London capital and finance
Discussion
Family member had Invested with this lot, lost a lot of savings.
I've been reading up on them and just can't quite fathom how they started this thing up ?
Surely they and others such as Blackmore didn't just pop up one day without any history and take multiple millions through a couple of daft comparison websites.
I've been reading up on them and just can't quite fathom how they started this thing up ?
Surely they and others such as Blackmore didn't just pop up one day without any history and take multiple millions through a couple of daft comparison websites.
I get the impression that there are lots of layers in these things. The promoter sits at the top but along the way "introducers" seem to do nicely. This straight away causes the whole thing to wobble, as if £100 is invested but £20 goes to the introducer, the return has to be significantly higher to pay the 9%.
The one that really got my craw was The High Street Group, not only scumbags but self righteous with it.
Very sad for people who lose money but also very sad for the rest of us as it is often not the promoters who pay but ultimately the public.
The one that really got my craw was The High Street Group, not only scumbags but self righteous with it.
Very sad for people who lose money but also very sad for the rest of us as it is often not the promoters who pay but ultimately the public.
Yup. The people involved had generally been involved in decades of similar wheezes but it got turbocharged by the FCA releasing pensions, not regulating IFAs, not regulating minibonds and for a decade, ignoring the market professionals who repeatedly told the FCA what was going on.
Same with Woodford. The FCA were asleep at the wheel on that one.
And of course, the utter madness of the FCA thinking that pension administrators should suddenly start doing their job of regulating asset managers, fund managers and IFAs.
It's genuinely difficult to settimine if the FCA has been complicit or negligent but fundamentally post Mifid2 it hasn't really existed as anything but a vehicle to implement ESMA rulings from Europe and has policed or governed nothing, only ever responding when the FBI, SFO, Westminster or the EU picked up on a fraud. Meanwhile they've just taken money from legitimate firms and then bullied them while doing nothing to prevent rampant fraud.
It's hardly surprising that we've reached this point today: https://www.standard.co.uk/business/fca-nikhil-rat...
However, that is only part of the story and the problem. We must ask why so many of the willing investors were so blatantly stupid and why, even today, so many U.K. citizens hurl money at stupid get rich quick schemes.
As well as a fit and proper regulator to police these practices we also desperately need the end client to just take a break from being so unbelievably f
king stupid and doing things that if they stopped to think it through properly would never do.
You can see this all repeating at the moment in the crypto market. Under 30s losing billions through rank stupidity and greed.
Putting aside the genuinely vulnerable there needs to be a cultural shift in accepting that it takes two to tango.
Same with Woodford. The FCA were asleep at the wheel on that one.
And of course, the utter madness of the FCA thinking that pension administrators should suddenly start doing their job of regulating asset managers, fund managers and IFAs.
It's genuinely difficult to settimine if the FCA has been complicit or negligent but fundamentally post Mifid2 it hasn't really existed as anything but a vehicle to implement ESMA rulings from Europe and has policed or governed nothing, only ever responding when the FBI, SFO, Westminster or the EU picked up on a fraud. Meanwhile they've just taken money from legitimate firms and then bullied them while doing nothing to prevent rampant fraud.
It's hardly surprising that we've reached this point today: https://www.standard.co.uk/business/fca-nikhil-rat...
However, that is only part of the story and the problem. We must ask why so many of the willing investors were so blatantly stupid and why, even today, so many U.K. citizens hurl money at stupid get rich quick schemes.
As well as a fit and proper regulator to police these practices we also desperately need the end client to just take a break from being so unbelievably f
king stupid and doing things that if they stopped to think it through properly would never do. You can see this all repeating at the moment in the crypto market. Under 30s losing billions through rank stupidity and greed.
Putting aside the genuinely vulnerable there needs to be a cultural shift in accepting that it takes two to tango.
DonkeyApple said:
Yup. The people involved had generally been involved in decades of similar wheezes but it got turbocharged by the FCA releasing pensions, not regulating IFAs, not regulating minibonds and for a decade, ignoring the market professionals who repeatedly told the FCA what was going on.
Same with Woodford. The FCA were asleep at the wheel on that one.
And of course, the utter madness of the FCA thinking that pension administrators should suddenly start doing their job of regulating asset managers, fund managers and IFAs.
It's genuinely difficult to settimine if the FCA has been complicit or negligent but fundamentally post Mifid2 it hasn't really existed as anything but a vehicle to implement ESMA rulings from Europe and has policed or governed nothing, only ever responding when the FBI, SFO, Westminster or the EU picked up on a fraud. Meanwhile they've just taken money from legitimate firms and then bullied them while doing nothing to prevent rampant fraud.
It's hardly surprising that we've reached this point today: https://www.standard.co.uk/business/fca-nikhil-rat...
However, that is only part of the story and the problem. We must ask why so many of the willing investors were so blatantly stupid and why, even today, so many U.K. citizens hurl money at stupid get rich quick schemes.
As well as a fit and proper regulator to police these practices we also desperately need the end client to just take a break from being so unbelievably fking stupid and doing things that if they stopped to think it through properly would never do.
You can see this all repeating at the moment in the crypto market. Under 30s losing billions through rank stupidity and greed.
Putting aside the genuinely vulnerable there needs to be a cultural shift in accepting that it takes two to tango.
+1.Same with Woodford. The FCA were asleep at the wheel on that one.
And of course, the utter madness of the FCA thinking that pension administrators should suddenly start doing their job of regulating asset managers, fund managers and IFAs.
It's genuinely difficult to settimine if the FCA has been complicit or negligent but fundamentally post Mifid2 it hasn't really existed as anything but a vehicle to implement ESMA rulings from Europe and has policed or governed nothing, only ever responding when the FBI, SFO, Westminster or the EU picked up on a fraud. Meanwhile they've just taken money from legitimate firms and then bullied them while doing nothing to prevent rampant fraud.
It's hardly surprising that we've reached this point today: https://www.standard.co.uk/business/fca-nikhil-rat...
However, that is only part of the story and the problem. We must ask why so many of the willing investors were so blatantly stupid and why, even today, so many U.K. citizens hurl money at stupid get rich quick schemes.
As well as a fit and proper regulator to police these practices we also desperately need the end client to just take a break from being so unbelievably f
king stupid and doing things that if they stopped to think it through properly would never do. You can see this all repeating at the moment in the crypto market. Under 30s losing billions through rank stupidity and greed.
Putting aside the genuinely vulnerable there needs to be a cultural shift in accepting that it takes two to tango.
It's easy to place blame on FCA for the lack of regulation to control certain parties, but the crux of these scams lie with these
- excluding the vulnerable.
'Part' of it comes from the fact that no western government/central bank has been able to provide a populous with any interest return on their money for years.
Most mid, even late 30's people from the start of their adult working life (ie some post school/college or uni) will have never experienced their savings grow. Us older than that saw it decline, but previously were ok leaving an amount there to 'grow'.
It's not been an option since 2008, when again the whole system failed and was "bailed out". Also rates being low borrowing was cheap and so that's what people did. Largely en masse we are a product of external influence, they reap what they sow?
Messages from 2008 are what ? It's not worth saving, have this cheap credit, too big to fail.....
What has worked since then? speculating on the markets, property.......just leverage yourself and it'll come good, so I don't blame lots of people, as I say if you create certain conditions you get certain outcomes?
In the 90's we were protected from ourselves, credit couldn't easily be obtained, then the taps were opened, safe savings options declined/stopped and you'd be mad to hold cash, so up pop the shysters/fleecers amongst the legit and suddenly people are expected to do due diligence etc etc.
I get the adage of if it seems to good to be true it is but were London Capital and Finance offering that crazy rates........and then those involved are getting 80% of their initial investment back (capped at £68,000) so arguably not encouraging huge due diligence again.....the vibe is we are always protected and so risk migitated before you start?
Most mid, even late 30's people from the start of their adult working life (ie some post school/college or uni) will have never experienced their savings grow. Us older than that saw it decline, but previously were ok leaving an amount there to 'grow'.
It's not been an option since 2008, when again the whole system failed and was "bailed out". Also rates being low borrowing was cheap and so that's what people did. Largely en masse we are a product of external influence, they reap what they sow?
Messages from 2008 are what ? It's not worth saving, have this cheap credit, too big to fail.....
What has worked since then? speculating on the markets, property.......just leverage yourself and it'll come good, so I don't blame lots of people, as I say if you create certain conditions you get certain outcomes?
In the 90's we were protected from ourselves, credit couldn't easily be obtained, then the taps were opened, safe savings options declined/stopped and you'd be mad to hold cash, so up pop the shysters/fleecers amongst the legit and suddenly people are expected to do due diligence etc etc.
I get the adage of if it seems to good to be true it is but were London Capital and Finance offering that crazy rates........and then those involved are getting 80% of their initial investment back (capped at £68,000) so arguably not encouraging huge due diligence again.....the vibe is we are always protected and so risk migitated before you start?
