Keystone Property Group - opinions?

badger09

Having read the article & comments in Bond Review (thanks JJ) I can't believe how [STRIKE]similar[/STRIKE] identical this set up is to LCF.

Only the names have been changed to protect the [STRIKE]innocent[/STRIKE] guilty:(.

jimjames

badger09 wrote: »

Having read the article & comments in Bond Review (thanks JJ) I can't believe how [STRIKE]similar[/STRIKE] identical this set up is to LCF.

It's scary how many similar schemes there are out there to ensnare the unwary. Read the lists of Bond review and there seem to be daily new ones created.

I think it's at the point that unregulated mini bond investments need to be banned or at least properly show the risk and the fact they are unregulated if sold to retail investors.

Reaper

jimjames wrote: »

I think it's at the point that unregulated mini bond investments need to be banned or at least properly show the risk and the fact they are unregulated if sold to retail investors.

Couldn't agree more. Mini bonds started out in the UK as a high risk but legitimate with companies like Brewdog and Chilango offering them along side "freebie" gimmicks such as free beer or burritos.

Now however pretty much all the mini-bonds coming out seem to be nothing more than scams. I can't see any benefit in them any more for investors. The same deceptions (charges on assets, security trustee, blurring of the lines of FCA/FSCS involvement etc) keep cropping up again and again.

Time to either regulate them or ban them. It won't involve any work for the FCA as either way they will quickly all vanish.

P.S. Top marks for the Bond Review for that discussion

seacaitch

pioruns wrote: »

They are struggling clearly, that's why I was heavily targeted by Keystone Property Group to invest into this (I am high net investor, to answer your question).

To be blunt... if you cannot perform basic smell tests on "investment opportunities" such as this one then you will rapidly slide from HNW to LNW...

If HNW you need to be wary of your own ego because promoters will use that to try to draw you into "opportunities" that aren't open to mere ordinary folk. Absent an innate ability to immediately sniff out this sort of stuff you are asking for trouble, the antidote to which is to stick to mainstream investments only. Good enough for Buffet's wife's billions etc.

Reaper

By the way over on the Bond Review discussion I gather there is an FCA company marginally involved which supposedly means FSCS cover by some incomprehensible twist of logic.

That company is Castle Trust. The same company who claim by using a loophole they can get FSCS cover for its "Fortress Bond" which has been discussed in multiple threads here.

As for that loophole expert opinion is "This is blatantly a violation of the intention behind the FSCS – and it won't work".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/11065151/Concerns-over-safety-of-2.25pc-savings-bond.html

londoninvestor

pioruns wrote: »

They advertise their loan note, which is 1 up to 7 years loan investment to fund their property business. Loan pays from 12 up to 22% per annum, depending on longevity.

The instinctive reaction this should spark is: "why are they going to the time and hassle of borrowing from individual investors? Why aren't banks prepared to lend them money even for 12 - 22%?"

londoninvestor

Reaper wrote: »

By the way over on the Bond Review discussion I gather there is an FCA company marginally involved which supposedly means FSCS cover by some incomprehensible twist of logic.

That company is Castle Trust. The same company who claim by using a loophole they can get FSCS cover for its "Fortress Bond" which has been discussed in multiple threads here.

As for that loophole expert opinion is "This is blatantly a violation of the intention behind the FSCS – and it won't work".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/11065151/Concerns-over-safety-of-2.25pc-savings-bond.html

Reposting something I posted on the Budgeting & Bank Accounts board to illustrate why this is unlikely to work:

londoninvestor wrote: »

Let's say I open a dealing account with Barclays, and I use it to hold various shares and bonds. One bond I happen to buy is a Barclays-issued corporate bond.

Let's say Barclays later goes bust. But everyone's dealing accounts are transferred in an orderly way to a different dealing platform, with all their holdings intact. Therefore I haven't lost anything that the FSCS investment protection needs to cover.

When I log into the new platform and look at my holdings, of course I see that my Barclays corporate bond is now worthless.

Clearly that doesn't entitle me to FSCS compensation. Because the FSCS investment protection covered Barclays in the role of investment platform operator, not Barclays in the role of bond issuer, even if both roles were performed by the same legal entity.

The same with Castle Trust here.

[Deleted User]

londoninvestor wrote: »

The instinctive reaction this should spark is: "why are they going to the time and hassle of borrowing from individual investors? Why aren't banks prepared to lend them money even for 12 - 22%?"

This percentage of return is too good to be true, isn't!

seacaitch wrote: »

To be blunt... if you cannot perform basic smell tests on "investment opportunities" such as this one then you will rapidly slide from HNW to LNW...

If HNW you need to be wary of your own ego because promoters will use that to try to draw you into "opportunities" that aren't open to mere ordinary folk. Absent an innate ability to immediately sniff out this sort of stuff you are asking for trouble, the antidote to which is to stick to mainstream investments only. Good enough for Buffet's wife's billions etc.

Thanks, I agree 100%, I don't mind you being blunt because it's true. There is a whole industry of companies preying on HNW investors, to lure them into things like this. I opened this thread not because I was not aware of that, but also because it will serve people (you can search this thread in forums and in Google), and it will highlight findings we gathered there. These schemes look alike, this thread is another example and a lesson to not fall into this. I also wanted to see your thought process when analysing companies like KPG and HSG, so I can learn; it's not that different from mine.
I find these forums very useful, I am amazed, why I haven't found this website years ago. :TThanks again people. :beer:

seacaitch

pioruns wrote: »

Thanks, I agree 100%, I don't mind you being blunt because it's true. There is a whole industry of companies preying on HNW investors, to lure them into things like this. I opened this thread not because I was not aware of that, but also because it will serve people (you can search this thread in forums and in Google), and it will highlight findings we gathered there. These schemes look alike, this thread is another example and a lesson to not fall into this. I also wanted to see your thought process when analysing companies like KPG and HSG, so I can learn; it's not that different from mine.
I find these forums very useful, I am amazed, why I haven't found this website years ago. :TThanks again people. :beer:

Kudus for taking my comment in the helpful spirit it was intended.

For somewhat experienced investors, the brain's pattern recognition abilities immediately flags virtually every one of these dodgy hotel room / parking space / loan note / etc. schemes such that they might as well have giant flashing neon "!*DANGER - TOTAL LOSS OF CAPITAL LIKELY - STAY AWAY*!" signs above them. But sadly a big cohort of people just don't have the experience or knowledge to see that, hence the regular losses borne by the unwary and the conveyor belt of such schemes by the promoters.

the_trainwatcher

Has anyone come across a company called Fortress Legal Finance they are offering a 7.12% fixed return within a fund. They are very similar to Fortress Group, I invested a year ago and expected a return end of March but it hasnt arrived. Has anyone else had dealings with this company.