The naivety of Investors.Another successful up front affair?
Discussion
Well what a surprise. The link below confirms that yet another up front fee firm has folded with significant losses to the "investors" who put their money into a scheme with front loaded fees and who suddenly find that their "investment" has suffered.
See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20555348
Why, after all the Ponzi schemes there have been do people not see these for what they are? Risky, flaky and really not suitable for serious investment at all.
Putting your money on a horse race is surely a better bet if you want a flutter? At least there will be a race under jockey club rules and you are in with a chance. Albeit that the odds will clearly favour the bookies.
It is the constant repetition that surprises me. The old adage that "If it looks too good to be true, it very probably is too good to be true" surely applies to all such activities.
Yet "investors" still, even today, make repeated forays into obviously questionable ventures. I suppose a fool and his money, are still easy pickings. I believe these activities are outside the FSA regulations. Which on itself ought to raise questions in the minds of any potential interested individuals. Apparently not. Again.
See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20555348
Why, after all the Ponzi schemes there have been do people not see these for what they are? Risky, flaky and really not suitable for serious investment at all.
Putting your money on a horse race is surely a better bet if you want a flutter? At least there will be a race under jockey club rules and you are in with a chance. Albeit that the odds will clearly favour the bookies.
It is the constant repetition that surprises me. The old adage that "If it looks too good to be true, it very probably is too good to be true" surely applies to all such activities.
Yet "investors" still, even today, make repeated forays into obviously questionable ventures. I suppose a fool and his money, are still easy pickings. I believe these activities are outside the FSA regulations. Which on itself ought to raise questions in the minds of any potential interested individuals. Apparently not. Again.
jan50 said:
Yes, I believe this is outside the remit of the FSA.
Unless you're a shrewd investor it's wise to ensure that any investment you do is regulated by the FSA.
In reality unless you can have some control or safeguard I think that the shrewd investor will not accept the unquantified risk that such "investments" entail. Particularly with up front 25% fees which were the case here I think. Unless you're a shrewd investor it's wise to ensure that any investment you do is regulated by the FSA.
Recipe for disaster, IMO as this "investment" has sadly proved to be.
Perhaps I'm alone in thinking that wine as an investment is a Croc of pretentious b
ks & music to the ears of the archetypal upper class wannabes that perpetrate this ste.
I was cold called twice in a month a while back by theses shysters and only a frank "fk off" managed to stop the turd on the other end from explaining to me the fabulous world that would become my life if I gave them all my money.
I feel sorry for Laura & her 15 grand though. Actually, I don't.
ks & music to the ears of the archetypal upper class wannabes that perpetrate this ste. I was cold called twice in a month a while back by theses shysters and only a frank "f
k off" managed to stop the turd on the other end from explaining to me the fabulous world that would become my life if I gave them all my money. I feel sorry for Laura & her 15 grand though. Actually, I don't.
This case is somewhat removed from the host of others that have preceded it though. As I understand it the majority of individuals investments have been allocated and the Administrator is just trying to progress through the final few weeks of documentation to ascertain what is owned by (allocated to)individuals and what is owned by the company.
The latter wine could be unallocated wine, or could be wine that the company purchased from its investors to resell but hadn't yet done so.
Once the paperwork has been progressed then investors can take their wine from storage into a private account should they so wish. The fact it's in an umbrella account does not mean it hasn't been allocated.
Yes there will be some that lose out, I agree, but not the wholesale write off's that other investment companies have been responsible for.
The latter wine could be unallocated wine, or could be wine that the company purchased from its investors to resell but hadn't yet done so.
Once the paperwork has been progressed then investors can take their wine from storage into a private account should they so wish. The fact it's in an umbrella account does not mean it hasn't been allocated.
Yes there will be some that lose out, I agree, but not the wholesale write off's that other investment companies have been responsible for.
Steffan said:
In reality unless you can have some control or safeguard I think that the shrewd investor will not accept the unquantified risk that such "investments" entail. Particularly with up front 25% fees which were the case here I think.
Recipe for disaster, IMO as this "investment" has sadly proved to be.
I tend to agree, sadly I see it quite often in my line of business. It can be difficult to get anything back if its not FSA regulated.Recipe for disaster, IMO as this "investment" has sadly proved to be.
sleepezy said:
This case is somewhat removed from the host of others that have preceded it though. As I understand it the majority of individuals investments have been allocated and the Administrator is just trying to progress through the final few weeks of documentation to ascertain what is owned by (allocated to)individuals and what is owned by the company.
The latter wine could be unallocated wine, or could be wine that the company purchased from its investors to resell but hadn't yet done so.
Once the paperwork has been progressed then investors can take their wine from storage into a private account should they so wish. The fact it's in an umbrella account does not mean it hasn't been allocated.
