Any views on dozens?

EdGasketTheSecond

The risk/reward is not attractive.

bxboards

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Ah, my bad i thought I read earlier it was a £20k minimum bet.

The issue I have is group think, and very clear evidence seemingly NO ONE did any research whatsoever. I find it incredibly discourteous to the opening poster, and to the forum as a whole.

Perhaps you'd like to share what your own research showed up that I missed for balance to the questioner?

AnotherJoe

bxboards wrote: »

The issue I have is group think, and very clear evidence seemingly NO ONE did any research whatsoever. I find it incredibly discourteous to the opening poster, and to the forum as a whole.

Perhaps you'd like to share what your own research showed up that I missed for balance to the questioner?

I believe i read the £20k figure in one of the references. So thats where that came from.

My "research" (reading some of the links) showed up that its a common story like many of these other guaranteed* products created from a web of companies loaning money in a chain of dubious legality possibly designed to confuse the unwary or make eligible for FSCS compensation when actually there is almost certainly none, (similar to other more notorious examples shall we say) and given its a mere 3% differential the risk reward,as another poster has said, that doesn't (IMNSHO) warrant the bet.

Upside, get 3%, downside, lose 100%. Thats it? Thats what you are arguing so vehemently for? 3% At least the suckers who signed up for storage pods, car parks, LC&F etc etc etc thought they were getting nearly 3x that.

Put your money in Apple or Tesla or Persimmon or Fundsmith (Or others I could mention) where the downside is probably in the region of 30-50% and your upside realistically 25-100%, not a trivial hardly worth getting out of bed for 3%.
Heck, if inflation is 3% then NS&I bonds will pay that with zero downside.


* where guarantee is provided by an entity set up by one of the companies in question with unverifiable assets supposedly backing up a failure though we all know how that plays out with similar products over teh past 10-20 years.

bxboards

AnotherJoe - Thanks for the reply, I would'nt have given you a hard time if you'd posted your reasons initially. I'm happy to disagree, but that's ok on a discussion forum and its great to see another well considered point of view for any 'viewers' left who we've not bored stupid!

Hope you enjoy the rest of the Bank Holiday

Thanks again

rr755507

I really don't like these contrived schemes. You give some money to Dozens, who will give the money to another LTD, who will then give it to a trustee, and it'll be listed on NEX.

According to Dozens, the product is pretty much risk free:
https://www.dozens.com/our-5-bonds-everything-you-want-to-know/

"These bonds have been designed to give early stage savers the option of purchasing a higher return financial product with practically no risk."

If that is the case, why are they not offering a standard Savings FSCS protected product.

Malthusian

Did any of the regulars report my very cheap but factually accurate gag about the coincidence between this company's name and an insult game popular among African-Americans? Or was it someone from the company?

AnotherJoe

Ah I recall seeing that and being amused by it. No doubt a PC fail. Did you not get a wrist slap then?

Malthusian

Nope. No PMs or emails that I can see.

There is also nothing politically incorrect about yo momma jokes unless you have something against black culture.

bxboards

Nowt to do with me, I'm happy to have a good debate, and all is fine between me and my erstwhile sparring partner. It wasn't me, and I doubt it was AverageJoe either, hardly anyone else seemed that interested in the thread too be honest!