Inside Track goes into administration.

RecoveringAlcoholic

The punters were:

Blinded by GREED.


Caveat Emptor.

neverdespairgirl

Alan_M wrote: »

Capitalism at it's finest......Why do all these people immediately look for someone to blame? What ever happened to responsibility for your own actions, or admitting you'd made a dumb decision?

I'd be the first to say that the people "investing" with Inside Track were greedy and stupid. I entirely agree with you that they should take responsibility for their actions themselves, the idea of buying half a dozen (!!) flats in a city you've never even visited is just half-witted

I do note, however, that the founder made his first packet with pyramid perfume selling in the 1980s, and I don't think anything's changed in his operations, it's as bent as a 9 bob note.

neverdespairgirl

GavP wrote: »

So it's not my argument that Inside Track's customers should be bailed out. I'm certainly in favour of personal responsibility. But there are costs to the economy as a whole of this kind of activity, and so the authorities should do a lot more to stop it happening in the first place, and certainly shouldn't be giving people the impression that it's easy to get away with this kind of con.

I agree completely. People foolish enough to fall for this scam should take responsilbility for their actions. But companies like this also damage the rest of us.

moneysavinmonkey

Conrad wrote: »

2) Anything that provides the kind of relatively accesible returns spread betting supposedly does would have been cornered by city slickers and big banks long before the likes of us got anywhere near

Unless you have multiple identities then matched betting returns are finite as you can only claim one bonus per betting website. It is also fairly time consuming finding + checking the marched bets and you need to be able to get your head around the whole thing. So by no means a quick way to make a massive infite riches but some are able to make a fair few extra pennies a month.

SPREAD BETTING is something entirely different and not advocated at all but moneysavingexpert... but incidentally this is pretty much what city slickers and big banks do to make a profit!

teabelly

With a bank account you are putting all of your capital in for a 5% - 6% pa return. If you invest the same amount in property, say 100k, and used the same money for 5 deposits then you have 5 to 1 leverage so rental profits alone could easily equal what you'd get from a savings account. In 10 years time your property will probably be worth double what you paid for it and rental profits will be greater. Meanwhile if you kept the money in the bank instead which you have been living off will still be much the same as you are taking out all of the profit each year rather than having a tenant give you the same money leaving you with any capital appreciation to be spent or invested later. With 5 to 1 leverage you don't need much capital growth to make it worthwhile even with measly 6% rental returns on gross purchase price.

Leverage is why BTL does win out over traditional high interest accounts. The only other investment types would be CFDs or Forex trading which also use leverage to their advantage. Share trading has the same problem as you have to buy all of the shares and getting a loan to leverage your capital for share trading would be more mental than buying a new build flat Leverage can be your best friend if you want to make good piles of money but watch out it doesn't bite you on the bum

Tassotti

When I initially started looking at investing in property, I looked into these Investment Club types of organisations.

Within HALF AN HOUR, I realised these companies were a rip-off. It is called due dilligence.

When you are looking at investing 100,000s of pounds, I think a little research is needed

'Fools and their money are soon parted'

I did invest in property, but took a sensible approach and built a portfolio.

These companies are slick and can tempt (for tempt read con) you out of thousands.

I agree that greed (easy money) is involved.

Whatever investment you make, do your research.

Tass

brit1234

Happy days are here!!

izzybusy23

BettiePage wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/29/buyingtolet.mortgages


With thanks to Buccaneer on GHPC


:beer::T

Fantastic news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :T

Generali

I wouldn't be too upset for the Gentlemen of IT, they've banked a few million over the past few years.

Re the spread betting thing. When they make a.book they (should) cover their position in the market so it makes no difference to them if the punter wins or loses. Eg if you bet that shares in Big Bank are going to rise they buy shares in Big Bank to hedge. If you win (the shares rise) they are covered as the shares they hold rise by the same amount. They make money on the 'spread', the difference between what they pay for the stock and what they charge. The key to them making money is keeping their costs down and hedging correctly.

Alan_M_2

GavP wrote: »

Make the law tougher. Regulate them. One of the reasons thay have got away with what they have is that they are not regulated by the FSA.

The problem with giving the FSA teeth, is the boys that make the real money decisions (big bonus city types - marginal hedge funds etc) don't really want to be scrutinised that much thank you......

It also isn't very good PR to all the foreign investors who wish to come and play here.

Sure sure, this isn't all particularly morally correct or exactly ethical.....but when it comes to the economic decisions that are the size of third world national debts, ethics doesn't enter into it.

People recognise this and take advantage of it, it doesn't make it right but it makes it legal, as long as it's legal it will occur......

Regulation is good, but at what point does regulation become dictation? There will always be grey areas of a free market economy, strangely the larger the sums involved the more blurred that line becomes.

The UK are, after all, one of the largest arms dealers on the planet...ask the Saudis ...hardly an ethical export business would you say.....what would the FSA have had to say about that deal....:rolleyes: