FAREPAK-Patronising

Stompa

bunking_off wrote:

I feel deeply sorry for those people who lost out with Farepak. Similarly, I feel sorry for those pensioners who took government advice, paid for years into their company pension scheme, and now live on the breadline - permanently - because their schemes failed. The issue is that I don't hear government ministers suggesting that we should bail them out...and in this case it was their advice that suggested the money would be safe. Why are those needy currently in the headlines considered more needy than others in equally dire circumstances?

I wish I knew. It doesn't help that we have the likes of Ian McCartney describing it as a 'national emergency'.

trisontana

Stompa wrote:

I wish I knew. It doesn't help that we have the likes of Ian McCartney describing it as a 'national emergency'.

Or the Money Mail describing having to use an 0870 number to contact the administrators as a "horror". A horror is when a bomb goes off in a tube-train and kills 50 people. A horror is when a million people starve to death in Darfur. Having to spend a couple of quid to make a phone call is not a horror .

Here is the story :-

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=415020&in_page_id=2&ito=1565

Champion_2

maninthestreet wrote:

I watched that interview - the point that was being made was that there is significant advantage in putting your savings with a bank/building society/Post Office. Such an investment is protected under law, and compensation paid, up to 80% of the first £20,000, if the financial institution went out of business. No such protection exists for a saving scheme such as Farepak, which doesnt even pay any interest, if I understood correctly. The Farepak savers have learnt a hard finanicial lesson - why put your money with a company that doesnt pay any interest, nor is it protected if the company goes bust?

That is exactly how I interpreted the interview.

While most of us sympathise with the families who lost their money, a little bit of financial education could have prevented this.

peterbaker

I too am appalled by the airtime that the BBC are devoting to the views of smug nonces who are implying that Farepak customers are so dumb that they deserve to learn a hard lesson from this.

I haven't had time to read all the Farepak related threads on MSE and came here specifically to complain about the BBC again this morning reading out two more emails expressing the same views ("Farepak customers were dumb").
So I chose this thread because it relates specifically to the large numbers of people who are oh so clever and wouldn't have touched such a scheme with a bargepole and insist on using their wonderful hindsight to educate us, and to tell us that no-one should bale out the poor unfortunates.

I am quite amazed actually that no-one, in this thread anyway, has brought the real culprits to the fore. I have not seen any footage of the Finance Director of Farepak. How did he or she manage to lose £45M of straight cash?

Farepak is an extremely simple business. As others have pointed out, the goods purchased are not good value for money, so an instant profit probably similar to the margins made by big supermarkets lies in that feature alone.

Then there are a few casual packing salaries to be paid in November/December each year.

Then a few buyers salaries - because these goods largely fall within one buying area (non-perishable groceries) it doesn't require hoardes of buyers. One other buyer for the meat products perhaps. And stretching it, maybe one for cakes, biscuits and sweets.

Now then, how much of that £45M have we spent so far? Oh, perhaps it was a 'normal' upfront payment made to an Argentinian corned-beef outfit who promised November delivery of mountains of Chile baked beans and Paraguayan Turkey Crowns also...was that it? Maybe not ...

....Well anyway, we definitely need a building somewhere with a fancy little coloured Neon "Farepak" sign up high to attract the press like flies while the real culprits disappear round the back.

Is that how it is, in 2006?

Now then, I suggest the clever nonces who are so keen to kick unfortunates while they are down, now apply their minds more appropriately to how we can drag the directors before a Parliamentary Committee before Christmas and watch them squirm as they account for every penny.

The caveat emptor ideas spewed by so many under 40s thesedays who think they were born into a fantastic Wild West of opportunity and are "all right Jack, thanks very much" are totally skewed, and make me sick.

The real people of the UK are the faces you see in that Farepak crisis meeting hall in cheap coats huddled together with puzzled and hurt looks on their faces. How can something like Farepak happen or be allowed to happen they rightly wonder? I am blessed with some intelligence, excellent and balanced education and a good life with no Farepak type holes in it. But like those people in the hall, I also wonder, and it raises my blood pressure too.

pondie1

Farepak is not a business on its own, it is part of a larger group. The group as a whole had the finanacial problems. I would imagine that Farepak was the only part bringing money into the business, and was therefore subsidising the rest.

IMHO the hampers are way overpriced my mother in law always swore by them, but when you added the goods inside the hamper you would have been better off buying saving stamps for your local supermarket which is what we got her to do eventually.

peterbaker

pondie1 wrote:

Farepak is not a business on its own, it is part of a larger group. The group as a whole had the finanacial problems. I would imagine that Farepak was the only part bringing money into the business, and was therefore subsidising the rest.

It doesn't matter whether Farepak is owned by another company or not. Directors direct the application of the cash. When should any private business need to be subsidised? I'll tell you when....only when directors decide they can get away with robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the same directors probably think they can also get away with disowning Peter as and when Peter's inevitable liabilities look a bit hot to handle.

IMHO the hampers are way overpriced my mother in law always swore by them, but when you added the goods inside the hamper you would have been better off buying saving stamps for your local supermarket which is what we got her to do eventually.

Well done. That's you and yours sorted. You can easily forget Farepak and show a clean pair of heels. What about the poor unfortunates in the hall?

shinkyshonky

Why is everyone having a pop at the farepak savers ...?

Fair enough financial education may have sent you in another direction but the real crap of all this lies with directors , they are ultimately responsible for this mess, and yes it does show a **** you jack I`m alright attitude

I deal with companies, people like these everyday and have worked for one of the big four,the reason why I am posting is because the attitude of people that argue "why didn`t they pay it into a building society, bank, etc" is patronising.

We should be questioning why this happened, and all the other scandals, i.e pensions etc, but like everything ,we turn a blind eye till the next scandal

stugib

peterbaker wrote:

I too am appalled by the airtime that the BBC are devoting to the views of smug nonces...Now then, I suggest the clever nonces who are so keen to kick unfortunates while they are down

Ummm, suggest you find a more appropriate insult to use that '!!!!!!' given its common meaning!

peterbaker wrote:

how we can drag the directors before a Parliamentary Committee before Christmas and watch them squirm as they account for every penny.

Indeed, and I'm sure we haven't heard the last of it but a completely different issue as to who helps now and the lessons to be learned.

peterbaker wrote:

The caveat emptor ideas spewed by so many under 40s thesedays who think they were born into a fantastic Wild West of opportunity and are "all right Jack, thanks very much" are totally skewed, and make me sick.

a.k.a. "Thatcher's children"

peterbaker wrote:

came here specifically to complain about the BBC again this morning reading out two more emails expressing the same views ("Farepak customers were dumb").....But like those people in the hall, I also wonder, and it raises my blood pressure too.

I don't think anyone's glad it happend but the debate's moved on from shock and anger to how it happened and how can it be prevented in future. Inevitably some of this discussion will be educating the general public how unsafe these schemes are despite what Farepak etc say.

Anyhow, I think many less than sympathetic responses were triggered by what many saw as a campaign of emotional blackmail and spinning it as some sort of national tragedy, making out it was other people's/companies responsibility to replace the funds rather than a charitable act. What you're seeing now is not smugness per se, just balancing up the other side of the argument as people like the BBC are obliged to do.

shinkyshonky

a.k.a. "Thatcher's children"


I quote

No such thing as society

buses7675

andyrules wrote:

However, there is clearly a reason why people do save with them - perhaps for some they take away the anxiety about bank accounts. My old mum just can't get her head around the hole in the wall, waited ages in a bank queue for cash only to be told off by the clerk for not using the machine. She did start to try, but then I discovered she'd been drawing cash with a credit card :eek

Hi All,

I think you've hit the nail on the head with that one, the anxiety about bank accounts, especially with some older people. As a lot of hamper agents are their friends its much simpler to give them cash and they sort it out for them.

For the similar companies that still exist, Park, Country Hampers etc, I think the government should set up some sort of scheme similar to those that banks have to comply with regarding compensation should they go bust.

I do have every sympathy for anyone who has lost out with Farepak, irrelevant of if its the 'best' way to save money, they paid for something and haven't recieved goods which is wrong.

Cheers

Steve