Scootersp said:
'Part' of it comes from the fact that no western government/central bank has been able to provide a populous with any interest return on their money for years.
Flip that around… do you think people have right to interest?In a more connected, accessible, and dare I say it, entitled world people have an expectation that they can have everything.
After all, investing is easy and the route to fast money and an amazing lifestyle (says some bloke on Instagram with lots of flashy shopping bags and tasteless designer gear)..
That and the rise of credit. Hell, watch a bit of trashy TV and you’ll see adverts basically saying “improve your credit score, then you can borrow more and have this amazing lifestyle”.
Scootersp said:
suddenly people are expected to do due diligence etc etc.
Why is this a problem? Why would you invest in something where you didn’t understand the risks?Not criticising you personally, but in the age we’re currently living in people seem to want the freedom of choice but have someone pick up the pieces for them when they make bad ones.
^^^^^ sadly this all day long.
Sadly there is no financial education and we now seem to have a society where it’s always someone else’s fault and thinking for yourself is to much like hard work.
A friend recently scammed himself out of £70k and blamed the banks for allowing him to transfer the money to them on multiple occasions. He got it all back from the banks with interest and there appears to be no come back for his gross stupidity and greed.
Sadly there is no financial education and we now seem to have a society where it’s always someone else’s fault and thinking for yourself is to much like hard work.
A friend recently scammed himself out of £70k and blamed the banks for allowing him to transfer the money to them on multiple occasions. He got it all back from the banks with interest and there appears to be no come back for his gross stupidity and greed.
Scootersp said:
What has worked since then? speculating on the markets, property.......just leverage yourself and it'll come good, so I don't blame lots of people, as I say if you create certain conditions you get certain outcomes?
An intensely boring, low cost, globally diversified portfolio has worked, but many do not want boring, preferring to invest in "what is working now" rather than "what has always worked"If you were to write a book on successful investing outcomes, this would surely be one of the most important points to get across.
Edited by Derek Chevalier on Friday 8th April 08:52
That's more the issue. We may have had no return on cash but boring old equity portfolios have done rather well. The painful truth is that the U.K. is full of people who genuinely want excessive returns for zero labour so will take insane risks.
Minibonds, P2P and all that junk wasn't permitted to be covered by the FSCS precisely because it was overt rubbish that relied entirely on deliberately miss pricing risk meeting investors who didn't want to look below the surface or apply any reason.
We've had the opening wide of the financial markets to the whole retail spectrum and none of the forced education needed to help negate some of the worst risks.
What's sad is that you see it repeating with their children in the crypto and meme sectors where even greater desperation for returns and a wilful desire to ignore risk is reaping the exact same damage.
A large proportion of Brits just don't like boring wealth accumulation because it requires more work and less shopping and carries no gambler's thrills and no dreaming of supercars and bottlerats.
Minibonds, P2P and all that junk wasn't permitted to be covered by the FSCS precisely because it was overt rubbish that relied entirely on deliberately miss pricing risk meeting investors who didn't want to look below the surface or apply any reason.
We've had the opening wide of the financial markets to the whole retail spectrum and none of the forced education needed to help negate some of the worst risks.
What's sad is that you see it repeating with their children in the crypto and meme sectors where even greater desperation for returns and a wilful desire to ignore risk is reaping the exact same damage.
A large proportion of Brits just don't like boring wealth accumulation because it requires more work and less shopping and carries no gambler's thrills and no dreaming of supercars and bottlerats.
Derek Chevalier said:
supersport said:
Sadly there is no financial education
That's an enormous challenge that I don't think there is an easy answer to.If you are stupid enough to send money to randoms to buy a jpg of a gorilla, you deserve everything that's coming to you. If you put money with something that is less obviously a fraud - say a long con corrupt bank - then you have recourse to the courts with every other creditor to realise whatever assets can be seized. That's the only point at which the government should be involved - justice system, forfeiture, and imprisonment.
It wouldn't take long for the population to refine its counterparty credit assessment skills. But it will never happen, because at every fraud there are always too many self-interested mouthpieces shouting for 'the government to do something about it'.
DonkeyApple said:
Minibonds, P2P and all that junk wasn't permitted to be covered by the FSCS precisely because it was overt rubbish that relied entirely on deliberately miss pricing risk meeting investors who didn't want to look below the surface or apply any reason.
We've had the opening wide of the financial markets to the whole retail spectrum and none of the forced education needed to help negate some of the worst risks.
