UnbeatableHire.com

So far no-one has reported that they lost everything or even that they did not get their interest payments but we have had one report where someone said they were getting their interest payments. Apparently, the general feeling is that his comment is not truthful but that might be because it does not agree with the doubters views. I assume that if someone said they had lost everything (as someone has but the poster has disclosed it was not true) then most posters would be satisfied that the scheme they thought was a scam, was in fact a scam.

However, motorhome hire is expensive. It seems that this company charges less than the normal figure of around £700 per week and for larger vehicles more but there seem to be a list of extras for which people are expected to pay. Reports of this firm on trip advisor vary from average to good with some concerns about paperwork. I do wonder how the firm can return the £36000 at the end of the period as well as pay out £10,800 in interest charges when it is apparently selling off the motorhomes for about £17000 (although the sales may be of vehicles older than the three years). Is some of the return of money from amounts invested by new investors. I wonder how many vehicles they have and how many investors.

I fail to see how the investor can retain ownership of the vehicle and still receive £300 interest a month on a mortgage. OK I have £36000 which I lend to Unbeatable and they pay me £300 a month and my security is a mortgage on a vehicle I own. It just does not make sense. It seems that either I have a vehicle or I have a mortgage. If I have a house then the building society has the mortgage and I pay the interest to the building society on the mortgage. If I buy a car by HP then the HP company pays out the £36,000 and I pay the HP company both interest and capital until it is paid off.

It seems to me that this is more like a HP contract with the investor as the HP company and Unbeatable as the car user.

Although the amount Unbeatable are paying is only £3600 interest per year, they are also arranging for the Investor to have three weeks use of the motorhome (I wonder if the investor has to pay the extras as well).

I cannot understand how when I raise questions about how the scheme can possibly run and I point out the conflict about what the apparent investor has said and what could possibly be the truth and point out that it does not make sense, you have decided that I can't do the basic math. You also suggest that because I have questioned it, that I am a party to this.

I also raised the issue of new investors paying out old investors and suggested it was possible that there were more investors than there are motorhomes.

However, if you think that anyone questioning the scheme is actually a member of the scheme then so be it. I do think there is a very negative view to people responding to this, the only person who says they have not told the truth is the one who said he was an investor and had not received any interest. I do think it is reasonable to question the validity of the scheme but let logic decide that not just condemn it without sense.

I would think that 10% interest is very high were it not for the fact that hire purchase companies traditionally charged a lot more. But the fact is that they have to pay these interest charges, and repay the capital all out of the hire fees. The lower hire fees are supplemented by high charges for lot of other things (therre is mention of £9.50 charged to a higher for using part of a basic pack supplied) but I do not know whether these are typical of what hirers charge

I am sorry that I do not post more, maybe I should try to do so more often. My interest was sparked because I thought I might hire a motorhome and I started reading reviews.

Clearly the fact that I took an interest is not appreciated nor should I expect any element of discussion or consideration of the facts here. I fully appreciate that this is not a conventional/mainstream investment option, neither was P2P when it first came on the market. I did not know there were multiple threads, I will do some more research but perhaps not contribute as the clique do not welcome people posting and heaven help those who really try to explore what is going on rather than jumping to conclusions.

Maybe you should have a warning at the top of any forum, do not post to this forum unless you have already posted 77000 times. This board is only for those who do not want to consider the facts as they are known and who certainly do not wish to explore the issues.

Susan_Crane wrote: »

I do wonder how the firm can return the £36000 at the end of the period as well as pay out £10,800 in interest charges when it is apparently selling off the motorhomes for about £17000 (although the sales may be of vehicles older than the three years).

...

It seems to me that this is more like a HP contract with the investor as the HP company and Unbeatable as the car user.

You come across to me as someone genuinely trying to understand what is on offer.

I think the key points from your analysis are those I have quoted above.

If the scheme works as intended then your security is the motorhome but as you point out its value is likely to be much less than that needed to support the supposed return.

If, as is very possible, the company goes bust your security (the motorhome) may only be worth £17,000 on your figures and that is before the costs of liquidating the company and its assets. The liquidation costs could be very significant and the assets (the motorhomes) worth much less if there are a lot of motorhomes for sale at the same time. So even if your motorhome is still in reasonable condition if the company goes bust you might get much less than £17,000. And if your motorhome is found, at the point of the liquidation, to be wrecked or stolen etc then you could get nothing back.

And the risk of the company going bust seems high as the figures seem unsustainable. While the £10,800 in interest is probably supportable from the rental income it seems likely it will be difficult sustaining the promised final return of £36k when the asset value may only be worth £17k.

Basically the risks of significant loss are very high.

That was the conclusion I came to but as I do not post often enough to be allowed to develop a view and I do not wish to be bullied by those who really do not want a discussion and do not want anyone else to discuss issues but simply want to shout words like Ponzi as though that should silence everyone, I have rather lost interest in the matter.

Personally, I like logic and facts but that takes more time than brow beating.