Too good to be true? Or maybe it is for real?

Anthorn

masonic wrote: »

I very much doubt Hargreaves Lansdown has made you any assurances about your capital and/or returns being guaranteed.

So the guarantee offered by the company being discussed in this thread is good? Or not? or whatever? If the guarantee is good then so must the company be good.

I go by risk as I'm sure most other investors do. The plan(s) being offered by this company are very low risk. Hence the guarantee. If I invested with the likes of NS&I I could probably get a guarantee. But the fact is that the higher the risk the higher the potential return. It's been that way for donkey's years.

masonic wrote: »

The burden of proof is on the company making the financial promotion. It is they who are making misleading assertions about guarantees. We are just pointing out how ridiculous those assertions are. Reputable firms simply do no operate in this misleading manner.

So in that case we can make libelous remarks based on unsubstantiated assumptions. Oh yes, that's the MSE way!

Malthusian

Anthorn wrote: »

The plan(s) being offered by this company are very low risk. Hence the guarantee.

A good thing that MSE posters can't be sued when they get things wrong, even if an unsuspecting mark loses their life savings after acting on something they posted.

The information on GMO's website is vague, contradictory and in places completely nonsensical. E.g. Under the heading "SECURITY OF THE DEPOSITED CAPITAL" the text that follows "Funds and Forex companies are at the extreme end of investing parameters as they look always for positive returns, regardless of the performance of any sector benchmark. A Hedge Fund indulges in more aggressive strategies and positions..." has absolutely nothing to do with the heading. That, along with the other red flags already posted in this thread is enough for me to get my bargepole out.

Anthorn

Malthusian wrote: »

A good thing that MSE posters can't be sued when they get things wrong, even if an unsuspecting mark loses their life savings after acting on something they posted.

The information on GMO's website is vague, contradictory and in places completely nonsensical. E.g. Under the heading "SECURITY OF THE DEPOSITED CAPITAL" the text that follows "Funds and Forex companies are at the extreme end of investing parameters as they look always for positive returns, regardless of the performance of any sector benchmark. A Hedge Fund indulges in more aggressive strategies and positions..." has absolutely nothing to do with the heading. That, along with the other red flags already posted in this thread is enough for me to get my bargepole out.

It's a comparison between different investments which ends in an explanation of funds which are guaranteed. I don't understand why that's a red flag. They themselves don't run funds. The invest in other funds. Therefore the FAQ item is valid. Here's the full text of that FAQ item:

Funds and Forex companies are at the extreme end of investing parameters as they look always for positive returns, regardless of the performance of any sector benchmark. A Hedge Fund indulges in more aggressive strategies and positions. This activeness of hedge funds explains their popularity. The performance historically outperforms other investment vehicles because they hold short positions and hedges. The total return targets of Hedge Funds vary, but a goal may be outlined as something like 10-19% yearly, regardless of the market conditions. Investors, however, need to understand that the Hedge Funds promise of pursuing positive returns means that they limit the number of depositors and require them to be fully accredited. Hedge Funds are prohibited from soliciting or advertising for business, a key factor that lends to their exclusiveness. They may from time to time however offer the novice investor opportunities by means of a cash deposit to cover their general monthly running costs. They in turn will offer the depositor a guaranteed return on investment usually between 3-6% depending on the deposit period. In funds, liquidity is a key concern for depositors. Liquidity provisions vary, but invested funds may be difficult to withdraw without prior notice. Many funds have a minimum investment period of 12 Months, which is an initial term during which investors cannot remove their capital.

Personally I'm not claiming they are good or bad. In fact I'm indifferent. But we should have proof before we start making accusations. That's my point.

Nanpy

FWIW if I try to go to "gmoinvestmentmanagement dot com" with an "e", Malwarebytes blocks it as a potentially malicious site, so if anyone was checking it out, you might want to run a virus scan. That said, Malwarebytes also fell out with my copy of Microsoft 365 a few weeks ago so she's kinda over-protective.

So let's check scamadvisor....

http://www.scamadviser.com/is-gmoinvestmentmanagement.com-a-fake-site.html

Site is hosted in Bulgaria and has a ZERO trustworthiness score.

Which is probably why Malwarebytes kicked off. Probably not serving drive by infections, but I'd still run that scan.

(In before "but scamadviser is a scam" - it's a resource like any other, which should be treated with a grain of salt. It gets a lot of negative press online... but is that surprising?)

Anthorn

Nanpy wrote: »

FWIW if I try to go to "gmoinvestmentmanagement dot com" with an "e", Malwarebytes blocks it as a potentially malicious site, so if anyone was checking it out, you might want to run a virus scan. That said, Malwarebytes also fell out with my copy of Microsoft 365 a few weeks ago so she's kinda over-protective.

So let's check scamadvisor....

http://www.scamadviser.com/is-gmoinvestmentmanagement.com-a-fake-site.html

Site is hosted in Bulgaria and has a ZERO trustworthiness score.

Which is probably why Malwarebytes kicked off. Probably not serving drive by infections, but I'd still run that scan.

(In before "but scamadviser is a scam" - it's a resource like any other, which should be treated with a grain of salt. It gets a lot of negative press online... but is that surprising?)

In that case perhaps the FCA should be notified because it's FCA registered - Authorised Schedule 5.
https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000003ejXqkAAE

I really don't think that a website being hosted in Bulgaria is sufficient grounds for claiming that company is a scam. In fact it's laughable.

But you know, if we are determined to find something negative about anything or anyone we'll find it.

PeacefulWaters

Guaranteed returns of that amount? It's a crock of plop.

Nanpy

Anthorn wrote: »

In that case perhaps the FCA should be notified because it's FCA registered - Authorised Schedule 5.
https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000003ejXqkAAE

I really don't think that a website being hosted in Bulgaria is sufficient grounds for claiming that company is a scam. In fact it's laughable.

But you know, if we are determined to find something negative about anything or anyone we'll find it.

So you're asserting, 100%, that the company registered with the FCA is also behind the website being discussed? Bold.

I'm sure the company is legit. I've only commented on the website. I'm careful like that.

Anthorn

Nanpy wrote: »

So you're asserting, 100%, that the company registered with the FCA is also behind the website being discussed? Bold.

I'm sure the company is legit. I've only commented on the website. I'm careful like that.

I've already posted that I'm indifferent.

Oh Emm Gee the Wikipedia website has negative feedback and carries a 74% caution rating. Wikipedia must be a scam!

scamadvisor reports on websites not companies. As I said if you think the company is a scam report that to the FCA which has registered the company.

Nanpy

You seem to be missing the point I made.

The company which YOU are referring to, may have nothing to do with the website.

I've also said I'm fairly sure the company YOU are talking about is legit. I see no connection between THEM and the website being discussed.

Since I can't visit the webiste, I cannot similarly assert that there is or is not a claim by the website that THEY are linked to the company YOU are referring to.

You seem to have assume that the company and the website are linked. In my opinion that is a dangerous, at best naive, assumption.

Nanpy

Also, wikipedia.org is 100% trustworthy according to scamadviser. You may be looking for the wrong site, or indeed be using the wrong site to check. Detail is important.

http://www.scamadviser.com/check-website/wikipedia.org