Basset & Gold Bonds - should I invest?

eskbanker

AnotherJoe wrote: »

* see what i did there

I can't think who this company would appeal to but it takes all sorts I suppose

jimjames

After what has happened with London Capital & Finance I thought some digging might be in order.

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/03/basset-gold-isa-bond-review.html

It appears that Basset & Gold entire investment is in one company based in Cyprus. Unlike LCF the auditors felt it necessary to have a note added to the accounts about the risks involved in loan to a single entity.

I wonder how many Basset & Gold investors realise their money is invested in Cyprus. They also seem to be using similar image library to LCF with happy pensioners...

I have serious concerns about this statement on the B&G website. The one word answer is misleading and incorrect in my view. The correct answer is No.

dunstonh

I have serious concerns about this statement on the B&G website. The one word answer is misleading and incorrect in my view. The correct answer is No.

The FSCS does not automatically cover regulated companies. It is the activities of the regulated company that matter along with the retail product used. Unregulated investments are not covered (they are not retail investment products) unless they are put in place under regulated advice and only if the advice is unsuitable.

Malthusian

Basset & Gold has claimed in writing on its Facebook page that investors are covered by the FSCS, in the sense that the FSCS would pay out on a claim against Basset & Gold for misselling.

Naturally if you press them enough they fall back on "the FSCS would decide in the event of a claim" which is technically true but misleading. The correct answer is that the FSCS would decide that investors were not covered, as per their recent confirmation that London Capital and Finance investors are not covered.

jimjames

Malthusian wrote: »

Basset & Gold has claimed in writing on its Facebook page that investors are covered by the FSCS, in the sense that the FSCS would pay out on a claim against Basset & Gold for misselling.

And that is exactly the problem when they are targeting people who only think an ISA means Cash ISA and that FSCS cover means that they will get their money back.

It has only been when dealing with LCF bondholders that I've realised quite how much confusion that LCF (probably deliberately) created by using the words Bonds and ISAs to separately describe their products when essentially they are exactly the same thing. It also brought to mind that the investors who take the lower rate bonds at 3% or so probably had no idea that they took exactly the same risks as the 8% bondholders - there is no differentiation once the company is in administration.

dunstonh

It has only been when dealing with LCF bondholders that I've realised quite how much confusion that LCF (probably deliberately) created by using the words Bonds and ISAs to separately describe their products when essentially they are exactly the same thing.

I was once accused of being anal for trying to get people to use the right terminology on products and types. Maybe I am. Perhaps its part of me becoming grumpy old man as I head to my 50s. However, I do think it is important that terminology is used correctly.

Otherwise, bond means bond is just as reliable as Theresa May's Brexit means Brexit.

Why Fixed Term Deposits had to adopt the name "savings bond" or similar I do not know.

Malthusian

"Bond" has been a common alternative name for "loan note" going back to World War I.

Words can mean different things.

Using the word "bond" to describe LCF was not what caused investors to lose their money. It was putting their bonds in comparison tables which implied that they were equivalent to cash deposits, failing to disclose the ultra high risk nature of the investment with equal prominence to meaningless terms like "asset-backed", and telling investors over the phone that the bonds were literally safe as houses.

jimjames

Malthusian wrote: »

Using the word "bond" to describe LCF was not what caused investors to lose their money.

One thing that LCF did which I think was deliberate was to say that investing in bonds means your capital is at risk. There was no such thing mentioned against the ISA although it was exactly the same bond inside it.

planteria

i've noticed they sponsor the sleeves on the West Ham shirts.. is the Gold of David and Ralph Gold?

Reaper

I only spent 5 minutes looking into it but I notice while there may be a company in Cyprus that was lent the money it is a UK company with no assets that has the 3 charges for Basset and Gold lodged against it.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10830818/charges

I don't know how the various companies hang together but lending to one company and putting charges on another sounds like a bad idea.