Spreadbetting group London Capital may have to pay up to £7.7 million to clients

B

Black Swan

Big news this...Ouch. Simon if you're around, care to comment..? Shares in LCG only down 2-3% today..

London Capital Group (LCG) has revealed a potential liability of £7.7 million to claims from investors in Integrity Financial Solutions managed currency accounts, after the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) found in favour of a client claiming against it.

The FOS has made an assessment at adjudication stage that LCG should repay a client's total losses of £100,000 from the Integrity Managed Currency Growth fund. The claim related to commission rebating from the fund.

The Integrity fund invested money on LCG's foreign exchange platform where it was managed by a number of traders.

LCG said it believed its actions did not cause the loss, but added in an announcement to the market that losses incurred by all clients invested in the fund through the LCG platform amounted to £7.7 million.

'It is not yet clear to what extent LCG may be found to be liable for this total loss,' it said. 'LCG has sufficient resources to meet a liability which extends to the full amount which the fund lost. At this stage we do not have clarity on the extent of claims, or when any payments might be required to be made.'

Around 115 investors in foreign currency accounts held on the LCG platform have taken complaints to the FOS, although it is unclear how many of them invested in Integrity policies.

LCG said it would study the findings of the FOS before deciding whether to refer the decision for review by the Ombudsman.

LCG added the incidents were 'isolated'. 'LCG does not participate in any similar funds and has not done so since closing this programme in 2009.'

LCG shares were down 2.38p, or 2.3%, to 96.63p at 8:45am.


http://www.citywire.co.uk/new-model...471160?ref=new-model-adviser-latest-news-list


Spreadbetting group London Capital may have to pay up to £7.7 million to clients who lost money on a third-party currency fund, according to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Despite a previous ruling, a second report by the Ombudsman ruled that the company, which provides a number of white-labelled services to well known brands such as Paddy Power, must repay £100,000 to investors who lost money in the third party fund.

Simon Denham, chief executive officer of London Capital Group, said a revised assessment of the situation was received by the company on 11 February 2011.

He explained, ‘On the basis of a previous decision given by the FOS in respect of this case, we had expected that the impact of the FOS enquiry would be immaterial on the business. However, a revised assessment from the FOS was received on 11 February.

‘While London Capital Group believes its actions did not cause the loss to the client in question, the FOS adjudicator has now made an assessment that London Capital should repay the total losses incurred by the client of £100,000 plus interest.

'While on its own this is not material, in total the fund to which the client belonged lost £7.7 million.’

London Capital Group has been in discussions with the Financial Ombudsman Service pertaining to commission rebating of a managed spot FX fund which occurred in H1 09.

The query was in relation to complaints from clients that had participated in the programme. It is not yet clear to what extent London Capital Group may be found to be liable for this total loss.

The company said in a stock market announcement that the group has sufficient resources to meet a liability which extends to the full amount which the fund lost

http://www.whatinvestment.co.uk/tra...g-firm-to-pay-compo-for-currency-losses.thtml
 
Scose 5m Analysis.

7.77m off of market cap since last week on break of support level. 60.8% sig/inst investment. bid @ 78-82

That'll be £10 please.
 
.

LCG said it believed its actions did not cause the loss, but added in an announcement to the market that losses incurred by all clients invested in the fund through the LCG platform amounted to £7.7 million.

I wonder how much commission they made from the 7m loss?
 
So that's: City Index, Worldspreads, IG, and LCG with very alarming news events over the past 2 weeks..We live in interesting times..
 
What have I been telling you all for years now -

"the best managed accounts are always the one's that lose you the less"
 
F.Me!!... We have no chance do we... WTF are these companies doing?

Yes we do, "don't hate the game or hate the players play the game and play the players" is one of my key phrases, "the players" being the SB firms..

For example I've given up arguing versus folk who attempt to trade FX off small time frames using SB, I've given up explaining how bucket shop white labels actually make their money, I've given up eulogising how consolidation in the SB industry would be the best outcome; 2-3 heavily regulated/under a constant microscope SB firms, rather than the partly unregulated mess we currently have.

IMHO starting an SB firm (white label or not) should require a certain amount of balance sheet, asset, ring fenced capital from day one, perhaps equal to the clients' exposure.."if you havn't got 50ml set aside you ain't coming in..."

This new player smart live markets, or these gekko guys, how much do *we* the general public know of them? A flashy website and a few eye catching offers? There are too many SB firms chasing a very slowly growing audience, in order for the industry to move forward the bad and the ugly have to perish, hopefully without causing too much of a scandal along the way..

But I'll go out on a limb and suggest one of these white labels, or one of the companies in distress will go under in the next 12 months, perhaps sooner, taking client money with them and it'll cause a stink.
 
But I'll go out on a limb and suggest one of these white labels, or one of the companies in distress will go under in the next 12 months, perhaps sooner, taking client money with them and it'll cause a stink.

Doesn't the FSA compensation fund guarantee the return of up to 50k to clients of these firms?
 
Regulation is what is needed, that and an organisation that is actually going to enforce it. Big changes won't happen until there is a major scandal where people lose big money. Without a scandal nothing will ever really change as they will always be able to lobby their way out of proper scrutiny.
 
Doesn't the FSA compensation fund guarantee the return of up to 50k to clients of these firms?

You think it'll be that simple? From a personal standpoint I'd choose prevention, don't trade with small bucket shops, white labels (other than huge Co's using the tech of for example IG and CMC such as RBS) or companies with any recent negative financial news. I'm not being subjective here but if Gekko, Worldspreads and or Smart Live Markets went bust, with your bit of SB stake money in an account, do you think you'll get your cash back inside days, weeks, or a year or two..?
 
To be fair, when the compensation scheme paid out after the collapse of the Icelandic banks (similarly ropey in many respects), the cheques got sent out pretty quickly after the event. No substitute for not doing due diligence in the first place, I'd agree, but I'm not sure the failure of a smaller s/b firm would be quite the armageddon implied here. Ironically, its European legislation in the form of MIFID that allows some spread-bet firms to sidestep FSA rules on segregated client accounts,
 
To be fair, when the compensation scheme paid out after the collapse of the Icelandic banks (similarly ropey in many respects), the cheques got sent out pretty quickly after the event. No substitute for not doing due diligence in the first place, I'd agree, but I'm not sure the failure of a smaller s/b firm would be quite the armageddon implied here. Ironically, its European legislation in the form of MIFID that allows some spread-bet firms to sidestep FSA rules on segregated client accounts,

Ah, no-one is suggesting "armageddon" but to *us*, in our enclosed little industry, it would be huge news if an SB firm went bust taking our money with it and given the MSM wouldn't feature it as number 2 spot in the news it'd perhaps take years to resolve...
 
Good point Jack.

My mother had a few pounds with one of the Iceland banks and I was amazed when she got her money back within a month, maybe 2 at the most. One form to fill out and bang, the money was sent.

I knew she'd get 100% of her money back but I thought it would be at least 1 year.
 
Not to mention FXCM.

Well fxcm's bad news day doesn't refer to their SB arm specifically and they no doubt have countless actions versus them at any one time, as any financial company of that size does, particularly in the USA.
 
Yes we do, "don't hate the game or hate the players play the game and play the players" is one of my key phrases, "the players" being the SB firms..

For example I've given up arguing versus folk who attempt to trade FX off small time frames using SB, I've given up explaining how bucket shop white labels actually make their money, I've given up eulogising how consolidation in the SB industry would be the best outcome; 2-3 heavily regulated/under a constant microscope SB firms, rather than the partly unregulated mess we currently have.

IMHO starting an SB firm (white label or not) should require a certain amount of balance sheet, asset, ring fenced capital from day one, perhaps equal to the clients' exposure.."if you havn't got 50ml set aside you ain't coming in..."

This new player smart live markets, or these gekko guys, how much do *we* the general public know of them? A flashy website and a few eye catching offers? There are too many SB firms chasing a very slowly growing audience, in order for the industry to move forward the bad and the ugly have to perish, hopefully without causing too much of a scandal along the way..

But I'll go out on a limb and suggest one of these white labels, or one of the companies in distress will go under in the next 12 months, perhaps sooner, taking client money with them and it'll cause a stink.


I know that you have never been in favour of attempting to scalp using spread-betting; (who is?). But generally, you have seemed pretty much in favour of the industry, and critical of those who come on here saying that they (the SB firms) are all thieves and robbers). I've read before your point about consolidation, but more generally, your line seems to be changing a bit (since you moved on to a "real" trading platform? :) ).


When you write "bucket shop white labels", that could be interpreted by some to mean that you are saying that all white labels are bucket shops. I don't think that is what you are saying, not exactly, but it does tend to tar all white labels with the same brush, which would be unfair.

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the white label model, and in some cases, it can provide advantages for the trader. For example, in the case of Tradefair, at least for a while, it was providing a more usable platform, and better overnight rates, than CS. Simon has said that their white labels are free to set their own spreads if they wish, so in theory, you could see a spread advantage as well (that was not the case for Tradefair, as far as I know).

I have only quickly read the facts surrounding the 7.7 possible liability for LCG in the opening story, but it seems on the face of it, that that is entirely different to the case of a spread-betting white label going under.

If Tradefair were to go under, I don't see that LCG would be in any way liable. Recovering my funds would be entirely between Tradefair (or Betfair, or the ultimate owners of Betfair *), the FSA and myself, I believe).

I am not sure about consolidation for its own sake. We've seen that in the high-street banking world (& I'm not talking about the credit-crunch era, but years before that), and I don't think it was necessarily all good for the customer; we seemed to end up with a lot of "one turns - we all turn" stuff). I am quite keen on diversification myself.

But better quality (not necessarily "more" or "heavier") - more effective regulation - yes, I can't argue with that.

I also agree that probably sooner or later, a SB firm will go under, and there will be tears before bed-time. But it's a risk business, isn't it, and managing risk is what trading is all about.


[* more about Tradefair:
http://www.financial-spread-betting.com/Tradefair-interview.html

EDIT - have now corrected my fluff with the article link
 
Last edited:
Don't worry, chaps, if a spread bet company goes bust it would only be reasonable to expect the government (ie, us) to inject lots of money to keep the outfit running and handsomely reward the bosses. Well, we couldn't want the 'talent' to move abroad, would we?
 
Top