Motor home as investment?

Cornucopia

bowlhead99 wrote: »

As a former worker for one such chain...

There you go, you know for yourself the potential effect on a business of idle gossip (or its internet equivalent).

Meanwhile, in related news, some people have attacked the office of a Paediatrician, thankfully the Podiatrist next door was spared.

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.

Yes, and I'm sure that is what MSE towers would say. I'm not sure whether it still works when 10 people or 20 are saying "scam!" and one dissenting voice has a more nuanced but not even opposing view. Something like: not enough info?

And in the hypothetical case where everyone says: "it's a scam", I don't think it works at all.

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?

Not sure whether you are reading this more literally than the context would suggest was warranted. Looking at the figures, though, it seems the claim is broadly reasonable.

£100k in "traditional savings" at 2% gets you a little over £130 per month after tax. Invest in 4 cars, and you'll get £1000 (not sure about the tax). There's probably interest and capital there, but it's certainly enough to live off.

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?

Everything involves a "potential loss of 100% of capital", it just depends on how widely you cast your net to assess the risks. It's a tricky thing, risk, and the finance industry has struggled over a long period of time to get the presentation right.

In the general scheme of things, if I had to choose a share certificate or a car as a store of value, the decision is not a straightforward one. My personal preference has been property, and it's not a decision I regret.

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.

And perhaps in due course it will evolve into something that combines a traditional approach like shares or bonds with the vehicle funding model to improve its transparency and share the risks more widely.

Personally, I'm not sure about putting £14k into one car, but maybe £500 into a share of a car is more tempting?

...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.

I would be happier to see people making the almost trivial effort to add "I think" to the front of their unsubstantiated claims (sorry, opinions).

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?

Yes.

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

No. It sets out the law as it pertains to defamation. It doesn't change the general meaning in English of "libel" or "defamation", nor does it constrain someone who is a legal lay-person from making their own judgements in good faith.

My observation is that the term 'technically' is often seen from someone who is in the process of losing an argument....

In my experience, people talk about the "other side" losing the argument when they themselves are losing the argument. In reality, there is no argument. You and I have different opinions, some of which are educated, some are backed in part by external authorities.

... {Stock photos} ...

If stock photos are an indication of deceit in advertising and on the Web, we should all just pack up now. Nonsense, I'm afraid.

masonic

Cornucopia wrote: »

Perhaps it would be easier if they did?

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

The "rules" of English have been continuously modified to take into account common usage. This is merely an example of common usage. If you are a purist, perhaps start a campaign? Maybe somewhere other than this thread?

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.

There is no need to respect people's factually incorrect opinions. You can respect their right to hold false opinions by "agreeing to disagree" and the like, but you are perfectly entitled to state your objection or disagreement without any reasonable person inferring disrespect. If you release yourself from the obligation to agree with all statements of opinion out of respect then this issue would confuse you much less and you'd be able to more easily identify opinions not explicitly stated as such.

This is my point - they usually are.

There you go again... "they usually are" is an opinion isn't it? The "they" in this case presumably refers to opinions usually being explicitly stated as facts. I believe your opinion is wrong (no disrespect intended ), because I think you are confusing explicit and implicit. If something is explicitly stated as a fact, then there is no ambiguity. Nobody could reasonably come back and claim it was an opinion later.

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 simply cannot go around libelling companies like this" is an implicit statement of fact. Where is there any indication of opinion? There is no doubt or uncertainty in that statement, which incidentally is untrue as the poster is at liberty to go on "libelling companies like this", because your definition of "libel" in this instance is legal.

"you really do need to stop saying it" is an implicit statement of fact as well, bordering on explicit ("really" definition - in actual fact, as opposed to what is said or imagined to be true or possible). Again, not true and presumably intended as an opinion - the poster has no such need, but put in such strong terms as to be misinterpretable as fact (at least as much as "this really is a scam", if that were expressed as an opinion).

You might think I'm being pedantic, in which case I hope the experience is insightful, if you know what I'm getting at.

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.

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?

If you wish to research the regulatory requirements imposed by the FCA around regulated investment schemes, then their website would be a good starting point. But you only need to look at the information a few above board regulated schemes disclose in order to see the deception for yourself. I think others in this thread have also done a good job of pointing out the deceptive elements.

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.

Your interpretation is your opinion and you are entitled to it. My interpretation is quite different, as stated above. So, it appears we have reduced this point to a difference of opinion over the definition of the word "scam", which is a matter of opinion. It's probably not worth taking that any further, wouldn't you agree?

So, to summarise, in my opinion it is far more helpful to seek to understand what meaning an author ascribes to what they have written, rather than trying to interpret statements using "rules of English" that you have in turn interpreted from other sources.

atush

Cornucopia wrote: »

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).

Why not buy a gite? I bought one for the price of a second hand ford?

Cornucopia

I want something in the South West of France - it's quite expensive there, even for derelict property.

atush

Well you be better off researching that, than flogging this dead horse? Personally, I think your best bet is a tent on a campsite if you want something cheap down that way, my place is in chillier Brittany.

Mind you, I got hte Carlton In Cannes in march for 100 quid/nite incl breakfast (with champagne) a few years ago.

Hasn't it occurred to you, that many people here dont agree with you? So you are just spitting into the wind?

Give it up. We aren't going to agree with you on this- ever.

jimjames

Apparently only half of pensioners would feel confident they could spot a scam - scary thoughts when so much money is up for grabs and rich pickings for companies that are out to mislead.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-3084233/Third-workers-brink-retirement-struggle-spot-pensions-scam.html

3 schemes, only one of them is genuine. How many people would be able to see which it was.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/investing/article-3084411/Hundreds-fall-builder-s-40m-Ponzi-investment-UK-property-investment-group-faces-charges-authorities.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/experts/article-3084483/TONY-HETHERINGTON-s-Vegas-bust-wine-investment-scheme.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/diyinvesting/article-3062370/The-investment-trusts-backing-lending-platforms-10-return.html

jjgold

scam
run fast

Cornucopia

atush wrote: »

Well you be better off researching that, than flogging this dead horse?

...

Hasn't it occurred to you, that many people here dont agree with you? So you are just spitting into the wind?

Give it up. We aren't going to agree with you on this- ever.

Is this what we are aiming for - a forum where everyone agrees?

Cornucopia

masonic wrote: »

If you release yourself from the obligation to agree with all statements of opinion out of respect...

No, you have that wrong. I respect them, but don't necessarily agree with them. I think this position is consistent with the Forum rules.

... then this issue would confuse you much less and you'd be able to more easily identify opinions not explicitly stated as such.

I'm not confused.

There you go again... "they usually are" is an opinion isn't it? The "they" in this case presumably refers to opinions usually being explicitly stated as facts. I believe your opinion is wrong (no disrespect intended ), because I think you are confusing explicit and implicit. If something is explicitly stated as a fact, then there is no ambiguity. Nobody could reasonably come back and claim it was an opinion later.

I've been around forums for quite a while. Believe me, I have seen everything...

So, anyway, what is a post that just says: "scam/run fast", in this scheme of interpretation?

"you simply cannot go around libelling companies like this" is an implicit statement of fact. Where is there any indication of opinion? There is no doubt or uncertainty in that statement, which incidentally is untrue as the poster is at liberty to go on "libelling companies like this", because your definition of "libel" in this instance is legal.

Nope. I didn't add any legal definition, someone else did. My statement was factually correct, libel is not permitted under forum rules. I would say also that "like this" adds a hint of opinion, if that's what you're after.

"you really do need to stop saying it" is an implicit statement of fact as well, bordering on explicit ("really" definition - in actual fact, as opposed to what is said or imagined to be true or possible). Again, not true and presumably intended as an opinion...

I think you are getting confused. It's obviously an instruction - perhaps a request, if we are being nice.

You might think I'm being pedantic, in which case I hope the experience is insightful, if you know what I'm getting at.

I just think you're wrong.

If you wish to research the regulatory requirements imposed by the FCA around regulated investment schemes...

Right. But since the schemes we are talking about are unregulated...

Your interpretation is your opinion and you are entitled to it. My interpretation is quite different, as stated above. So, it appears we have reduced this point to a difference of opinion over the definition of the word "scam", which is a matter of opinion. It's probably not worth taking that any further, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, however it renders all of your posts pointless to me, and vice versa, which isn't a great starting point for communication.

What might be a better approach is to include an explanation if your use of a term is not being understood, or is different to the general consensus.

So, to summarise, in my opinion it is far more helpful to seek to understand what meaning an author ascribes to what they have written, rather than trying to interpret statements using "rules of English" that you have in turn interpreted from other sources.

So I need to ask each individual what they mean by "scam"? That'll be fun.

jamesd

Cornucopia wrote: »

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

I summarised the key points adjacent to the link: inflated initial prices, high depreciation and high financing costs. Those issues apply to mobile homes here just as they do in the US.

Cornucopia wrote: »

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).

Check the resale price, not the purchase price, is perhaps the best way to protect yourself from the worst of the damage. beware if there's no proper market for resale or if it's dominated by the original seller, perhaps through requirements that resale must be done through them, which allows them to keep prices high.