of Section 21 of the FSMA 2000.

    There are other potential breaches but that one is indisputable and in black and white.
    • Reaper
    • By Reaper 12th Apr 19, 1:30 PM
    • 6,460 Posts
    • 4,813 Thanks
    Reaper
    inducements to engage in investment activity which were published by a firm not on the FCA register and with no declaration that the promotions were authorised by another FCA-authorised firm. They were therefore a breach of Section 21 of the FSMA 2000.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    I don't think that is true. As I mentioned in an earlier post Surge say:
    "All business that the company drew in had been signed off by LCF, which was regulated"
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/money/failed-london-capital-finance-isa-netted-60m-for-captain-careless-6pcwkh5wv

    So unless failing to mention they were signed off on their adverts is an offence (I think it should be but don't think it is) they are not in breach.

    This is why they are brazenly continuing their business model charging 20-25% as if nothing has happened despite all the attention.
    • GDB2222
    • By GDB2222 12th Apr 19, 3:54 PM
    • 15,129 Posts
    • 81,837 Thanks
    GDB2222
    Sorry, i didnt realize it was vague.
    Originally posted by Supercalafragalistic
    It's vague. You might as well ask whether Mr Bloggs has ever committed a driving offence. Unless he's a non-driver, then the answer is that of course he has.

    Similarly, the FSMA is so complex and all-embracing that it's virtually certain that everyone in the country has contravened it at some time or other. Okay, a bit of an exaggeration there, but if you look on the investment-related forums here, there's loads of well-meaning advice freely given out that strictly-speaking needs regulation.

    Some minor Surge peccadillo, with an equally minor fine, is not the sort of justice you are after.

    A more sensible question is whether Surge has laid itself open to being forced to provide substantial compensation to its customers?
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 13th Apr 19, 4:50 AM
    • 150 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    bail-in
    Re Surge statement "All business that the company drew in had been signed off by LCF, which was regulated".

    Surge were contracted with LCF from the beginning of the bond launch. For approximately the first year I thought LCF were not FCA authorised. The website was approved and signed off by Sentient Capital specifically because LCF were not FCA authorised. There were conversations with LCF during the first year where it was mentioned LCF was in the process of applying for authorisation. So for that initial period, before authorisation, how could Surge state all business was signed off by a regulated LCF? I doubt it is retrospective.
    Last edited by bail-in; 15-04-2019 at 8:37 AM.
    • Sledger
    • By Sledger 13th Apr 19, 11:53 AM
    • 90 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Sledger
    Re Surge statement "All business that the company drew in had been signed off by LCF, which was regulated".

    Surge were contracted with LCF from the beginning of the bond launch. For approximately the first year I thought LCF were not FCA authorised. The website was approved and signed off by Sentient Capital specifically because LCF were not FCA authorised. There were conversations with LCF during the first year where it was mentioned LCF was in the process of applying for authorisation. So for that initial period, before authorisation, how could Surge state all buiness was signed off by a regulated LCF? I doubt it is retrospective.
    Originally posted by bail-in
    But SURGE=LCF where SURGE were sporting LCF business Cards and signing off correspondence as LCF and announcing when funds had arrived into LCF bank accounts . So how can SURGE claim everything was signed off by LCF when SURGE were doing all the signing. What record do SURGE have of this or will SURGE fabricate one and sign off on it .
    • GDB2222
    • By GDB2222 13th Apr 19, 2:47 PM
    • 15,129 Posts
    • 81,837 Thanks
    GDB2222
    But SURGE=LCF where SURGE were sporting LCF business Cards and signing off correspondence as LCF and announcing when funds had arrived into LCF bank accounts . So how can SURGE claim everything was signed off by LCF when SURGE were doing all the signing. What record do SURGE have of this or will SURGE fabricate one and sign off on it .
    Originally posted by Sledger
    You don't think there'll be a huge file of compliance stuff? They may have slipped up, of course, but I imagine that they have tried to take obvious precautions.

    They strike me as quite sensible. For example, now the !!!! has hit the fan with LCF, they are staying very quiet and just continuing with their other customers.
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 13th Apr 19, 8:22 PM
    • 13,210 Posts
    • 12,235 Thanks
    jimjames
    "Sold" it. I wonder if in the same way that Spencer "sold" his stables that owed 12m to LCF but the person who bought it paid nothing and has no paperwork.

    Regardless of that, the company is based in Surge's offices so it's still connected even if not owned by the Captain.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 14th Apr 19, 8:54 PM
    • 13,210 Posts
    • 12,235 Thanks
    jimjames
    Another company lent money by LCF has filed for administration.

    https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/04/lcf-another-one-bites-dust.html
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 14th Apr 19, 9:54 PM
    • 5,636 Posts
    • 9,340 Thanks
    Malthusian
    I don't think that is true. As I mentioned in an earlier post Surge say:
    "All business that the company drew in had been signed off by LCF, which was regulated".
    Originally posted by Reaper
    It is true. Read the FCA's Second Supervisory Notice to LCF. LCF disavowed the Surge websites and claimed they were a third party and that LCF was not responsible for their content. While that claim is of course bogus (as the FCA noted), they wouldn't have been even able to attempt it if LCF had given the Surge websites S21 signoff.

    LCF stated that it has little control over third party websites, claiming that the websites referred to at paragraph 14 above had “independently” removed references to the LCF Bonds following the FCA’s Direction
    by FCA's Second Supervisory Notice to LCF
    Moreover if the Surge websites had been signed off by LCF they should have had a statement to that effect on the website.

    This is why they are brazenly continuing their business model charging 20-25% as if nothing has happened despite all the attention.
    They are continuing their business model because the FCA doesn't give a s---.

    Right now the FCA are far too busy trying to deflect the "independent" investigation to issue court proceedings against some scummy little outfit from Brighton.
    Last edited by Malthusian; 15-04-2019 at 8:35 AM.
    • bail-in
    • By bail-in 16th Apr 19, 3:58 PM
    • 150 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    bail-in
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/04/14/phone-calls-offer-last-line-hope-furious-london-capital-finance/
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 16th Apr 19, 4:16 PM
    • 97,999 Posts
    • 66,160 Thanks
    dunstonh
    I hope that fails.

    Regulated advisers pay levies to the FSCS because the advice they give is regulated. Unregulated advice pays nothing towards the FSCS as the advice is not regulated.

    The consumers of regulated firms will be picking up the tab for those that tried to bypass those regulated firms.

    Whats next? Buy shares in loads of high risk companies and then let the FSCS kick in when it fails?
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • nrsql
    • By nrsql 17th Apr 19, 12:24 AM
    • 1,860 Posts
    • 651 Thanks
    nrsql
    I hope that fails.

    Regulated advisers pay levies to the FSCS because the advice they give is regulated. Unregulated advice pays nothing towards the FSCS as the advice is not regulated.

    The consumers of regulated firms will be picking up the tab for those that tried to bypass those regulated firms.

    Whats next? Buy shares in loads of high risk companies and then let the FSCS kick in when it fails?
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Haven't read the article but I guess they will order the company (Surge?) to refund if they are found to be giving product advice rather than FSCS compensation.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 17th Apr 19, 8:51 AM
    • 5,636 Posts
    • 9,340 Thanks
    Malthusian
    You don't have a claim on the FSCS if you are "advised" by a man down the pub or someone else who isn't authorised to give regulated financial advice.

    While LCF was (unbelievably) authorised to give advice, it was for corporate finance business only, so whatever investors were told over the phone, they weren't being given regulated advice.
    • GDB2222
    • By GDB2222 17th Apr 19, 9:59 AM
    • 15,129 Posts
    • 81,837 Thanks
    GDB2222
    You don't have a claim on the FSCS if you are "advised" by a man down the pub or someone else who isn't authorised to give regulated financial advice.

    While LCF was (unbelievably) authorised to give advice, it was for corporate finance business only, so whatever investors were told over the phone, they weren't being given regulated advice.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    I don't really understand that. Are the public meant to check the precise extent of any authorisation? If an advisor accidentally oversteps the mark slightly then that advice is simply unregulated?
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
    • Seabee42
    • By Seabee42 17th Apr 19, 10:16 AM
    • 375 Posts
    • 225 Thanks
    Seabee42
    If your investing money then yes you have a duty to do some checks especially if your buying with greed into something that is quite frankly to good to be true. Then do not expect to be bailed out for your greed when it turns sour.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 17th Apr 19, 11:08 AM
    • 5,636 Posts
    • 9,340 Thanks
    Malthusian
    I don't really understand that. Are the public meant to check the precise extent of any authorisation?
    Originally posted by GDB2222
    Yes. That's what the FCA register is for. Unless they are happy to be liable for their losses if it turns out the guy advising them wasn't authorised and they weren't covered by the FSCS. Then they don't have to bother.

    Or unless the chances that they are dealing with someone who isn't authorised are vanishingly small - e.g. they are dealing with a respected and long-established IFA whom they know has been advising people for over 15 years, or a massive firm like St James' Place.

    There has never been a compensation scheme that bails out anyone who is told lies and suffers a financial loss as a result. Everyone knows where that would lead.

    If an advisor accidentally oversteps the mark slightly then that advice is simply unregulated?
    If they are working for a business that is not authorised to provide financial advice to the person being "advised" then yes. There is no "slightly" about it. You can't be slightly authorised or slightly unauthorised.
    • GDB2222
    • By GDB2222 17th Apr 19, 1:14 PM
    • 15,129 Posts
    • 81,837 Thanks
    GDB2222
    It's not quite as straightforward as all that, though.

    Here's the LCF authorisation, and bear in mind that Joe Public is apparently supposed to know the difference between "Advising" and "Arranging". LCF could "advise" professional clients but "arrange" for professional and retail clients.


    Advising on investments (except on Pension Transfers and Pension Opt Outs)
    Customer Type
    Eligible Counterparty
    Professional
    Investment Type
    Certificates representing certain security
    Debenture
    Future (excluding a commodity future and a rolling spot forex contract)
    Option (excluding a commodity option and an option on a commodity future)
    Rights to or interests in investments (Contractually Based Investments)
    Rights to or interests in investments (Security)
    Share
    Unit
    Warrant
    Limitation
    Rights to or interests in (both).
    Agreeing to carry on a regulated activity
    Limitation
    Limited to carry on regulated activities.


    Arranging (bringing about) deals in investments
    Customer Type
    Eligible Counterparty
    Professional
    Retail (Investment)
    Investment Type
    Certificates representing certain security
    Debenture
    Future (excluding a commodity future and a rolling spot forex contract)
    Option (excluding a commodity option and an option on a commodity future)
    Rights to or interests in investments (Contractually Based Investments)
    Rights to or interests in investments (Security)
    Share
    Unit
    Warrant
    Limitation
    Rights to or interests in (both).
    Credit Broking


    Making arrangements with a view to transactions in investments
    Customer Type
    Eligible Counterparty
    Professional
    Retail (Investment)
    Investment Type
    Certificates representing certain security
    Debenture
    Future (excluding a commodity future and a rolling spot forex contract)
    Option (excluding a commodity option and an option on a commodity future)
    Rights to or interests in investments (Contractually Based Investments)
    Rights to or interests in investments (Security)
    Share
    Unit
    Warrant
    Limitation
    Rights to or interests in (both).


    https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000001m189AAAQ
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
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

3,726Posts Today

7,258Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin