Motor home as investment?

Cornucopia

colsten wrote: »

You have a funny way of not participating.

This isn't that.

DTDfanBoy

Cornucopia wrote: »

This isn't that.

Perhaps you need to reread what you wrote

Cornucopia wrote: »

This thread has all the hallmarks of one which will go on and on repeatedly restating the same thing in different terms without ever adding any conclusive information

I won't be participating in that.

Cornucopia

I know what I wrote.

This (still mulling over new information) isn't that (repeatedly going over the same information).

masonic

Cornucopia wrote: »

It ought to have already happened - both from failed instalments, failure to redeem the outstanding equity at the end of the loan, and from vehicles that are written-off or disappear thereby drawing attention to themselves mid-loan.

If anyone has lost money with buy2letcars since 2011, then they've done extremely well to hide it from Google, as there appears to be literally nothing but general commentary.

It need not have already happened. Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme went on for decades without detection, and even after the first concerns were raised in 2000, it managed to continue on for another 8-9 years before the house of cards came crashing down and the truth finally came out.

So the fact that this business has managed to go on trading for around 4 years without provoking any serious criticism evident from Google is not sufficient to rule out foul play. This could be a scam, or simply a business model that is destined to fail. Or just a business model being marketed to the wrong people in a deceptive manner. Those at the helm may or may not be intending to fleece their clients. I agree that at present these are unknowns.

What is known, and a matter of verifiable fact, is this product is being marketed deceptively. It is also clear that the deception is intentional. We know as a matter of fact that it is completely unregulated. What we don't know is how far the deception stretches, but most sane individuals would not entrust their money to a company that is trying to deceive them using their marketing pitch.

People invest in all manner of these unconventional things. In some cases, it probably connects to an existing interest, and in others maybe it sparks a degree of enthusiasm for someone not interested in traditional investment vehicles. In some cases, like with the Motorhomes, the investment confers use of an item that the investors might otherwise have to pay for.

People do "invest" in all manner of these unconventional things. That's why the BBC will never run out of horror stories to feature in programmes like Watchdog and Moneybox. These stories provide entertainment for a number of viewers, who can sit there thinking smugly to themselves that they wouldn't touch such things with a bargepole, that a fool and their money are soon parted, etc. But sadly there are people who genuinely can't evaluate risk when it comes to these things, and there is a very real risk when you go into something like this without your eyes open.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that this business is not a scam. The only people who should even consider putting their money into such a scheme are those individuals who have specialist knowledge, the ability to properly evaluate the financials of the business and the understanding that they could lose their investment. In other words, high net worth individuals who would be able to put a few percent of their wealth into the scheme and not worry too much if they don't see it again.

Asking whether or not a scheme like this is worth investing in automatically disqualifies the OP from consideration as a suitable investor. Something the OP has in common with the vast majority of posters here. Sometimes I wish MSE would simply ban discussion around these sorts of things - or merge them all into a single thread. It really does get tiresome for the regulars to have to repeatedly point out the risks to the unwary and that the promises they make are too good to be true.

Cornucopia

I agree with almost all of that.

atush

Thank god, can we stop now?

Mistermeaner

No...........

jamesd

Raine1 wrote: »

I am just a normal person with a job (nothing to do with motorhomes!) trying to decide if this is a really good idea or a lemon.

It's an idea. Yet entirely legally and with less concentrated risk there are options like those I described in Options: 10% tax free, 7% tax free, 11% taxable, 6% taxable. So why would you do this when you can get 10% or 11% (a different VCT managed by the same place) tax free instead, with HMRC repaying 30% of your purchase price? That 30% has to be repaid if you sell within five years, so don't plan on that.

Lots of schemes that look interesting can do so just because people don't know of better and definitely legitimate ones out there. The car one could be OK for a person with a million Pounds or so who's in it for diversification and only a small portion of their investing.

Cornucopia wrote: »

This is a reasoned critique of the model... http://money.aol.co.uk/2014/11/25/why-i-wont-invest-in-buy2letcars/

It's entirely possible for the model to work. First it requires that the company acts lawfully. Then it requires that they make enough incidental profit over the years to cover the depreciation loss in value and repay the capital at the end. Given depreciation rates that's a lot of trust in the final payment. I expect that investors using Buy 2 Let Cars will be fine, in part because they do seem to have gone with the FCA regulated P2P business route. Though a bit rich in cost for most individual investors given that the minimum investment is in whole car price units.

Given the content on this web site I'd go no closer than the length of a pole used to propel floating vessels on canals. It looks like the sort of stuff too good to be true places use to bring in suckers, not a proper financial promotion. If there's any FCA regulated investment here, I missed it.

jamesd

ggb1979 wrote: »

I await the serving of a summons

Cornucopia wrote: »

It won't be to you, it will be to MSE.

I suppose it might be MSE, but given the provisions of the Defamation Act 2013 MSE will politely laugh at whoever tries it. The Defamation Act gives MSE effectively complete immunity from claims like this provided they follow a relatively simple process.

It seems rather unlikely that a company can prove that a post here will cause a serious financial loss to them and that is the standard required for a defamation claim now. Of course nothing stops people from sending threatening letters and going to court then having a case thrown out.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Sorry, you simply cannot go around libelling companies like this.

If the Defamation Act process is being followed, one mandatory element of a complaint is identifying "The aspects of the statement which the complainant believes are factually inaccurate or opinions not supported by fact" (page 3 Box A). The relevant post says in part:

ggb1979 wrote: »

It is complete scam. As colsten stated why would anyone with any busniess model that guarantees 10-27% need Money from random members of the public. ... Take the model to a bank, show them your business plan, borrow at 4% become rich. Why pay 10-27% to borrow money?... You make money by not paying back your investors.

The post appears to provide factual information about the interest rates involved and potential rates from banks or alternative lenders that appear in the context of the prior discussion and web site to provide the reason for holding the opinion.

Cornucopia wrote: »

If you have evidence that it is a scam, post away. Otherwise, you really do need to stop saying it.

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is no evidence of a scam, other than the basic premise of "too good to be true". If this is a scam, show me one person who has lost their money - just one. Where are the stories in the financial/consumer press of people who cannot trace the vehicle they own? ... That's the kind of evidence I would accept in justifying the "scam" claim.

There's no real reason to stop, given the protections of the Defamation Act and guidelines for web site operators. It is not required to have evidence of a scam, merely to have facts on which to base an honest opinion, and those facts have been described adequately in this topic and on the web site concerned. The opinion might be wrong but that doesn't make expressing it defamatory.

Personally, I think that the wording was intemperate and not particularly wise, even though I think it's not defamation. There are other ways to achieve similar effects without using emotionally loaded words that may upset the site operator and cause them to send threatening emails.

If you're even slightly tempted to reply to this based on defamation law before it was radically overhauled by the Defamation Act 2013 I recommend that you stop digging and read it first, along with informed comment on what it means.

jamesd

Zippeh wrote: »

This seems very similar to the "Buy a static caravan for investment" strategy. I work in the caravan industry, and I can guarantee it's not a viable investment strategy!

Cornucopia wrote: »

Do you have figures/case studies to back this up?

To start, you might try reading The mobile-home trap: How a Warren Buffett empire preys on the poor. Inflated sale prices, high depreciation, inflated costs and that's without the higher depreciation from lots of short term tenants.