Asset Life Plc

edited 14 September 2017 at 12:57PM in Savings & Investments
43 replies 11.2K views
135

Replies

  • bowlhead99bowlhead99 Forumite
    12.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Post of the Month
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Reaper wrote: »
    Hmmm, thinking about it Lollipop99's post is a bit odd. Don't be provoked into saying anything that can't be supported by the facts, we don't want the thread deleted again.

    My 'supposition' is that the previous thread you were thinking of was taken down after a complaint by the company concerned. It's not surprising that business of all types would seek to protect their reputation via standard legal avenues if they feel they were being disparaged online without justification.

    One standard route for a site owner to protect himself from an accusation of defamation in relation to comments hosted on a site he operates can include knowing the real names and contact details of users posting so that they can provide them as necessary as part of a defence that the comments are not his own doing. Some users may therefore have been asked to provide those details if they wanted their posted comments to remain published.

    Naturally while many users are happy to cooperate with such a process, some users may object or simply not respond causing removal of posts to preserve the operation of the rest of the site as normal. If one of the posts that's going to be taken down is the OP of the thread, then the thread will simply cease to exist because you can't have a thread with a subject line and opening remarks without a subject line and opening remarks. Unfortunately for a number of long running threads the OPs are no longer active on the site and you would not expect them to come back and answer questions about their personal details.

    So, perhaps that's what happened to the old thread. If that's the case, presumably the exact same fate would not befall this thread - because as the OP of this one you have no issue providing your full personal contact details to MSE nor robustly defending your original comments in court should it ever be necessary, and you do not expect to ever stop being an active user and would not overlook a PM or time-sensitive email requesting you to provide your current contact details.

    I had made a number of valid and useful (IMHO) contributions on the previous thread to which you refer, but unfortunately I can't be bothered to spend the time to re-research the company again and recreate them based on latest relevant information. However there is probably enough here in other people's comments for casual visitors to the thread to get the message that private corporate bonds should not be accidentally mistaken for deposit accounts with true capital protection and proven FSCS insurance.
  • edited 10 November 2017 at 2:04PM
    ReaperReaper Forumite
    7.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 10 November 2017 at 2:04PM
    It seems a bit over-the-top to delete the whole thread rather than just blank out the OP's text, but MSE moves in mysterious ways!
  • MalthusianMalthusian Forumite
    9.3K Posts
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    bowlhead99 wrote: »
    My 'supposition' is that the previous thread you were thinking of was taken down after a complaint by the company concerned. It's not surprising that business of all types would seek to protect their reputation via standard legal avenues if they feel they were being disparaged online without justification.

    It's also not surprising that companies who take business from savers coming across their bonds while searching for deposit accounts and Googling "best interest rates", and investing in their unregulated minibonds under the impression that it is a deposit, would do their best to ensure that if said savers Google their name, they don't get a forum thread as the second result, full of people telling them not to give them their money. With total, rock-solid justification, based on an objective assessment of the risks involved in the investment and the lack of appetite for such risk displayed by the people showing interest in it.

    If the owners of the forum in question take a "leave it, it ain't worth it" approach to legal threats, then there is no reason not to issue blanket complaints even about objective statements of fact.

    I am of course talking entirely in generalities rather than about any firm in particular. It was after all Lollipop99 who widened the discussion to other unregulated ultra-high-risk minibonds.
  • edited 10 November 2017 at 11:34AM
    MalthusianMalthusian Forumite
    9.3K Posts
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 10 November 2017 at 11:34AM
    In the spirit of only posting facts and avoiding opinion, here are some more:

    • Every annual report filed by Asset Life plc with Companies House at time of writing (y/e 2015 and 2016) has been qualified by the auditors.
    • BusinessDictionary.com defines qualified accounts as "Auditor's term for audited accounts that show certain information about which he or she has certain doubts or disagreement with the audited firm's management."
    • The qualification in question is "The audit evidence available to us was limited in support of the value that fixed asset investments have been included in the financial statements. [sic] As explained in note 11 to the financial statements, the value included in the financial statements is an assessment by the directors, based on advice from their advisors, and is dependent on external events that have not yet happened. As a result, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence regarding the value of fixed asset investments."
    • Separate to this qualification, the auditors go on to state in the latest accounts "We have considered the adequacy of disclosure made in note 1.1 to the financial statements concerning the company's ability to continue as a going concern. The company had net current liabilities of £1,716,148 and incurred a net loss for the year of £1,889,310 although this was offset by a revaluation of fixed asset investments. These conditions, along with other matters contained in note 1.1 to the financial statements, indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern. We emphasise these matters but our opinion is not qualified in this respect."

    I withdraw any previous statements I may have made about the company's accounts or accounting practices in general in other threads (which in any case have now been deleted); investors can draw their own conclusions from the above. All of the above are simple statements on fact or quotations directly from Asset Life plc's own accounts filed with Companies House.
  • edited 10 November 2017 at 10:37AM
    ReaperReaper Forumite
    7.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 10 November 2017 at 10:37AM
    Malthusian - be careful to make sure you use the right terms as this has got me into trouble before.

    A qualification is significant and investors should pay it careful attention.

    An Emphasis of Matter is a much lower grade of warning. It is to draw the reader's attention to something. Your second quote falls into this category.

    What you have said is correct, but I just want to make sure everybody is clear.

    P.S. your link is not working for me
  • MalthusianMalthusian Forumite
    9.3K Posts
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    The link should now be corrected, and I have clarified that the second bullet point is not part of the qualification.
  • george4064george4064 Forumite
    2.3K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Sounds dodgy af.
    "If you aren’t willing to own a stock for ten years, don’t even think about owning it for ten minutes” Warren Buffett

    Save £12k in 2021 - #027 £13,229 (66%)
  • ReaperReaper Forumite
    7.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    Please don't post opinions george. We are trying to keep the thread factual and let people make up their own minds.
  • TrustyOvenTrustyOven Forumite
    746 Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    Maybe of interest:

    http://www.scotsman.com/business/cold-callers-too-good-to-be-true-1-3519104

    Anyone know what this section means?
    Asset Life now appears to be the vehicle offering the fixed income plan, rather than Anglo Wealth. Asset Life is also unauthorised, again leaving investors short of protection. But Terence Mitchell, a director of both Anglo Wealth and Asset Life, claimed it had secured a Section 21 sign-off, which exempts unauthorised individuals or firms from rules banning them from promoting investment products in the UK.

    Does this mean that Asset Life Plc and/or the director Terence Mitchell (who are both unauthorised, according to the article) are now able to promote their business and products in the UK? Is that how it reads? (the grammar used seems a bit awkward)
    Goals
    Save £12k in 2017 #016 (£4212.06 / £10k) (42.12%)
    Save £12k in 2016 #041 (£4558.28 / £6k) (75.97%)
    Save £12k in 2014 #192 (£4115.62 / £5k) (82.3%)
  • ReaperReaper Forumite
    7.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    TrustyOven wrote: »
    Does this mean that Asset Life Plc and/or the director Terence Mitchell (who are both unauthorised, according to the article) are now able to promote their business and products in the UK?
    Not quite. The plan (or a similar one) was being sold via Anglo Wealth. It is now being sold by Asset Life. Neither are regulated so neither can promote their products in the UK unless their content, web site etc have been signed off by a regulated firm. Opus did that in the past but since they have been liquidated presumably they are now unable to amend their web site or issue any new promotions unless they employ the services of another regulated company to authorise the new material.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides