Scottish Friendly Scottish Bond

DiggerUK

dunsonh......"it is not an estimate. It is a synthetic projection using regulated assumptions"......
I'm hoping that can be translated in to english for zippysheep to understand..._

dunstonh

DiggerUK said:

dunsonh......"it is not an estimate. It is a synthetic projection using regulated assumptions"......
I'm hoping that can be translated in to english for zippysheep to understand..._

What word do you not understand and I will give an alternative one?

DiggerUK

OK zippysheep, If nobody else will, I'll translate it for you, you can check it out at 'Wikimanagementspeak' if you need verification...........
"Don't take anything representatives of the financial services industry tell you at face value"..._

Alexland

DiggerUK said:

OK zippysheep, If nobody else will, I'll translate it for you

Why do you assume that zippysheep needs you to unclarify what dunstonh had explained?

bowlhead99

zippysheep said:
## £2112.34 was the estimated amount payable and the amount received is £1737.80.

dunstonh said:
it is not an estimate. It is a synthetic projection using regulated assumptions.

DiggerUK said:

I'm hoping that can be translated in to english for zippysheep to understand..._

 An estimate is where someone gives you their knowledge and judgement to roughly calculate and judge a value.  e.g.
  
Q: how long do you reckon it would take to paint my fence this weekend and how many pots of paint should I get?
A: I did one like it recently and using my experience, I would estimate it would take five hours, and although B&Q suggest assuming that a litre of paint will cover 10 metres squared, it would be better to err on the side of caution and get 3 pots. 

A synthetic projection which uses regulated assumptions does not involve the customer service person's judgement, but relies on a framework that the regulator has told them to use e.g.

Q: If my investment product matures in a couple of months time, how much money might I get from it ?
A: Well, investment values can go down or up, so we don't know exactly as it's only mid February and you won't be getting your money out until end of March, beginning of April. Someone with an equivalent product getting their money out today would have got around £2k, but you are not that person and you are not getting your money back today. Using some standard assumptions which the regulator has told us we can/should use, the forecast would be a little over £2k, but that amount is not guaranteed because what we pay out will be linked to investment performance. If there is a massive crash in investment values during March for some reason, you would get less than £2k, but I can't assume there will definitely be a massive crash in March when giving you these projections.

DiggerUK

If Alexander Armstrong asked what "is a synthetic projection using regulated assumptions".......I think the answers would make it the most shared clip on the internet. 

I am pretty sure Harry Enfield could easily turn the joke in to a whole series

I am trying to picture the look on people's faces should they ever be told "You may not get all the money back that you invest, in fact you may lose part or all of your investment. But our synthetic projection based on regulated assumptions leads us to believe you just might be ok..._

bowlhead99

DiggerUK said:

I am trying to picture the look on people's faces should they ever be told "You may not get all the money back that you invest, in fact you may lose part or all of your investment. But our synthetic projection based on regulated assumptions leads us to believe you just might be ok..._

People are told all the time "You may not get all the money back that you invest, in fact you may lose part or all of your investment" and are happy to accept it. The fact that the value of investments may go down as well as up is something ingrained in memory since a child, just as much as " Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other loan secured on it" has been heard on the radio and seen on the telly for decades. 

Nobody is going to add "But our synthetic projection... ... you just might be OK" to the end of it, as financial promotions don't normally go much for sarcasm. Still, they will publish the assumptions and forecasts within their marketing so you can understand what you might get back from the product, without guarantees that you definitely will. They won't say "I estimate you will make £x from this investment".

I know, your presence on the thread is only because you want to tell us that we should all distrust people who work in financial services which is why Digger Mansions is built as a fortress of gold and its residents have rejected conventional investment products etc etc.

At face value though, there is little of substance to suggest that the OP was deliberately misled or wronged by the financial services provider who gave some example numbers in February without guaranteeing them. The OP doesn't suggest that someone deliberately pulled the wool over their eyes, and merely asked if it was 'usual' for the figures to drop between a projection in Feb and a redemption at the end of March. The capital value of the FTSE all-share dropped 27% over the timescale, so the consensus among the people with experience of such matters is that an 18% shortfall against the projection would probably not be 'unusual', depending on the rules and make-up of the product.

DiggerUK

If I had wished to mention gold I would not need prompting.

Neither was I saying, or implying,"that we should all distrust people who work in financial services", I don't believe I have ever made such a comment, nor would I be allowed to on MSE.
What I am constantly asking,  is that no-one should accept testimonials from somebody with a pecuniary interest in a product they are selling. Taking what one hears at face value is a dereliction of carrying out due  diligence and all too common with investors both newbie and seasoned.

I am also a big fan of plain English 'sans le waffle'..._

bowlhead99

DiggerUK said:

What I am constantly asking,  is that no-one should accept testimonials from somebody with a pecuniary interest in a product they are selling. Taking what one hears at face value is a dereliction of carrying out due  diligence and all too common with investors both newbie and seasoned.

I am also a big fan of plain English 'sans le waffle'..._

Well, the OP enquired whether it was usual/reasonable for the product provider's estimate to change from one month to another [relevant backstory: UK and global investment markets crashed between the two dates]

The answer was that it didn't seem unusual, and it was pointed out that the value given in mid February was not an estimate of how much the customer service person thought they would get on exit, because the customer service person doesn't know what will happen to the market; it was either a statement of market value at February or a projection of April exit value driven by assumptions allowed by/imposed by a financial regulator.

Hopefully this information has enabled the OP to understand why the eventual cash-out value was different from what they had perhaps been expecting.

You thought the OP would have better served by going back in time to mid February and - when told by the company what the indicative/projected value of the soon-to-be exited investment was - simply rejecting that 'testimonial'. Instead, the person should have carried out 'due diligence' on the indicative value, because failing to do that was a dereliction of their duty and a common mistake, especially as the person informing them of the exit value was employed by a firm with 'pecuniary' motives.

I'm not sure that 'rejecting the testimonial', avoiding a 'dereliction of duty to carry out due diligence' and being wary of customer service representatives who seek 'pecuniary' advantages over their customers, is useful to your mission to get everyone speaking in plain English down-to-earth terms, "sans le waffle" as you put it. I don't think I've ever heard a layman describe a plumber's estimate or a fund manager's projection as his 'testimonial'.  But certainly going back in time to when the indicative value was produced, and outright rejecting it for some reason, is something that is impractical and does little to help OP understand why the numbers didn't match.

By contrast, the explanations from others might have been useful to the OP in understanding how and why the exit value missed the projection, which is basically what was being asked.

DiggerUK

A deeper due diligence should have been done ten years ago. Then the OP would not have been taken by such a level of surprise ten weeks ago.

The rest of your post is 'plus le waffle'..._