First post

mollycat

Smed wrote: »

Have I become a special interest for you? I'm asking because you also replied to my post in the Last Investment thread with a similar large amount of "verbosity" which incidentally I'm not replying to.

What exactly are you trying to say? Is it that I should trust in your opinion just because you post on M.S.E. forums? You don't post your qualifications and financial experience. You say that I.F.A.s on M.S.E. must declare it in their signature but you don't have it in your signature so I conclude that you are not an I.F.A. So who or what are you and why should I trust you?

This is all starting to get a bit bizarre, (and scary!) :eek:

bowlhead99

Smed wrote: »

Have I become a special interest for you? I'm asking because you also replied to my post in the Last Investment thread with a similar large amount of "verbosity" which incidentally I'm not replying to.

That thread was set up for people to share different things they had recently invested in, with reasoning. Threads like that are good to harvest ideas for people's owe research, so many of the suggestions of investments in the thread will be worthy of comment. I made three paragraphs of comment including a different investment I held which I thought had a better risk reward ratio.

I smiled when I saw you had posted that as your "last investment", because someone in this thread had just suggested that you were here trolling, and then the investment that you mentioned as being your most recent is one of the most frequently disparaged unregulated investments in this forum over the last year with multiple dedicated threads.

You had mentioned earlier in this thread that you used an IFA because it saved you time and helped avoid falling into "traps set for the unwary" which might happen if you selected the investments yourself, which makes perfect sense, a common reason IFAs are used

Yet your most recent investment per that other thread was unlikely to be one recommended by an IFA, and one of the points you mentioned in relation to it was that it was FCA regulated and authorised. In the context of a potential investment, that positive-sounding point is probably a "trap for the unwary", because their only permission is to engage in secondary credit broking so they can lend out their money; while your position of being a bondholder is not one of being a borrower nor a direct counterparty to their lending transactions- so that FCA permission is a red herring.

What exactly are you trying to say?

I had hoped that by posting responses in between the quotes to which I was responding, it would be clear. Largely that I didn't believe your theory that it was "most plausible" that those posting as IFAs were unemployed with pennies to their name, nor that if the advice was free or dispensed at "all hours" it would be something to disregard.

Is it that I should trust in your opinion just because you post on M.S.E. forums?

It's a free and open forum so trusting an opinion just because someone has a history of posting sensible comments for a decade is probably not enough - the person could still be a nutter out to ruin your wealth and his/her last decade's work was just to lull you into a false sense of security. The long con. But you can use advice /guidance / opinion as a jumping-off point for your own research and to help you solicit further opinion.

You don't post your qualifications and financial experience. You say that I.F.A.s on M.S.E. must declare it in their signature but you don't have it in your signature so I conclude that you are not an I.F.A. So who or what are you and why should I trust you?

I'll mention qualifications or experience or what I do or have done, from time to time if it's particularly pertinent to a thread. Probably not on this thread - as you have no wish to exchange personal info and have only passed derogatory comments about people who have revealed their occupations (e.g. IFAs).

But you're right, I'm not an IFA and i don't use a signature as there's no standard comment that needs to be made against every post I make.

You don't have to trust me if you don't like what you read. I don't know what many people here do for a living unless they specifically post it - I generally judge someone on what they say or do ahead of their breeding or background.

Smed

bowlhead99 wrote: »

That thread was set up for people to share different things they had recently invested in, with reasoning. Threads like that are good to harvest ideas for people's owe research, so many of the suggestions of investments in the thread will be worthy of comment. I made three paragraphs of comment including a different investment I held which I thought had a better risk reward ratio.

I smiled when I saw you had posted that as your "last investment", because someone in this thread had just suggested that you were here trolling, and then the investment that you mentioned as being your most recent is one of the most frequently disparaged unregulated investments in this forum over the last year with multiple dedicated threads.

