Motor home as investment?

redux

I don't see why the thread title even includes the word investment. The motorhome asset has virtually no chance of increasing in value in its own right.

It's more akin to a loan arrangement, which the prospective loanee has decided would be more attractive or feasible to them than borrowing from a bank.

I know people who have made private loan arrangements, with for example someone who has sold a business and half retired lending to a couple of projects with other businesses. But these people have known each other for many years.

Cornucopia

redux wrote: »

I don't see why the thread title even includes the word investment. The motorhome asset has virtually no chance of increasing in value in its own right.

You aren't investing in a Motorhome. You are investing in the Hiring of Motorhomes. Just like many businesses do, and presumably make a profit doing it.

Cornucopia

jamesd wrote: »

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.

I had a feeling when I saw it was about the US that it wouldn't really address the question - and it doesn't.

The question remains (in the context of a thread about unconventional "investments") whether static Mobile Homes are being marketed as an investment in the UK, or otherwise to British people.

It's of interest to me, because I am mulling over a French scheme. (It's not marketed as an investment, though, and nor do I expect it to be).

Cornucopia

jamesd wrote: »

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.

I wasn't, and then the slightly haughty tone of your final paragraph, above, just pushed me over the edge.

It's an issue that is of interest and importance to me as someone who runs a website, campaigns on a slightly controversial issue, designs and copy-edits websites for other people, and contributes to various forums.

I think the issue probably comes down to two things in this instance:

1) What is meant by "scam"? The dictionaries have a reasonable consensus on: "a dishonest scheme; a fraud". I wouldn't want to be accusing anyone of that without reasonable cause. It's unfair, and the forum rules specifically prohibit libel. Whether it's technically defamation in the meaning of the Act is a related, but separate issue. (I didn't bring up the notion of legal action, originally).

2) Should we automatically assume that everything that everyone says here is an opinion, even if it has the syntactic structure of a fact? It's an issue that besets most "serious" forums, alongside the huge variations in subject knowledge that posters have.

One of the recurring issues for free speech on the Internet is the problem of anonymous writers commenting on real people and real situations. I doubt that we've landed on the final, ideal approach to this yet.

It's interesting reading the legislation, though, because for me it is too soft. (Presumably older legislation was tougher, and they've gone too far the other way).

It must be sickening to work in the legal or PR departments of large US-based fast-food chains and watch the tides of malodourous nonsense wash up on the beach of the Real World having been originally discharged in the choppy waters of the Internet, and there being little or nothing that can be done about it.

masonic

Cornucopia wrote: »

2) Should we automatically assume that everything that everyone says here is an opinion, even if it has the syntactic structure of a fact?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MV1ot9HkPg&t=71

You have to admit, it is highly unusual for people to keep saying "in my opinion" when they are conversing face to face, so why expect it on a bulletin board?

Cornucopia

The problem is that people tend to abuse the privilege on forums (because they aren't bound by other conventions and elements of etiquette). They state things as facts, all the time, and then when someone objects on the basis of factual inaccuracy or lack of evidence, it suddenly becomes an opinion....

....in my opinion.

redux

Cornucopia wrote: »

You aren't investing in a Motorhome. You are investing in the Hiring of Motorhomes. Just like many businesses do, and presumably make a profit doing it.

The offer sounds less like a percentage share of the business, and more like a loan or preference share.

masonic

Cornucopia wrote: »

The problem is that people tend to abuse the privilege on forums (because they aren't bound by other conventions and elements of etiquette). They state things as facts, all the time, and then when someone objects on the basis of factual inaccuracy or lack of evidence, it suddenly becomes an opinion....

....in my opinion.

People aren't behaving any differently here than people tend to behave anywhere. Many people have the tendency to express opinions with more confidence than is warranted and others have the tendency to misinterpret opinions as facts. It is not exclusively the fault of the author.

There is also nothing wrong with objecting to an opinion that is factually inaccurate. Claiming something is an opinion is no defence against it being wrong. Many opinions are wrong. However, an opinion that is wrong is not necessarily dishonest (i.e. not a true representation of what the author believes). Of course, if an opinion is both wrong and dishonest, it can be defamatory. That's a tough one to prove of course.

So coming back to your earlier question, yes, you should automatically assume anything written here is an expression of an opinion unless it is explicitly stated as a fact or you know it can be proven or disproven. That doesn't stop you challenging its accuracy if such a challenge is possible. And you should certainly err on the side of opinion rather than fact if you are going to make statements such as...

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

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

...which, if I'm not mistaken, contains two statements of opinion dressed up as facts.

Anyway, bringing this back on topic, you stated that:

The dictionaries have a reasonable consensus on: "a dishonest scheme; a fraud"

You also "agree with almost all of" the post where I pointed out the fact that there was deception involved in the marketing of the scheme. In case of confusion, that was a statement of fact based on regulatory requirements around the disclosure of risk amongst other things. So, if a scheme is being marketed deceptively, then that is dishonest. "A dishonest scheme" could be referred to, quite factually, as a scam by your definition.

bowlhead99

Cornucopia wrote: »

It must be sickening to work in the legal or PR departments of large US-based fast-food chains and watch the tides of malodourous nonsense wash up on the beach of the Real World having been originally discharged in the choppy waters of the Internet, and there being little or nothing that can be done about it.

As a former worker for one such chain while at school, I know some people boycotted that chain for years because of their alleged funding of the IRA. It was reported that in the aftermath of the Warrington bombing in the early 90s a police officer told a McDonalds manager who had queried about evacuation that inside the restaurant would be the safest place for them, because "you lot support the IRA".

This despite the rumour being quashed four years earlier as a simple mix up after CNN started to be broadcast in the UK and a finance piece had mentioned the company's IRA contributions (Individual Retirement Account being a US equivalent of ISAs).

I imagine a couple of decades later, that one is mostly forgotten but am sure they are having lots of fun with similarly baseless statements on health and environmental issues.

I think on a forum such as this which is full of banter and unqualified opinion, if someone says, "this scheme will get you a guaranteed 10%" and someone else retorts, "it's a scam, they are preying on your naivety", then as jamesd said, that wording is 'intemperate and not particularly wise; there are other ways without using emotionally loaded words' but I don't think it is libellous in the context of the discussion where the facts and merits of the scheme are being discussed back and forth.

You say that a consensus definition of 'scam' is a "dishonest scheme". The scheme's advertising says "Low Interest rates mean that savings returns are at an all time low - most savers are unable to live off their savings interest payments alone.
Until now."

So, now you will be able to put your savings into this, and live off them?

Or is that stretching the truth, when the "tried, tested, trusted way to a guaranteed 30% return on your savings" actually involves a series of loans secured on chattel mortgages on wasting assets; effectively a collateralized debt obligation which offers potential of loss of almost 100% of capital? I would say this is almost certainly preying on people's naivety, which is something that you find with almost any unregulated investment opportunity marketed to the public.

Proper regulated investment opportunities marketed to the public come with risk warnings in the advertising materials (not just in the small print T&Cs that your receive by post). Unregulated investment opportunities placed privately and not shared with the public may offer a genuine win-win for the business and its investor. This site is neither of those types of opportunities.

It is offering a business investment to the public for which most of the 'punters' within the general public are unqualified to judge the risk, which is why it should not be published to the general public and compared to the 'poor returns on savings'; if it were a legitimate regulated investment it would come with risk warnings before you even fill out the form to get the exciting DVD to learn more.

2) Should we automatically assume that everything that everyone says here is an opinion, even if it has the syntactic structure of a fact? It's an issue that besets most "serious" forums, alongside the huge variations in subject knowledge that posters have.

Cornucopia wrote: »

The problem is that people tend to abuse the privilege on forums (because they aren't bound by other conventions and elements of etiquette). They state things as facts, all the time, and then when someone objects on the basis of factual inaccuracy or lack of evidence, it suddenly becomes an opinion....

This is why, imho, anyone reading an online discussion forum should protect themselves from harm by assuming that anything stated by some anonymous screen name on a forum is a statement of opinion and not a verifiable fact until they verify it for themselves. Adopting that entirely common-sense attitude would mean that nobody would think that this is actually a 'dishonest scheme', they would just think that someone else thought it was a dishonest scheme.

Anyway, as jamesd points out it is acknowledged by the Defamation Act that the website operator should not be treated as if they themselves were the person committing libel providing they follow the various necessary steps.

the forum rules specifically prohibit libel. Whether it's technically defamation in the meaning of the Act is a related, but separate issue. (I didn't bring up the notion of legal action, originally).

IMHO, you shouldn't separate the issue of whether someone has carried out an act of libel, from what 'defamation' actually is.

Libel is an act of defamation where the statement is published in written form (or by another method that's not oral, which would be termed slander), right?

The Defamation Act sets out what we in this country consider to be defamatory, right?

So it doesn't seem to work, to say "you're banned from saying that because it's libellous, even though libel is simply written defamation, and what you have said is technically not defamatory under the legal rules which define what is and isn't defamatory, in the country in which you, MSE and UnbeatableHire all operate".

My observation is that the term 'technically' is often seen from someone who is in the process of losing an argument. "Well yeah you are technically correct, but..." to which the winning response is: "Good, because technically correct is the best kind of correct to be.".

As I'm easily amused, here's another bit of amusement from the site - this time the customer-facing rather than investor-facing side



Oh, hi Laura, great to meet you. Have we met before?

"Quite possibly, in my downtime from my work on the helpline at Unbeatablehire I also work for iphoto.com, you might know me from one of my previous roles:'cheerful receptionist'.

I guess you already met Dave who heads the 'Are you frustrated about your savings returns' page. He sometimes moonlights over at shutterstock or dreamstime producing royalty-free photoshoots, he had an awesome one called stock-photo-portrait-of-a-shocked-senior-man-isolated-over-white-background"

Cornucopia

masonic wrote: »

People aren't behaving any differently here than people tend to behave anywhere.

Perhaps it would be easier if they did?

Many people have the tendency to express opinions with more confidence than is warranted and others have the tendency to misinterpret opinions as facts. It is not exclusively the fault of the author.

I tend to go by the rules of English. I appreciate that some posts/posters are closer to the rules than others.

There is also nothing wrong with objecting to an opinion that is factually inaccurate.

This seems quite weak to me. Not least because I believe in respecting other people's opinions. Which is hard to do when they are factually incorrect.

So coming back to your earlier question, yes, you should automatically assume anything written here is an expression of an opinion unless it is explicitly stated as a fact...

This is my point - they usually are.

...which, if I'm not mistaken, contains two statements of opinion dressed up as facts.

Not really. The first is a statement effectively of the rules of the forum, combined with an implied informed opinion as to the nature of "libel". The second is effectively a question, followed by a request based on the assertion in the first part.

You also "agree with almost all of" the post where I pointed out the fact that there was deception involved in the marketing of the scheme.

That was the main part I had issue with. I simply don't know if the marketing is deceptive in a meaningful or relevant sense.

In case of confusion, that was a statement of fact based on regulatory requirements around the disclosure of risk amongst other things.

What are those requirements and do they apply here? Do you know what the level of risk truly is, or is there an assumption being made?

So, if a scheme is being marketed deceptively, then that is dishonest. "A dishonest scheme" could be referred to, quite factually, as a scam by your definition.

My interpretation of the definition of "scam" is that the scheme in its entirety and fundamental design is... dishonest or fraudulent. There is probably quite a wide area of business activity from secure investments through risky investments through unwise investments unfairly marketed before you get to outright scams. Presumably the Law is wise to that distinction?

In a sense, advertising is almost always deceptive, but most of us are capable of rising above it and still making sound, informed decisions.