We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Warning! Re-Give savings not protected
Options
Comments
-
The answers seem evasive and the questions were not probing enough.
However in an email to the Guardian the company said
It appears from this that it wasn't an interview which would explain the lack of ability to probe further details
It is not clear from its website how ReGive is generating its returns.
Their website says "We only focus on social enterprises, businesses, projects and programmes that generate outstanding net positive social and environmental impact."
Yet the answers to the Guardian say:
Robbani: We do not invest investors' funds in any social enterprises. We do not lend this money nor do we put it at risk. Our operational structure is different to banks.
So no lending, no stock market investments nor social enterprises. Even depositing with a bank would count as lending. How can they generate any return? Sounds like alchemy!Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
Which one? I did some looking into them.From the Guardian FAQ
On its website, ReGive says its savings bond is issued "pursuant to the exemption to Section 21(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2000 contained in paragraph 35 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotions) Order 2005 and does not require an approved prospectus pursuant to Section 85 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 because the bond falls within paragraph 7(2)(a) of Schedule 11A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Prospectus Regulations 2005".
However the paragraph cited does not seem to exist.
"the exemption to Section 21(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2000 contained in paragraph 35 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotions) Order 2005" is here.
But "paragraph 7(2)(a) of Schedule 11A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Prospectus Regulations 2005" is something I can't find because the Prospectus Regulations 2005 has only three Schedules. However, it's modifying the FSMA and that has a Schedule 11A covering transferable securities and if you look at the Amendments near the top you can see that it was modified by Schedule 2 of the Prospectus Regulations.
So somewhat convoluted wording and it could do with an "as modified by" description to make it easier to track down the pieces but it seems to be there.0 -
I guess we now all need to sit back and watch all the checks and balances built into our financial services industry and its regulators swing smoothly into action to protect investors.
<sits back and watches>I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »<sits back and watches>
Hope you have a kindle full up with books.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Hope you have a kindle full up with books.
Yup, Hale, Bernstein, Graham, all the classics.
I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Yup, Hale, Bernstein, Graham, all the classics.
Tolstoy? Homer? You might be a while and need a bit of variety...Conjugating the verb 'to be":
-o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Yup, Hale, Bernstein, Graham, all the classics.
War and Peace? Atlas Shrugged?
Something a bit longer, is what I'm saying.urs sinserly,
~~joosy jeezus~~0 -
MoneySaverLog wrote: »Worth considering if there is FSCS protection. Without it, it's avoid like the plague.
It is frustrating to say the least that an organisation like this can claim/show FSA registration with a massive banner which to the untrained person may appear that they are both regulated and protected.
The longer the FSA let it continue the bigger the number of people who will be sucked in.Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards