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

masonic

Anthorn wrote: »

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.

It's not good, which is the point of this thread. At risk of yet again highlighting your long standing reading comprehension problems, I suggest you take some time to read the discussion and try to understand the actual points being made before wading in, throwing around accusations at others, and demanding proof from them of things that are a matter of verifiable fact.

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.

The guarantee isn't a guarantee, though. It might fool some people, as it clearly has in your case, but others can see right through it and they are doing an important service by raising their concerns here. It seems you would rather people were misled than alert them to the genuine concerns of the learned members of this forum, just because you, absolute arbiter of what is substantiated and true, think the risk is very low? :rotfl:

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

The protections offered to people against unfair persecution through libel laws are enshrined in UK law. It is not "the MSE way", it is "the UK way". Unfortunately, one side-effect of the liberal libel laws we enjoy in this country is that others cannot easily suppress opinions that they do not like.

While you ponder that, you might like to consider that accusing others of making libellous remarks is itself defamatory, so perhaps you could exercise some self-moderation before complaining about others.

Anthorn wrote: »

Yet more from GMO in the U.S.

https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/legal-and-compliance/gmo-europe-part-2a-(2014)-final.pdf?sfvrsn=8

I think I've provided enough now for everyone to either prove that the website in question is a scam or legit instead of making wild accusations without any proof whatsoever.

Nobody is disputing that this website belongs to a legitimate company. I suggest you have a read of what people are actually claiming before continuing to post in this thread.

Anthorn

masonic wrote: »

It's not good, which is the point of this thread. At risk of yet again highlighting your long standing reading comprehension problems, I suggest you take some time to read the discussion and try to understand the actual points being made before wading in, throwing around accusations at others, and demanding proof from them of things that are a matter of verifiable fact..

I have read the thread. There is doubt about the site because it is said that it uses the name of the U.S. GMO but it doesn't, it uses the name of the Irish gmo investment management which is a subsidiary of the U.S. GMO and I have proved that. Almost the whole of the objections in this thread are based on that falsehood.

It's not me who is throwing about the accusations. I'm just asking for proof that the website is a scam as is claimed in this thread. It's everyone else throwing around the accusations. So far no-one has proved that. Can you prove it?

Other than the above I've already said that I neither claim the website to be good or bad. I'm indifferent about it.

masonic

Anthorn wrote: »

It's not me who is throwing about the accusations. I'm just asking for proof that the website is a scam as is claimed in this thread. It's everyone else throwing around the accusations. So far no-one has proved that. Can you prove it?

Nobody has made that accusation/claim. You see, when one reaches a certain level of reading comprehension, one is able to discern much more nuanced information from what is written in a post. Several posters have highlighted aspects of the website that are often associated with scam websites. These are stark warning signs indeed, but it is you who is taking these factual statements, reading between the lines and making your own assumptions about what is being claimed.

At the end of the day, it is up to each individual to weigh up the evidence presented and draw their own conclusions as to what these warning signs actually mean, but I doubt many will be looking to invest their money if they have any sense.

Malthusian

Anthorn wrote: »

I have read the thread. There is doubt about the site because it is said that it uses the name of the U.S. GMO...

No, there is doubt about the site because it is claiming to offer fixed rate deposits with FSCS protection at rates that are "too good to be true" for fixed rate deposits, and a cursory glance at the small print shows that its products are no such thing. Just like the other six billion and four 100%-capital-at-risk bonds masquerading as fixed rate deposits we have seen on this forum in the last few years.

The rest is just us playing gotcha on the Internet. We don't need to know that the website is passing itself off as a much larger US firm or copying and pasting a director's photo from their site or inexplicably hosted in Bulgaria with its true ownership details hidden to know that we shouldn't give them our money. Our bargepoles were already out long before that point. But it reinforces the case for any passing readers, plus it's fun.

Maybe you believe our new friend MJS Capital that "if it's too good to be true it probably is" was invented by the banksters to stop schmoes like us from getting rich quick.