FOS rewards the mis-selling wrong-doers etc.

Garry_Anderson

GA> It isn't borrowing money to invest - it is borrowing money to repay a massive house loan.

Dunston> Any money you borrow has to be repaid. What difference does it make if its a home loan or personal loan.

The PURPOSE is to REPAY LOAN not to GAMBLE ON STOCKMARKET.

I have gambled large part of my savings on the market - I am not 'risk averse' the excuse used to deny redress.

However, I would have to be a complete moron to gamble my house.

GA> We can all see that you have decided to ignore the question (i.e. purpose of loan) and try to conflate enducement with purpose again.

D> No I havent. You just want everyone to be like you and that isnt how it is.

Everybody that got an endowment mortgage - they took it to repay the loan for house - the enducement being the extra cash.

GA> What sort of advisor would say it is good financial advice to bet your house on the markets - not knowing what the future holds?

D> People make decisions that involve risk every day. Its knowing what the risk is and whether it is acceptable to you or not that matters. People do it even now with endowment redress. Rather than pay off the mortgage, they invest it.

You have no idea what position financially they would be in 25 years time e.g. I was forced to retire on health grounds - see https://www.skilful.com

I asked what sort of advisor would say it is good financial advice to bet your house on the markets - not knowing what the future holds?

Garry_Anderson

Just looking at my old posts and found Dunston still hasn't answered me yet.

Like I said, you have no idea what position financially people would be in 25 years time e.g. I was forced to retire on health grounds - as can be seen on my home page: https://www.skilful.com.

I asked you, what sort of advisor would say it is good financial advice to bet your house on the markets - not knowing what the future holds?

So Dunston - would they be incompetent, corrupt - or do you have another label for them?

dunstonh

So Dunston - would they be incompetent, corrupt - or do you have another label for them?

So, you are asking what sort of person would borrow money to invest in an asset class which can flucatuate in value and not have enough money in the future?

That would be all mortgage buy-to-lets.

So Dunston - would they be incompetent, corrupt - or do you have another label for them?

Nothing wrong with concept when used with the right person and the right product and set up with a sensible target growth rate.

As I have said before, do not impose your low risk attitude onto those that are willing to take the investment risks.

Garry_Anderson

Dunston wrote, "So, you are asking what sort of person would borrow money to invest in an asset class which can flucatuate in value and not have enough money in the future?"

No - as you know - that is not what I asked.

I have used thousands of my savings to gamble on the market - I am not "risk averse" - the feeble excuse used by corrupt people in authority to deny victims the right of redress.

That is quite different to borrowing the largest amount money you can (3 times both partners yearly salary) to gamble on the markets - especially when this is foolishly tied to your family home.

On top of that loan has to be paid 25 years interest and charges - so that loan firm can pay wages of staff and fat cats - plus company profits.

That is - your financial advisor is telling you to risk your home with large shortfall - when the advisor and loan company risk nothing and gain everything.

Simple enough - I thought you would have got all that by now - though I know you pretend not to have

So - what sort of advisor would say it is good financial advice to bet your house on the markets - not knowing what the future holds - would they be incompetent, corrupt - or something else?

EdInvestor

IMHO the problem is not that the endowment product is risk-based - almost all financial products and transactions have some element of risk.Buying a home in itself is not risk free - house prices could go down and you could lose money.A variable rate repayment mortgage exposes borrowers to interest-rate risk.Even a savings account is exposed to the risk that your capital will be devalued by inflation.

Rather the problem with endowments was that that many individuals were (mis)sold the product without it's specific stockmarket-related risk being disclosed.This risk is generally regarded as significantly higher than the others.

Lack of disclosure is the main underlying problem in financial services - products are structured and sold in a way which bamboozles customers so they don't understand what it is they are buying and what risks they are running.

Never invest in anything you don't understand.

Be especially suspicious of the word "guarantee" - these are never free - and "tax relief" - any benefit here is usually eaten up in charges.

Garry_Anderson

Ed - I know you to be an intelligent person - please do not obfuscate matters.

You know the basic problem - it is the massive fraud of the public by FINANCE INDUSTRY.

In that - it is a fact that repayment mortgage is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from endowment mortgage.

One goes towards REPAYING LOAN - the other goes towards gambling on markets in the HOPE OF REPAYING LOAN.

As I have wrote before:

Endowments were designed by finance industry to be offered as interchangable with repayment mortgage - as demonstrated by large scale advertising.

It wasn't simply "requested by their customers" - demand was generated by finance industry - see documentary evidence from top management of Woolwich BS on complaint site https://www.WoolwichSucks.co.uk

dunstonh

There is absolutely nothing wrong with investment backed mortgages when used correctly and with the right person. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean that everyone else should have the same view.

Endowments are not the right product to do it but the concept of investment backed is perfectly fine.

Garry_Anderson

Dunston - people are not soft - they see your avoidance.

They can see that you continue to avoid the central point - that endowment was not fit for purpose i.e. repayment of a massive loan for home - everybody was conned.

Indeed, we were told that this endowment was in our best interest - when in fact it was in the best interest of these corrupt firms.

You and others can keep on with your deceptions - along with this ficticuous person that endowment mortgage was good financial advice for (please give example).

Fact: repayment mortgage is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from endowment mortgage - one goes towards REPAYING LOAN - the other goes towards gambling on markets in the HOPE OF REPAYING LOAN.

True or false?

EdInvestor

.. repayment mortgage is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from endowment mortgage - one goes towards REPAYING LOAN - the other goes towards gambling on markets in the HOPE OF REPAYING LOAN.

In the hope of repaying loan - and generating substantial cash surplus on top - is what you mean, I think.;)

That's quite legal, as long as the punters are advised of the risks involved.

Many were not.Thus they were missold. Doesn't mean the product shouldn't be sold, as long as the facts and risks are disclosed.

P.S.You must be shocked about what's happening to pensions, Garry. Before long everyone will be "gambling their pension on the stockmarket."

I'm afraid everyone is going to have to learn how to do this successfully, because it's pretty clear the skills of the financial services industry are not really up to the job.

dunstonh

Dunston - people are not soft - they see your avoidance.

They can see that you continue to avoid the central point - that endowment was not fit for purpose i.e. repayment of a massive loan for home - everybody was conned.

You keep changing the subject. One minute you talk about investment backed mortgages and then you change to endowment mortgages and back again. I have said a number of times now that there is nothing wrong with the principle of investment backed mortgages when done correctly and with the right product.