50% return if FTSE rises, 0.5% if it doesn't...

Glen_Clark

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

4.5% i think in 2017 will turn out to be too low vs inflation but it also appears good right now

All UK savings rates are too low vs inflation, even this 4.5% which is a best buy ISA on here.
I was tempted by the 4.25% over 3 years (also a best buy on here) but 4.5% over 5 years is something like 4.25% for the first 3 years and 4.88% for the last 2 years which made it look a little better.:o

opinions4u

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Does this Santander structured (to be loaded against you no doubt like WP is now) gamble on FTSE100 have any other flip side than the apparently reasonable +½% after six years?

Barclays sold a product a bit like this a few years ago when FTSE100 was around 4000. It was a 3 year product I think, maybe 5. I forget. It too was touted by all and sundry in branches who were not in the slightest bit qualified to discuss it. It promised 50%/0% which was sold to higher rate taxpayers as a potential 90 odd percent real return after tax if taken inside an ISA wrapper. However, if FTSE100 at any time dropped below 50% of start point then the product became immediately delinked from the 50%/0% promise and from that point on fared solely on something based far more loosely on the fortunes of FTSE100 alone.

These things have so many iterations now and Santander were fined £1.5M for earlier shenanigans over structured products quite recently.

Google a little - that might sharpen your senses, or not depending how brainwashed you are prone to becoming ...

http://www.structuredretailproducts.com/story/13031/The-Structured-Promise/124

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/business/personal-finance/santander-fine-puts-spotlight-on-capital-protected-products.16837982?_=dd52974d7ad4beedd2c7ab9473a7586b73a91bf7

http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2012/02/22/comment/smart-money/you-don-t-need-a-structured-product-IsQ0T6glv7u3Y3S1EvHRcP/article.html

Oh I forgot to say, loaded roulette wheel or not, usual casino rules apply, the banks just aren't in it to lose, even if Rory McIlroy does good

Possibly your most sensible post for years.

Shame you still have that ridiculous signature line ...

Glen_Clark

Regarding the signature line 2sides2everystory
In the days when British Industry was the greatest in the world, less than 10% of the population went on to secondary education, because only the upper classes could afford it. The other 90% had to go straight to work, however clever they were. So we had all those clever kids, at the peak of their learning ability, going straight into productive industry.
Contrast that with today, where we cream off the cleverest kids and train them in non productive subjects.

sabretoothtigger

We'd see immediate benefits from giving everyone free access to plumbing, electrician, etc practical type courses instead. Only those who really want to take a purely theoretical look at a subject for 3 or 4 years could be left alone to take it up as was true for hundreds of years prior
Considering we have too much debt, it makes alot more sense to train for an actual job. Right now engineering is desperately short of people, even a free starter course route to working a CNC machine would make uk richer and better educated then now

Santander is weak because of domestic and also UK poor loan performance. But also strong from investment in the spanish speaking countries of america which are growing far faster.
Spain is the minority of their business
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNVQLLtIdv8&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LL_o5tna3UAPQwyfNM4uGH8A

It would seem on risk terms a real tracker is equal as you own the actual assets

Glen_Clark

My late uncle built up a chain of shops from nothing and was the shrewdest businessman I know. He said 40 years ago when they stopped apprenticeships it was the worst thing they ever did, and the country would go downhill because of it. He was, as usual, absolutely right.

grey_gym_sock

i agree that we should have more proper apprenticeships (i.e. not cheap labour dressed up as a training scheme), even at the price of fewer university places. but the total number of places in higher education and apprenticeships needs to go UP, given the horrifically high level of youth unemployment.

however, the university places that remain should go to those who are most able to benefit from them, not to those with the most money. it's a matter of fairness. and also of practicality: we all lose out if talents go to waste.

nrsql

When I was little 2% graduated and it was very selective. Rich had an advantage as we're often better prepared but anyone could go.
Now the figures are around 30% and universities are having to spend a lot of the first year completing A level study to the detriment of those that are prepared. At 2% we had pretty good subsidies - at 30% it's not affordable.

Whole issue is this idea that many should be educated at university which brings down the whole system rather than raising the standards.

Not saying everyone shouldn't be educated to their potential but a degree is not a good average level with its historic academic place.

Glen_Clark

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I beg your pardon? An O level is not a good average level for a schoolgirl in Afghanistan with its historic academic place either.

Care to rethink what you posted?

I think what he is saying is that degrees are as not as high a standard as they used to be. The gobbledegook grammar he uses is a typical example of that

Learning was far harder before the internet and google. I took a basic typing course where we had a shield over the typewriter keys so we could not see them, old mechanical typewriter with keys hard to press right down, and had to type that at 40wpm with no mistakes at all - just to be a lowly secretary. How many of these mickey mouse degree educated oiks could even manage that now?

IronWolf

nrsql wrote: »

When I was little 2% graduated and it was very selective. Rich had an advantage as we're often better prepared but anyone could go.
Now the figures are around 30% and universities are having to spend a lot of the first year completing A level study to the detriment of those that are prepared. At 2% we had pretty good subsidies - at 30% it's not affordable.

Whole issue is this idea that many should be educated at university which brings down the whole system rather than raising the standards.

Not saying everyone shouldn't be educated to their potential but a degree is not a good average level with its historic academic place.

You could argue that increasing tuition fees is a valid way of indirectly doing this.

Only those that are likely to see a considerable monetary benefit will do a course. It should discourage people from doing these useless courses and actually focus people to think about how it will benefit them

atypical

IronWolf wrote: »

You could argue that increasing tuition fees is a valid way of indirectly doing this.

Only those that are likely to see a considerable monetary benefit will do a course. It should discourage people from doing these useless courses and actually focus people to think about how it will benefit them

Apart from the fact that the amount owed in tuition fees is largely irrelevant to what it costs the student. The majority of students will never repay their student loan, therefore the only relevant figure should be the 9% above the threshold they have to repay for 30 years.