Investment in "Investment Opportunities

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

It isn't so much a lack of resources as wasting resources on overpaid beauracrats like the rest of the Government does. But of couse the net result is the same in having less resources to do the job.

Do you have evidence for that assertion?

Citizens Advice and Trading Standards are notoriously underfunded. It really is a case of having to decide where tax is spent, and CA and TS are undoubtedly low down in the pecking order. I've bumped into some very dodgy traders who know how to play the system. Ironically one set of bodgers were on the TS approved scheme. :rotfl:

jimjames

bowlhead99 wrote: »

What does this tell us about investing in a company called 'investment opportunities'? Not much, but with such a generic name and a low profile online presence they are clearly not someone that wants to be easily found or remembered. So either they have zero business nous and you should avoid because of the poor business skills, or they are trying to be hard to pin down and you should avoid for that reason instead...

If you do a Google search for "Investment Opportunities scam" the first page that comes up is this one:

https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/avoid-scams-unauthorised-firms

Hopefully anyone looking for such information will pay heed to it

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Citizens Advice and Trading Standards are notoriously underfunded.

That may be so. But we were talking about the FCA

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

That may be so. But we were talking about the FCA

It seemed relevant to the conversation. However, on checking it turns out that the FCA is funded by the companies it regulates, therefore it would be feasible to increase the fees to fund the workload.

Anyway, do you have evidence for your earlier assertion or is it just based on what you think happens?

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

It seemed relevant to the conversation. However, on checking it turns out that the FCA is funded by the companies it regulates, therefore it would be feasible to increase the fees to fund the workload.

Anyway, do you have evidence for your earlier assertion or is it just based on what you think happens?

Quick Google:
'Martin Wheatly, chief executive of the FCA received a salary of £460k, a bonus of £92k, and other benefits (car and driver) of £108k.3 Jul 2015'
QED

bowlhead99

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Quick Google:
'Martin Wheatly, chief executive of the FCA received a salary of £460k, a bonus of £92k, and other benefits (car and driver) of £108k.3 Jul 2015'
QED

I don't think you can say QED with that.

You have just shown that the CEO is highly paid, which is not surprising. Nobody competent would head up the FCA for your salary.

You have not demonstrated your assertion that money has been wasted on an overpaid bureaucrat or that the FCA had inadequate resources to achieve its main objectives as a consequence of paying the CEO a high salary.

dunstonh

Nobody competent would head up the FCA for your salary.

Nobody competent has.

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Nobody competent would head up the FCA for your salary.

Are you saying that nobody who is prepared to work for less than about 20 times the UK average pay is competent?

bowlhead99

Do you think someone with the experience and ability to head a country's financial regulatory function based in London is going to want to work at that full time for 1 times the UK average salary?

Glen_Clark

I asked the question first