Guaranteed Investment Bonds

digger3_2

Mikeyorks wrote:

But look carefully at the application .. as the IFA would normally ID you. If you go direct you will need to provide certified ID (passport / driving licence / utility bill etc) yourself. If you look at the PLE37 page - there is an additional download to certify you understand the risks of the product and for you to give full detail of whoever certifies your ID.

But ... put the application + cheque in first - and they will advise the ID required?

Hi
Has anyone applied direct and had to supply ID.
Do you need to send them your original documents
Thanks
Digger

darren72

digger3 wrote: »

Hi
Has anyone applied direct and had to supply ID.
Do you need to send them your original documents
Thanks
Digger

I applied direct and sent them an original bank statement, original inland revenue statement and a copy of my passport. - Which I had to send with the application.

Mikeyorks

digger3 wrote: »

Hi
Has anyone applied direct and had to supply ID.
Do you need to send them your original documents

At the moment they're unable to electronically ID you. So if you're not an existing customer and you don't go via an IFA .... you have to supply ID in the form of a certified copy. As with other organisations ... they are very very specific that you should not supply original documents. Certification specified to be IFA / Accountant / Solicitor.

dunstonh

Notice from Premier: (ciopied and pasted exactly- i didnt add the last bit)

During the market turmoil of last week, Premier managed to secure further assets for its current structure, Premier Limited Editions No.37. However, bearing in mind the modest fall in market volatility over recent days, any plan we may launch after PLE37 closes at the end of next week, will probably have a coupon of around 15% or less. So our message is simple - if you want a potential 16% growth per annum rather than only 15%, buy now whilst stocks last!

Mikeyorks

dunstonh wrote: »

....ciopied ... exactly

We'll take your word for it ! Good bottle, obviously.

However I would be happy to get 'only 15%' right across the board. That way I could afford to drink what you were having last night.;)

darren72

Anyone heard back from Premier after sending off their application ?

Thanks

cepheus

I sent my application about a month ago. I received a confirmation in the post after about a week or so.

caliston

A bit late in the day, but I've done some finer-grained stats than those quoted upthread. Here I consider taking out a hypothetical bond on each day since 02/04/1984.

Yield in years:

The date is that when the bond was taken out. 1 year=16% after a year, 2 years=32% after 2 years etc. 0 years=original investment was returned with no growth. -1=index dropped by more than 50% at some point during term, reverted to tracker mode (see below). -2=bond has not yet matured.

For the periods in which it would have reverted to tracker mode, here are the losses after 6 years:

Basically these are all around the dotcom market peak. The maximum loss (due to a market peak in April 1999) would have been 26.6%.

Total number of days where the outcome is known: 8315
Total number of days in which a loss would have occurred: 110
Total number of days in which you'd get your investment back and no more: 381
Percentage of days you'd make a loss in real terms (combination of the above): (110+381)/8315=6.9%

FTSE100 data from Yahoo, programming by me. It's late and I've stared at my program a bit too much tonight, so I reserve the right to have left bugs in my program and the above to be completely wrong.

Note: There are some graphs embedded in this posting. For some reason Photobucket was being odd and they're not appearing on some internet connections. But they are there. I've switched the image host to Imageshack.

caliston

A couple more notes:

Based on daily outcomes:
Mean: gain of 20.7%
Standard deviation: gain of 16.2%
In other words, mean+stddev=gain of 36.9%, mean-stddev=gain of 4.5%. I'm not sure if that's comparable with the calculations of standard deviation for other funds.

In my model I neglect leap years when doing the calculations - in other words when going back 6 years I go back (6*365) days. This is me being lazy and not working out where up to two leap days fall in the intervening period - this means I'm at most two days out. I doubt it's significant.

King_Weasel

I see the the attractive Premier Bond under discussion here has a AA rating from S&P. Would this be the same S&P that got the bank debt packages so wrong? How can we judge the risk that the provider will be unable to deliver its promise?

(I note Monday is the deadline on this product.)