Couldn’t agree more. So much stuff out there that simply shouldn’t (in my view) be in the hands of retail investors but probably only really works if it is due to the need to incorrectly price it. Should be more in the way of controls/restriction to HNW/sophisticated/professional investors (although the threshold for HNW is arguably way too low these days).We've had the opening wide of the financial markets to the whole retail spectrum and none of the forced education needed to help negate some of the worst risks.
Newc said:
Agree, but part of it is as mentioned above, there are not enough consequences for stupidity. FSCS and similar schemes were originally, and should be again, intended to prevent bank runs because of the knock-on effects to the wider economy. In every other situation people should lose their money with no comeback.
If you are stupid enough to send money to randoms to buy a jpg of a gorilla, you deserve everything that's coming to you. If you put money with something that is less obviously a fraud - say a long con corrupt bank - then you have recourse to the courts with every other creditor to realise whatever assets can be seized. That's the only point at which the government should be involved - justice system, forfeiture, and imprisonment.
It wouldn't take long for the population to refine its counterparty credit assessment skills. But it will never happen, because at every fraud there are always too many self-interested mouthpieces shouting for 'the government to do something about it'.
It's harsh but fair. However, most of these get rich quick scams aren't covered by the FSCS which is fair. Where they were was when a dodgy IFA 'advised' their clients to throw their money away, which is also how it should work. If you are stupid enough to send money to randoms to buy a jpg of a gorilla, you deserve everything that's coming to you. If you put money with something that is less obviously a fraud - say a long con corrupt bank - then you have recourse to the courts with every other creditor to realise whatever assets can be seized. That's the only point at which the government should be involved - justice system, forfeiture, and imprisonment.
It wouldn't take long for the population to refine its counterparty credit assessment skills. But it will never happen, because at every fraud there are always too many self-interested mouthpieces shouting for 'the government to do something about it'.
One of the side issues is that the FSCS itself has been the root of many problems in that it seems to have allowed the FCA to stop policing to prevent problems ever occurring but instead charge the same money for becoming the equivalent of Highway wombles who just clean up after using other people's money. The organisation simply converted itself from policing to cleaning up.
LooneyTunes said:
Couldn’t agree more. So much stuff out there that simply shouldn’t (in my view) be in the hands of retail investors but probably only really works if it is due to the need to incorrectly price it. Should be more in the way of controls/restriction to HNW/sophisticated/professional investors (although the threshold for HNW is arguably way too low these days).
As a retail investor it seems a very mixed and odd situation.I can't easily put a single penny in Bitcoin via a reputable regulated investment platform.
Instead I have a small amount done via PayPal.
I can deposit my life savings with Coinbase and that's fine.
I can also put every penny I have into a oeic/trust/etf investing in Russian companies or (cough) cold fusion startups and again that's absolutely fine.
Whilst I know that what I do with my money should be my responsibility so far as regulation that just seems plain weird to me.
One thing that on a personal anecdotal note I'll never understand is what is it with miners that seems to attract people who are convinced that "any day now" they'll strike gold (literally) enough to invest life altering sums in single AIM type stocks.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Whilst I know that what I do with my money should be my responsibility so far as regulation that just seems plain weird to me.
For obvious reasons, regulation often lags behind new developments. Even if you want to be regulated, you can’t be if there’s no framework to support it. And that’s aside from the fact that you might be at a commercial disadvantage if your competitors remain unregulated. Being unregulated is not necessarily bad. The issue is more around what different classes of investors have access to and how investments are promoted. You expect the big boys* to look past any gloss and diligence properly. Some of the s
te promoted to retail investors (p2p/crowdfunding/etc) relies on that gloss to in convince them that they understand it and to not look further. Yup. What retail investors do absolutely need to learn to do is read financial promotions from bottom to top not top to bottom.
Start at the bottom of such a page and it generally explains that you're money is not covered by the FSCS so 100% at risk not just of the investment but the platform. Then you realise that for risking 100% of your capital you're not even being offered any capital upside! What? That's insane, no one would ever be so stupid as to risk capital for no potential capital gain. Then you'd realise that not only do you have any capital upside but you also have no real exit, no really say or control and that there seems to be no viable due diligence on the recipient that can be done.
Start at the bottom and you pretty much instantly realise that it is toxic crap that no sane investor would ever go near. Make the mistake of starting at the top and it's bank account that pays 10% or a shrewd investment into genuine businessmen who want to give you the upside return and not a nasty bank.
It's the same with things like physical FX. 'You trade at spot'. What spot? Who's spot? On what exchange? Start at the bottom to learn that 'spot' is meaningless, I know which way you're trading so I'm going to give you a 'spot' that's packed full of juicy comm.
Crypto is riddled with fraud and deception. Most of the world's penny share spankers, if young enough, have moved across to this global arse raping bonanza. It's a global market of punters who will quite literally buy anything at any price because a stranger said some long worlds. Extreme caution is needed in that market and given the enormous losses being incurred it's clear that most people are exercising no caution.
It's similar with fintech platforms. When one looks at the bottom of the page one might question why a U.K. firm would use remote outpost EU licenses, why the domestic regulator hasn't granted certain licenses or why a search engine's results are totally dominated by pages and content controlled by the company.
The best trick a retail investor can do to help themselves is to start at the bottom. That's were the turd rating information is all on display. Then when you get to the exciting, shiny stuff at the top you know how much of it is turd glitter for schmucks.
Start at the bottom of such a page and it generally explains that you're money is not covered by the FSCS so 100% at risk not just of the investment but the platform. Then you realise that for risking 100% of your capital you're not even being offered any capital upside! What? That's insane, no one would ever be so stupid as to risk capital for no potential capital gain. Then you'd realise that not only do you have any capital upside but you also have no real exit, no really say or control and that there seems to be no viable due diligence on the recipient that can be done.
Start at the bottom and you pretty much instantly realise that it is toxic crap that no sane investor would ever go near. Make the mistake of starting at the top and it's bank account that pays 10% or a shrewd investment into genuine businessmen who want to give you the upside return and not a nasty bank.
It's the same with things like physical FX. 'You trade at spot'. What spot? Who's spot? On what exchange? Start at the bottom to learn that 'spot' is meaningless, I know which way you're trading so I'm going to give you a 'spot' that's packed full of juicy comm.
Crypto is riddled with fraud and deception. Most of the world's penny share spankers, if young enough, have moved across to this global arse raping bonanza. It's a global market of punters who will quite literally buy anything at any price because a stranger said some long worlds. Extreme caution is needed in that market and given the enormous losses being incurred it's clear that most people are exercising no caution.
It's similar with fintech platforms. When one looks at the bottom of the page one might question why a U.K. firm would use remote outpost EU licenses, why the domestic regulator hasn't granted certain licenses or why a search engine's results are totally dominated by pages and content controlled by the company.
The best trick a retail investor can do to help themselves is to start at the bottom. That's were the turd rating information is all on display. Then when you get to the exciting, shiny stuff at the top you know how much of it is turd glitter for schmucks.
DonkeyApple said:
Yup. What retail investors do absolutely need to learn to do is read financial promotions from bottom to top not top to bottom.
Probably the best piece of advice I’ve received for a long time. Easy to remember, simple to put into practice and could potentially save a fortune.
Thank you!
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: One thing that on a personal anecdotal note I'll never understand is what is it with miners that seems to attract people who are convinced that "any day now" they'll strike gold (literally) enough to invest life altering sums in single AIM type stocks.
Junior miners and O&G explorers, like crypto and (it would appear) the scheme discussed in this thread, are just another vector of "one day" hope for naive idiots looking to get rich quick with no effort. Forums full of Stockholm Syndrome fanatics, ramping st companies with spivvy management operating highly niche businesses in iffy regulatory & governance regimes...what could possibly go wrong? While a lot of that applies to much of the rest of AIM too, outside the instant red flag sectors you can find good companies and outperform.funinhounslow said:
Probably the best piece of advice I’ve received for a long time.
Easy to remember, simple to put into practice and could potentially save a fortune.
Thank you!
I hope it helps. The top is where we lay out our stall but it's at the bottom where we have to be very clear as to what the product is. It's at the bottom where after being told you'll be rich and that everyone else has done it and is on their way to being rich you'll find nothing, at best maybe a mention of a jurisdiction you always thought was a holiday destination or somewhere sex travellers went for a weekend city break. Easy to remember, simple to put into practice and could potentially save a fortune.
Thank you!
It probably wouldn't have helped in the scenario above as that looks to have been overt fraud making use of genuine IFA licenses?
For that sort of thing it's the sniff test that's needed. Why am I, a total nobody, randomly being offered this amazing investment opportunity? Why does it entail moving my money to somewhere I'd not heard of until just now?
And finally, the 'eggs in basket' rule. Never, ever, put all your eggs in one basket.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff