Panorama Blackmore global scandal

eskbanker

Rollinghome said:

Nor will many fully understand the implications and consequences of allowing themselves to be described as a "sophisticated investor".  Few, even on this board, will know exactly what a sophisticated investor is. The bar can be implausibly low, and It typically requires just a tick in a box. Lots of people with a little cash and money from pensions certainly don't.

You may be right but was there any evidence that Blackmore didn't require investors to sign up to the FCA-approved wording:

A self-certified sophisticated investor is an individual who has signed, within the period of twelve months ending with the day on which the communication is made, a statement in the following terms:

“SELF-CERTIFIED SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR STATEMENT

I declare that I am a self-certified sophisticated investor for the purposes of the restriction on promotion of non-mainstream pooled investments. I understand that this means:

(i) I can receive promotional communications made by a person who is authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority which relate to investment activity in non-mainstream pooled investments;
(ii) the investments to which the promotions will relate may expose me to a significant risk of losing all of the property invested.

I am a self-certified sophisticated investor because at least one of the following applies:

(a) I am a member of a network or syndicate of business angels and have been so for at least the last six months prior to the date below;
(b) I have made more than one investment in an unlisted company in the two years prior to the date below;
(c) I am working, or have worked in the two years prior to the date below, in a professional capacity in the private equity sector, or in the provision of finance for small and medium enterprises;
(d) I am currently, or have been in the two years prior to the date below, a director of a company with an annual turnover of at least £1 million.

I accept that the investments to which the promotions will relate may expose me to a significant risk of losing all of the money or other property invested. I am aware that it is open to me seek advice from someone who specialises in advising on non-mainstream pooled investments.

Signature:

Date: ”

talexuser

Unfortunately some may be greedy but others are just desperate for money to survive and in these tight circumstances such as now gambling and scams increase due to that desperation, which is something most on this forum may not understand because savvy enough not to be in that situation.
Still the fraud law enforcement is inadequate, same as burglary, car crime and bicycle theft which nowadays goes mostly unpunished.

talexuser

I remember many saying why on earth he got the top job after being on watch for London Capital etc.
Same reward for failiure as Cresida !!!!!! and de Menezes (actual quote Nobody did anything wrong!) 
Being a pliable yes man obviously trumps competence easily. 

Rollinghome

eskbanker said:

Rollinghome said:

Nor will many fully understand the implications and consequences of allowing themselves to be described as a "sophisticated investor".  Few, even on this board, will know exactly what a sophisticated investor is. The bar can be implausibly low, and It typically requires just a tick in a box. Lots of people with a little cash and money from pensions certainly don't.

You may be right but was there any evidence that Blackmore didn't require investors to sign up to the FCA-approved wording:

I don't know. Was there?

We do know, according to Panorama, that boiler-room outfits were used to sell the investments.  Evidence of what was said or how they persuaded punters to invest will be hard to come by.

We are required to agree to complex legal terms almost on a daily basis.  You can't buy a pair of shoes on the internet without agreeing to pages of legalese.  People become blasé, sometimes with painful consequences.

eskbanker

Rollinghome said:

eskbanker said:

Rollinghome said:

Nor will many fully understand the implications and consequences of allowing themselves to be described as a "sophisticated investor".  Few, even on this board, will know exactly what a sophisticated investor is. The bar can be implausibly low, and It typically requires just a tick in a box. Lots of people with a little cash and money from pensions certainly don't.

You may be right but was there any evidence that Blackmore didn't require investors to sign up to the FCA-approved wording:

I don't know. Was there?

We do know, according to Panorama, that boiler-room outfits were used to sell the investments.  Evidence of what was said or how they persuaded punters to invest will be hard to come by.

We are required to agree to complex legal terms almost on a daily basis.  You can't buy a pair of shoes on the internet without agreeing to pages of legalese.  People become blasé, sometimes with painful consequences.

Indeed, but my point was primarily that the term 'sophisticated investor' is very clearly defined, even though many will undoubtedly choose not to read it.

Albermarle

eskbanker said:

Rollinghome said:

eskbanker said:

Rollinghome said:

Nor will many fully understand the implications and consequences of allowing themselves to be described as a "sophisticated investor".  Few, even on this board, will know exactly what a sophisticated investor is. The bar can be implausibly low, and It typically requires just a tick in a box. Lots of people with a little cash and money from pensions certainly don't.

You may be right but was there any evidence that Blackmore didn't require investors to sign up to the FCA-approved wording:

I don't know. Was there?

We do know, according to Panorama, that boiler-room outfits were used to sell the investments.  Evidence of what was said or how they persuaded punters to invest will be hard to come by.

We are required to agree to complex legal terms almost on a daily basis.  You can't buy a pair of shoes on the internet without agreeing to pages of legalese.  People become blasé, sometimes with painful consequences.

Indeed, but my point was primarily that the term 'sophisticated investor' is very clearly defined, even though many will undoubtedly choose not to read it.

With the P2P platforms, you now also have to be a sophisticated investor or HNW or a somewhat lower bar of being a Everyday/Retail/Restricted Investor.
One of them even asked me questions ( like a small exam) to make 100% sure that I knew what I was getting into. I think this was a very good idea. Of course this was one of the more solid respectable P2P companies, who wanted to play it by the book in any case.

Rollinghome

eskbanker said:

Rollinghome said:

eskbanker said:

Rollinghome said:

Nor will many fully understand the implications and consequences of allowing themselves to be described as a "sophisticated investor".  Few, even on this board, will know exactly what a sophisticated investor is. The bar can be implausibly low, and It typically requires just a tick in a box. Lots of people with a little cash and money from pensions certainly don't.

You may be right but was there any evidence that Blackmore didn't require investors to sign up to the FCA-approved wording:

I don't know. Was there?

We do know, according to Panorama, that boiler-room outfits were used to sell the investments.  Evidence of what was said or how they persuaded punters to invest will be hard to come by.

We are required to agree to complex legal terms almost on a daily basis.  You can't buy a pair of shoes on the internet without agreeing to pages of legalese.  People become blasé, sometimes with painful consequences.

Indeed, but my point was primarily that the term 'sophisticated investor' is very clearly defined, even though many will undoubtedly choose not to read it.

The very wording is unhelpful.  Who wouldn't want to be "sophisticated"?   A "High Risk Investor" would at least ring a warning bell.   And does having "made more than one investment in an unlisted company" in the prior two years really make someone sophisticated?  Could equally apply to someone somewhat naive.

These scandals aren't uncommon, which suggests the rules to protect those in need of protection aren't working.  Blaming the victims is easy but won't help.

sevenhills

Rollinghome said:

These scandals aren't uncommon, which suggests the rules to protect those in need of protection aren't working.  Blaming the victims is easy but won't help.

Was there any changes after Interserve went bust?
I was just a naive investor, but it left local authorities and government out of pocket 

Parking_Trouble

Albermarle said:

Sometimes I believe the companies mentioned in this forum as potentially being a bit dodgy, complain to MSE and say certain posts are defamatory and threaten to sue.

Likewise the Panorama programme clearly avoided naming other individuals and companies involved in the Blackmore Global scam. The ones who arranged the transfer out of their DB scheme, usually into an inappropriate QROPS.
It's not difficult to find out who they are. The same names keep cropping up. Physically in the UK but operating under a company registered in a small EU country, outside the reach of UK regulators. Money stashed in offshore bank accounts. 

The scammer/adviser will say the investor/victim was made aware of the risks and still insisted the pension was transferred. Very difficult to get enough proof to secure a conviction. That's why they feel they are untouchable.

eskbanker

Rollinghome said:

eskbanker said:

Indeed, but my point was primarily that the term 'sophisticated investor' is very clearly defined, even though many will undoubtedly choose not to read it.

The very wording is unhelpful.  Who wouldn't want to be "sophisticated"?   A "High Risk Investor" would at least ring a warning bell.   And does having "made more than one investment in an unlisted company" in the prior two years really make someone sophisticated?  Could equally apply to someone somewhat naive.

To be clear, I'm not trying to defend the definition, just observing that it's there for anyone who chooses to read it - as you say, the term 'sophisticated' is generally a positive one if taken at face value, so something like 'experienced' would probably be more accurate, but the full definition exists precisely because it's inappropriate to try to encapsulate the nuances in a single word.

Rollinghome said:
These scandals aren't uncommon, which suggests the rules to protect those in need of protection aren't working.  Blaming the victims is easy but won't help.

Attaching emotive labels is also easy but won't help - there are clearly a range of factors involved here so it's not a simplistic binary right/wrong matter of finding a solitary scapegoat and/or declaring other parties to be entirely innocent.

It seems clear to me that at least some investors were kidding themselves if they really believed that they were carrying out meaningful due diligence as they claimed, especially when posters seeking guidance on here were swiftly steered in the right direction, i.e. away from high-risk unprotected and unregulated mini bonds, and it was quite noticeable in the documentary that one of the investors said she felt ashamed and embarrassed about her poor decision, while others sounded off about the Blackmore directors, the FCA, the marketing company, etc, and there is room for all of them to be correct, they're not mutually exclusive.