You had mentioned earlier in this thread that you used an IFA because it saved you time and helped avoid falling into "traps set for the unwary" which might happen if you selected the investments yourself, which makes perfect sense, a common reason IFAs are used

Yet your most recent investment per that other thread was unlikely to be one recommended by an IFA, and one of the points you mentioned in relation to it was that it was FCA regulated and authorised. In the context of a potential investment, that positive-sounding point is probably a "trap for the unwary", because their only permission is to engage in secondary credit broking so they can lend out their money; while your position of being a bondholder is not one of being a borrower nor a direct counterparty to their lending transactions- so that FCA permission is a red herring.

I had hoped that by posting responses in between the quotes to which I was responding, it would be clear. Largely that I didn't believe your theory that it was "most plausible" that those posting as IFAs were unemployed with pennies to their name, nor that if the advice was free or dispensed at "all hours" it would be something to disregard.

It's a free and open forum so trusting an opinion just because someone has a history of posting sensible comments for a decade is probably not enough - the person could still be a nutter out to ruin your wealth and his/her last decade's work was just to lull you into a false sense of security. The long con. But you can use advice /guidance / opinion as a jumping-off point for your own research and to help you solicit further opinion.

I'll mention qualifications or experience or what I do or have done, from time to time if it's particularly pertinent to a thread. Probably not on this thread - as you have no wish to exchange personal info and have only passed derogatory comments about people who have revealed their occupations (e.g. IFAs).

But you're right, I'm not an IFA and i don't use a signature as there's no standard comment that needs to be made against every post I make.

You don't have to trust me if you don't like what you read. I don't know what many people here do for a living unless they specifically post it - I generally judge someone on what they say or do ahead of their breeding or background.

I look at it in a different way which is concise. I'm asked to post more information about myself but those who want me to do that are not willing to post any information about themselves and intend to stay anonymous. But look what happens to me when I do in fact post more information about myself in the "Last Investment" thread. That information is used by yourself as ammunition to attack me and that follows a familiar pattern. Wasn't your last victim a disabled O.A.P.?

masonic

Smed wrote: »

I look at it in a different way which is concise. I'm asked to post more information about myself but those who want me to do that are not willing to post any information about themselves and intend to stay anonymous. But look what happens to me when I do in fact post more information about myself in the "Last Investment" thread. That information is used by yourself as ammunition to attack me and that follows a familiar pattern.

I must have missed the part in that thread where you were attacked. Your chosen investment was attacked, and quite justifiably too. Venturing into unregulated investments when you are not a high net worth individual with six figure sums already invested in regulated investments is, to put it kindly, a schoolboy error. I think the response you received in the other thread was very mild and measured.

In this thread you are asking for help. Like many before you, rather than taking comments and questions at face value, you turn against those trying to help you and insult them. What effect do you suppose that will have on the helpfulness of others reading the thread?

Wasn't your last victim a disabled O.A.P.?

It never ceases to amaze me the sorts of bizarre statements that can be coaxed out of people who initially present themselves as quite sane and reasonable. :rotfl:

Smed

masonic wrote: »

I must have missed the part in that thread where you were attacked. Your chosen investment was attacked, and quite justifiably too. Venturing into unregulated investments when you are not a high net worth individual with six figure sums already invested in regulated investments is, to put it kindly, a schoolboy error. I think the response you received in the other thread was very mild and measured.

In this thread you are asking for help. Like many before you, rather than taking comments and questions at face value, you turn against those trying to help you and insult them. What effect do you suppose that will have on the helpfulness of others reading the thread?


It never ceases to amaze me the sorts of bizarre statements that can be coaxed out of people who initially present themselves as quite sane and reasonable. :rotfl:

I think I am now being ganged up upon which is also a familiar pattern but I will reply on three points. (1) How do you know I'm not a "high net worth individual with a 6 figure sum already invested? (2) The response to my post in the "Last Investment" thread is nor only in that thread. It is this thread too and additionally I'm accused of being a troll. (3) I didn't ask for help. I just posted a short introduction.

And all this arising from one little post outlining my "Last Investment". I'm tempted to say "Get a life".

masonic

Smed wrote: »

I think I am now being ganged up upon which is also a familiar pattern but I will reply on three points.

I'm just responding to what I read. I just go hither and thither making comments as I see fit.

(1) How do you know I'm not a "high net worth individual with a 6 figure sum already invested?

I've read some of your other posts. Trust me, sometimes you just know.

(2) The response to my post in the "Last Investment" thread is nor only in that thread.

Nobody at all commented on your intial post in the "Last investment" thread where you stated you'd taken profits from your Moneybox investing app and started a 52 week £1 challenge.

The very next day you made a second post in the thread stating you'd made an investment in an unregulated bond. I left it alone, since you correctly identified how ridiculously risky it was, but I'm glad someone else expanded on the other drawbacks of such an investment for the benefit of others who may be curious.

It is perhaps noteworthy that there is quite a contrast between the investment you told us about yesterday and the one you made between then and today. I won't ask you about that as I don't want to be accused of prying, but it did raise an eyebrow.

It is this thread too and additionally I'm accused of being a troll.

That's unfortunate. I don't believe you are a troll.

(3) I didn't ask for help. I just posted a short introduction.

Then I was mistaken. I was misled by your "Still a fair amount of cash to invest", which seemed to invite responses as to what you should do about that. I'm guessing nobody recommended sticking it in an unregulated bond from London Capital Finance with 100% loss potential, and that was your own idea.

And all this arising from one little post outlining my "Last Investment". I'm tempted to say "Get a life".

Posting to an internet forum suggesting that others who post to internet forums should get a life is slightly hypocritical, don't you agree?

Smed

masonic wrote: »

I've read some of your other posts. Trust me, sometimes you just know.

Oh my goodness! What on earth have I released in just 18 posts? I will have to go through my posts now.

But you must be able to make something out of my profile where I filled out two pieces of information the first day I entered this forum. I will look forward to further attacks.

AnotherJoe

Smed wrote: »

I think I am now being ganged up upon which is also a familiar pattern but I will reply on three points. (1) How do you know I'm not a "high net worth individual with a 6 figure sum already invested?

"Same started last week with the £1 52 week challenge in reverse. Two benefits that I see., (1) Maximizing compound interest and (2) starting with a amount that I can afford which reduces every week so I can stay the course. So far £52 saved."

Smed wrote: »

Have I become a special interest for you? I'm asking because you also replied to my post in the Last Investment thread with a similar large amount of "verbosity" which incidentally I'm not replying to.

Most of Bowlheads posts are similarly verbose*. I'm sure that verbosity wasn't a personal attack on you

* and informative.

Ray_Singh-Blue

AnotherJoe wrote: »

"Same started last week with the £1 52 week challenge in reverse. Two benefits that I see., (1) Maximizing compound interest and (2) starting with a amount that I can afford which reduces every week so I can stay the course. So far £52 saved."

Arguably none of that excludes Smed being "a high net worth individual

By the end of the year they'll have saved £1352. Possibly they are adding that to the £100,000 they already have saved, making £101,352.

£52 would, in that context, clearly be "an amount they can afford"

These are the facts of the case, Your Honour... :money:

Malthusian

Ray_Singh-Blue wrote: »

Arguably none of that excludes Smed being "a high net worth individual

It's the "a amount that I can afford which reduces every week so I can stay the course" bit that excludes him as being a high net worth individual.

If he is unable to save £52 every single week - if it's necessary to reduce that so he can stay the course - then he isn't high net worth. For someone at the threshold of higher rate tax (note that even this is a long way short of any definition of "high net worth") that would be only 7% of their net income, after tax. Someone who had a six-figure sum invested would be receiving more than £52 a week in dividend income even if that six-figure sum was £100,000.

The traditional definition of high net worth is £1 million in free assets (i.e. not including primary residence) although few terms are more loosely used.