First post

bowlhead99

FWIW, high net worth in the context of financial promotions these days for FCA purposes is generally just net assets excluding property and pensions of £250k and/or annual earnings of £100k+. The reductions from the "traditional" levels you quote are really just to help private business and entrepreneurs get easier access to capital.

An alternative way of signing away your rights as a retail investor and getting access to certain complex or high risk promotions would be the "sophisticated investor" classification which has been made easier to get into in recent years (e.g. just be a director of a £1m turnover business, work in private equity, be in a business angels network etc).

Some investments such as complex or commitment-based private funds or direct high yield corporate bonds in unlisted companies are more suited to (and often only available to) investors in those two categories ; so they don't get much coverage on a mainstream site like this one other than people being warned of the risks.

The exception would be loan-type investments to private companies done on a crowdfunding or p2p basis with tiny stakes available.

Ray_Singh-Blue

Malthusian wrote: »

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.

(Cough)

Imagine. if you will, an individual who is rich but very easily bored. They are unable to save £52 every single week.- they'd lose interest. They need to change the amount each week, so that they can stay the course.

Or.... an individual who has £1,000,000 locked away in a bond, and no other assets. They are currently in prison or hospital and unable to earn any money. In this case they are unable to save £52 every week, but unquestionably have high net worth, even by this forum's exacting standards.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury I put it to you that Smed may yet be rich. Filthy rich.

ChesterDog

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

* and informative.

To be fair to Bowlhead, I'm sure he would say, with justification, that his posts are as concise as possible given the amount of information that he is attempting to convey.

Obviously, that's not a verbatim representation of what he would say, more a synopsis.

bowlhead99

ChesterDog wrote: »

Obviously, that's not a verbatim representation of what he would say, more a synopsis.

"Verbatim representation"? Don't use big words when diminutive ones would suffice...

Malthusian

Ray_Singh-Blue wrote: »

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury I put it to you that Smed may yet be rich. Filthy rich.

I accept that you have conjured up a couple of scenarios in which Smed could be rich yet still interested in a £52 a week saving challenge. But as an esteemed barrister you will know that it if we are applying legal standards of evidence, even the most exacting one possible, it is not enough simply to come up with a scenario under which Smed has sufficient assets to be guilty of being high net worth. There must only be reasonable doubt over whether he is high net worth. I submit to you that although you have created a doubt it is not what the man on the Clapham omnibus would consider a reasonable one.

(If we were applying civil standards of evidence then your job would be even harder, but you referred to a jury so apparently this is a criminal trial of some sort.)

Fatbritabroad

bowlhead99 wrote: »

"Verbatim representation"? Don't use big words when diminutive ones would suffice...

Shortest

Post

Ever

:rotfl:

bigadaj

To be fair to smed this is all addressed in his profile.

He's a farmer, so presumably very asset rich, but not something that is liquid or easily accessible. There were plenty of lloyds names with that scenario and the properties were sold after the reality of liability and not free money came to pass.

Whether there are other significant and more liquid assets including cash then we don't really know, but he has a financial adviser who presumably handles the majority of investments.

Sounds like he has some play money in moneybox and weekly challenge, and is treating the 100% potential loss bind in a similar manner.

DiggerUK

bigadaj wrote: »

...........He's a farmer, so presumably very asset rich.......

Really..._

Smed

Sorry I took a while to reply. I have to work for a living. Oh my goodness you are all so sad.

Why don't you all go out and get a job and work for a living? It must be very boring posting on a forum all day.

Ray_Singh-Blue

Smed wrote: »

Why don't you all go out and get a job and work for a living?

Think that one through Smed. Imagine that some people, on an internet forum about investing, have had success as investors. What might they no longer need to do?

That 52 week saving challenge sounds intriguingly limp by the way. Like a physical challenge where you start with 30 press-ups, do one less each day, and by the end of the month just sit in a chair with a fag and a beer.