Yes there will be some that lose out, I agree, but not the wholesale write off's that other investment companies have been responsible for.
It is slightly different. This collapse is a case of the firm running its own book and getting in the wrong side of it. The latter wine could be unallocated wine, or could be wine that the company purchased from its investors to resell but hadn't yet done so.
Once the paperwork has been progressed then investors can take their wine from storage into a private account should they so wish. The fact it's in an umbrella account does not mean it hasn't been allocated.
Yes there will be some that lose out, I agree, but not the wholesale write off's that other investment companies have been responsible for.
A typical case of 'long and wrong' combined with no comprehension of how to hedge your book risk to guard against default.
Being regulated doesn't protect you from this sort of thing completely but what it does do is legally prevent renowned shysters from working in the sector and also places hurdles that make it too risky, complex or costly to most shysters.
In my view all 'appreciating assets' when 'broked' should be regulated.
Schemes such as land parcels, holiday plots, bamboo, gold, wine are nearly all scams and are mostly run by people who are well known to the FSA.
The simple fact is that these people will always flock to unregulated markets and make wild promises in exchange for the savings of idiots.
However, it would be far simpler and more sensible to stop absolving the client/victim of guilt. Stop feeling sorry for them. Mock them. Make it obvious to them that they were fools.
If you re-attach social stigma to being such a moron then cases will fall but not only that, you will create an army of zealots who once scammed put effort into halting scammers.
z4chris99 said:
DonkeyApple said:
z4chris99 said:
I live next to one of these cold calling wine boiler rooms... makes me sick they are allowed to operade
Makes me sick that people who live next door to them don't do anything about them. 
z4chris99 said:
they flog wine investments to old people by cold calling.. in their office (a mate "worked" there) it's just phones and books of numbers, he didn't even have a chair...
apart from being located in the UK not Spain, it's pretty boiler room like
The thing is that this is how you sell stuff. You hire kids, teach them the patter, offer them a deal that looks like they'll be rich but never will be and make them call people from lists. apart from being located in the UK not Spain, it's pretty boiler room like
There isn't anything wrong with that.
Where many sales operations turn into boiler rooms is when they actively deceive beyond the crappy sales patter. Ie no product or a different product that has been described.
With regards to performance, they are not regulated so can say anything they like at the end of the day but luckily any potential customer will research the market they are about to invest in and the product so be able to tell if the claims are valid.
But if the place is a boiler room then I seem no reason not to inform the landlord of illegal activities, trading standards and local authority etc.
I am sorry to say this is IMO another case of ineffective scrutiny by the authorities.
The latest theft/fraud acts make every attempt to fleece the uninitated capable of prosecution. I have no doubt that the the authorities at Companies House, the DTi, the Serious Fraud office and the CPS and indeed the FSA COULD make a case and could stop these shenanigans immediately if they actually invoked the full extent of the law. They choose not to.
I remind PH'ers that not ONE individual at the failed banks in the 2008 Banking crisis has been prosecuted. Every director of those Banks at the time, was guilty of AT LEAST dereliction of duty and failure to exercise reasonable care. The extent of the Billions lost by the taxpayer speaks for itself. These banks cannot have been run with due probity at the time and lose that much that quickly.
There is no need for any change in the law. What we lack is effective regulation.
The latest theft/fraud acts make every attempt to fleece the uninitated capable of prosecution. I have no doubt that the the authorities at Companies House, the DTi, the Serious Fraud office and the CPS and indeed the FSA COULD make a case and could stop these shenanigans immediately if they actually invoked the full extent of the law. They choose not to.
I remind PH'ers that not ONE individual at the failed banks in the 2008 Banking crisis has been prosecuted. Every director of those Banks at the time, was guilty of AT LEAST dereliction of duty and failure to exercise reasonable care. The extent of the Billions lost by the taxpayer speaks for itself. These banks cannot have been run with due probity at the time and lose that much that quickly.
There is no need for any change in the law. What we lack is effective regulation.
Dakkon said:
Are all these fine wine, coloured diamonds, carbon credits and rare earth metals alternative investments a scam?
Or are there any actual recognised legitimate companies?
Because they are unregulated investments then all the scammers that are banned from the finance industry will be operating. Or are there any actual recognised legitimate companies?
Like any successful scam they need to operate in sectors where there are legitimate firms so the market place is a combination of both.
The general rule that rarely fails is that if they call you then it is a scam.
Also the context of their adverts is important so another rule is that any advert/promotion that offers returns greater than standard structured products or domestic rental yields is a scam.
Stick to those two rules and you'll weed out 99% of the conventional scams and just need your common sense to protect you from the rest.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff