I dont think the government would care less if a tiddly little sb firm went down. Even if they were cooking the books, 99% of accounts are under £10k. A few million on deposit, maybe £10m. Who cares...
Spreadbetting group London Capital may have to pay up to £7.7 million to clients
- Thread starter Black Swan
- Start date
- Watchers 13
I dont think the government would care less if a tiddly little sb firm went down. Even if they were cooking the books, 99% of accounts are under £10k. A few million on deposit, maybe £10m. Who cares...
If the client funds were correctly segregated, it doesnt matter if the SB firm goes down.
(The bank holding the funds simply distributes the client balances they hold)
The only problem is if the SB firm doesnt segregate the funds (I think Echelon, based in Scotland did this a year or so back), then it's between client and failed company. Then I'd say youre struggling unless the SB firm is owned by a bigger company.
Rules of thumb: Avoid all the newbie white labels. Stick with the big firms or those that are SB arms of much larger institutions. And UK based helps if you are of course. Unless you fancy a trip to Gibralter/Cyprus etc.
(The bank holding the funds simply distributes the client balances they hold)
The only problem is if the SB firm doesnt segregate the funds (I think Echelon, based in Scotland did this a year or so back), then it's between client and failed company. Then I'd say youre struggling unless the SB firm is owned by a bigger company.
Rules of thumb: Avoid all the newbie white labels. Stick with the big firms or those that are SB arms of much larger institutions. And UK based helps if you are of course. Unless you fancy a trip to Gibralter/Cyprus etc.
0007
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,377
- Likes
- 664
And only keep as much in the account as you need.
B
Black Swan
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.
I've always advocated personal responsibility, I haven't traded with a SB firm for a couple of years or so but I never had any real problems with either of the 3 I used so have no axe to grind or agenda versus the industry and as such have remained steadfast in my opinion of the major SB firms, who are all sound IMHO. All the wounds I suffered were entirely self inflicted..in fact I've probably had more questions versus the 'FX specific' firms I've used. After advice I may have to re-visit the world of SB-ing and would feel entirely comfortable with cmc, ig, or a major bank's white label platform.
I'm not really interested how traders interpet my white label/bucket shop reference, I pointed out that RBS use another's platform and as such are a white label, folk have to make their own investigations as to the quality of the SB firm they prefer.
As for consolidation It can't happen quick enough imho, I'd rather see 3/4 quality (perfectly regulated and financially sound) SB firms and a couple of sound banks using their platforms, offering a consistent 2-3 pip FX spread on cable and Euro, with good fills and lack of slippage, than all the mess we witness at times.
It was supposed to be a joke.
andycon
Active member
- Messages
- 170
- Likes
- 12
I was under the impression that all spread betting firms (regardless of size) were regulated by the Financial Service Authority (FSA), and covered by the FSCS and the FOS. I also thought that it was a legal requirement for them to segregate client money. Is this not the case?
francisfinley
Established member
- Messages
- 902
- Likes
- 46
Im trying to get my money out of LCG but they wont let me have it because of their supposed rules.
Any legal eagles around?
They only refund to the source (now expired cards) and i don't have the documents and wont have the documents they require and they wont be getting them. I have sent them photos of the front of the cards - this is all they are getting.
I have taken money out of 2 other spreadbet vendors this week where my cards expired and refunded it to a new and different account so this is nothing to do with FSA/anti money laundering - this is LCG specific.
The only argument is whether, "may require" and not "will" are a factor in their terms and conditions below, however in my experience this is a weak argument and they will stick by these terms and conditions. I have shown more than a reasonable attempt to verify who I am by sending them copies of the cards and adding a new card to their platform which is verified.
14 days notice & then Straight to small claims court? Any other suggestions?
17.6
Due to fraud prevention measures and in accordance with money laundering regulations LCG will only refund monies back to where they came from. Where monies have been deposited by card the funds will be returned to that card where possible and where not possible LCG may require sight of original bank statements showing original fund transfer to LCG before refunding to the said bank account.
17.7
Where monies have been deposited by bank transfer LCG may require sight of the original bank statement showing the deposit of the transfer before any refund is made.
17.8
Where bank accounts have been closed LCG may require a letter from the originating bank stating that the account has been closed and there are no funds owing to the bank. Before LCG will refund to a new bank account we may require sight of the original deposit transfer statement from the closed account and sight of an original new bank account statement.
17.9
In reference to this Clause, if LCG’s records show a discrepancy between card details and LCG’s account details as supplied by you, LCG may require sight of original bank statements, or any other relevant evidence, to confirm your new status before processing a refund.
Any legal eagles around?
They only refund to the source (now expired cards) and i don't have the documents and wont have the documents they require and they wont be getting them. I have sent them photos of the front of the cards - this is all they are getting.
I have taken money out of 2 other spreadbet vendors this week where my cards expired and refunded it to a new and different account so this is nothing to do with FSA/anti money laundering - this is LCG specific.
The only argument is whether, "may require" and not "will" are a factor in their terms and conditions below, however in my experience this is a weak argument and they will stick by these terms and conditions. I have shown more than a reasonable attempt to verify who I am by sending them copies of the cards and adding a new card to their platform which is verified.
14 days notice & then Straight to small claims court? Any other suggestions?
17.6
Due to fraud prevention measures and in accordance with money laundering regulations LCG will only refund monies back to where they came from. Where monies have been deposited by card the funds will be returned to that card where possible and where not possible LCG may require sight of original bank statements showing original fund transfer to LCG before refunding to the said bank account.
17.7
Where monies have been deposited by bank transfer LCG may require sight of the original bank statement showing the deposit of the transfer before any refund is made.
17.8
Where bank accounts have been closed LCG may require a letter from the originating bank stating that the account has been closed and there are no funds owing to the bank. Before LCG will refund to a new bank account we may require sight of the original deposit transfer statement from the closed account and sight of an original new bank account statement.
17.9
In reference to this Clause, if LCG’s records show a discrepancy between card details and LCG’s account details as supplied by you, LCG may require sight of original bank statements, or any other relevant evidence, to confirm your new status before processing a refund.
Maybe they need a letter from your credit card company saying that the account is closed. If you don't have it why not contact the card company and get a copy. If they won't send it you could send a Subject Access Request (costing you £10) under the Data Protection Act. Then they will have to supply it.
francisfinley
Established member
- Messages
- 902
- Likes
- 46
thanks, I understand that. What im getting at is, if I don't provide that info what grounds have I got to reclaim it.
Because they aren't getting that info. The other 2 companies who refunded me to the new account were FSA registered and UK based.
This is LCG's contract I am disputing.
'FSA money laundering rules' was used as an excuse by another SB company when I tried to withdraw funds. When I checked with the FSA, it turned out that there were no 'rules', only guidance, and when this was pointed out to the SB they coughed up.
The problem in your case might be that you've already agreed to the T&Cs, so can't really dispute them now, unless you've somehow been misled.
The problem in your case might be that you've already agreed to the T&Cs, so can't really dispute them now, unless you've somehow been misled.
These money laundering rules are often a complete joke. I bet the real money launderers aren't having so much of a problem washing their cash.
Send them proof of your name and address, the same as you put on your account opening forms, also a copy of your passport. Then tell them they now have enough information to prove that the money/account is yours and to now send the funds back without the risk of you being a money launderer.
Tell them they have 7 days otherwise you'll be suing them in the small claims court. 95% chance that will work unless they're complete morons in which case DO take it to the small claims, that can be done online in about 20 mins and 99% chance it won't go to court, ie they'll settle AND pay the small costs which should be around £50. The reason they'll settle is simple, firstly they'll know the cash is yours and more importantly it will save them a tonne of time and cash.
Send them proof of your name and address, the same as you put on your account opening forms, also a copy of your passport. Then tell them they now have enough information to prove that the money/account is yours and to now send the funds back without the risk of you being a money launderer.
Tell them they have 7 days otherwise you'll be suing them in the small claims court. 95% chance that will work unless they're complete morons in which case DO take it to the small claims, that can be done online in about 20 mins and 99% chance it won't go to court, ie they'll settle AND pay the small costs which should be around £50. The reason they'll settle is simple, firstly they'll know the cash is yours and more importantly it will save them a tonne of time and cash.
montmorencyt2w
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,619
- Likes
- 294
I agree that the money-laundering "rules" are a (very bad) joke, that seem to mostly hinder honest folk from going about their business, and probably leave the villains laughing up their sleeve.
However, (and sorry if I have missed the subtleties), in at least two cases (only one of which was with an LCG-related entity - it was actually a WL partner, so may be slightly different from dealing directly with LCG anyway), when I had funds deposited from a card that was now expired, I simply registered a new card (not necessarily with the same bank), added a small amount to the funds (e.g. as little as £10), and was then able to withdraw as much as I liked to the account relating to the new card.
Is that not possible in this case? If not, then I think they are clearly in the wrong, and they are using the rules (incorrectly in my view) as a licence to steal your money.
However, (and sorry if I have missed the subtleties), in at least two cases (only one of which was with an LCG-related entity - it was actually a WL partner, so may be slightly different from dealing directly with LCG anyway), when I had funds deposited from a card that was now expired, I simply registered a new card (not necessarily with the same bank), added a small amount to the funds (e.g. as little as £10), and was then able to withdraw as much as I liked to the account relating to the new card.
Is that not possible in this case? If not, then I think they are clearly in the wrong, and they are using the rules (incorrectly in my view) as a licence to steal your money.
B
Black Swan
Francis, if you find the CS thread you'll find Simon's details, I suggest you PM him with your issues. It's a very simple issue to resolve..
francisfinley
Established member
- Messages
- 902
- Likes
- 46
I agree that the money-laundering "rules" are a (very bad) joke, that seem to mostly hinder honest folk from going about their business, and probably leave the villains laughing up their sleeve.
However, (and sorry if I have missed the subtleties), in at least two cases (only one of which was with an LCG-related entity - it was actually a WL partner, so may be slightly different from dealing directly with LCG anyway), when I had funds deposited from a card that was now expired, I simply registered a new card (not necessarily with the same bank), added a small amount to the funds (e.g. as little as £10), and was then able to withdraw as much as I liked to the account relating to the new card.
Is that not possible in this case? If not, then I think they are clearly in the wrong, and they are using the rules (incorrectly in my view) as a licence to steal your money.
montmorency - I thought about asking them that.....
How can they keep track of what funds came from where? its impossible with 2 cards on the account! Are they going to tell me which card is attributable to which amount - no, its impossible. They could only average it which means this is all absolute utter nonsense.
Black Swan - will do that as well.
anley - yep always the best way.... sending all the info in a notice email..... will see what comes back. I shouldn't have to go through all this to get the money back, when I have added a new card and verified it online... Im trying to set a precedent here.
If they are still arses then im giving everyone on all the forums im on my autoclicker software to take them all to the cleaners, I have totally had it with all of these prats. Watch this space.
Last edited:
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
I agree that the money-laundering "rules" are a (very bad) joke, that seem to mostly hinder honest folk from going about their business, and probably leave the villains laughing up their sleeve.
However, (and sorry if I have missed the subtleties), in at least two cases (only one of which was with an LCG-related entity - it was actually a WL partner, so may be slightly different from dealing directly with LCG anyway), when I had funds deposited from a card that was now expired, I simply registered a new card (not necessarily with the same bank), added a small amount to the funds (e.g. as little as £10), and was then able to withdraw as much as I liked to the account relating to the new card.
Is that not possible in this case? If not, then I think they are clearly in the wrong, and they are using the rules (incorrectly in my view) as a licence to steal your money.
Simon stated that trading with WL partners is trading with LCG , and to make things easier to understand u could consider Capitalspreads itself as a WL partner for LCG this what he said ...
Does their reluctance to pay have anything to do with them believing you had been taking 'unfair advantage' of platform latency, or similar?
francisfinley
Established member
- Messages
- 902
- Likes
- 46
none whatsoever. This is only to do with LCG's specific client money rules which are poppycock.
they are all c**t's without exception.
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
Similar threads
