| Possible "safe" investment [message #397764] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 10:00 |
|
This claims to pay 7.5%/year if left for 5 years, based on A rated
insurance contracts and short term paper, cash deposits, etc.
(no stock market dependency)
It's the Secure Income Plan 3 from KeyData, see:
http://www.keydata.co.uk/sip3/
The only risk is supposed to be defaults in the contracts.
It sounds ideal for my ISAs and SIP
Here's my questions:
1. Does anybody know anything about KeyData. Are they in good standing
with a good track record. I felt a bit better after seeing my local
building society offering one of their products.
2. Are there any similar schemes/offers around from other providers as
I don't want to put too much money in one place
I'm looking at doing it via Cavendish who will kick back most of the
commision. http://www.cavendishonline.co.uk/COL/Home.htm
TIA for any wise words.
Jim
|
|
|
| Re: Possible "safe" investment [message #397810 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 19:25 |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:00:31 GMT, Jim <default [at] default.com> wrote:
>This claims to pay 7.5%/year if left for 5 years, based on A rated
>insurance contracts and short term paper, cash deposits, etc.
>(no stock market dependency)
Seemed like a good deal to me until I read "The product is structured
to return your original capital in full after 5 or 7 years but this is
not guaranteed."
Maybe their just being straight - A rated insurers might fail, but it
needs investigating as Guaranteed Equity Bonds (the stock market
linked alternative that guarantees you capital)
<URL:http://www.nsandi.com/products/geb/index.jsp> are allowed to use
the guaranteed word.
Daytona
|
|
|
| Re: Possible "safe" investment [message #397822 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 20:58 |
|
In message <35tkb2500p29ncrf1h694fc7be2r9gua4m [at] 4ax.com>, Daytona
<me [at] privacy.net> writes
>Seemed like a good deal to me until I read "The product is structured
>to return your original capital in full after 5 or 7 years but this is
>not guaranteed."
>
>Maybe their just being straight - A rated insurers might fail, but it
>needs investigating as Guaranteed Equity Bonds (the stock market
>linked alternative that guarantees you capital)
><URL:http://www.nsandi.com/products/geb/index.jsp> are allowed to use
>the guaranteed word.
Thats because the Government guarantees GEBs and the FSA (for some
reason) allow the Government to use the word and bans anybody else from
doing so. I wonder why?
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Possible "safe" investment [message #399765 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 19:13 |
|
"Jim" <default [at] default.com> wrote in message
news:d8rjb21sucn49sg9tlm17espa17qn0io66 [at] 4ax.com...
> This claims to pay 7.5%/year if left for 5 years, based on A rated
> insurance contracts and short term paper, cash deposits, etc.
> (no stock market dependency)
>
> It's the Secure Income Plan 3 from KeyData, see:
> http://www.keydata.co.uk/sip3/
> The only risk is supposed to be defaults in the contracts.
> It sounds ideal for my ISAs and SIP
>
> Here's my questions:
> 1. Does anybody know anything about KeyData. Are they in good standing
> with a good track record. I felt a bit better after seeing my local
> building society offering one of their products.
> 2. Are there any similar schemes/offers around from other providers as
> I don't want to put too much money in one place
>
> I'm looking at doing it via Cavendish who will kick back most of the
> commision. http://www.cavendishonline.co.uk/COL/Home.htm
>
> TIA for any wise words.
>
> Jim
Keydata is OK but if your product does not have a guaranteed return of
capital after the period then it's what's known as a precipice bond and a
lot of people have lost a lot of money when these bonds matured after the
stockmarket crash a few years ago. If you're happy with that possibility,
then fine. But think about it.
Rob Graham
|
|
|
| Re: Possible "safe" investment [message #399771 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 19:58 |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:58:49 +0100, John Boyle
<john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Thats because the Government guarantees GEBs and the FSA (for some
>reason) allow the Government to use the word and bans anybody else from
>doing so. I wonder why?
Because of the respective frequency of default ?
How often does the government default ?
How often does a 'strong' insurer default ?
Daytona
|
|
|
| Re: Possible "safe" investment [message #399774 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 20:17 |
|
In message <06CdnTOfdeOhWCbZRVnyuA [at] bt.com>, Rob graham
<rttgrahamwow [at] btinternet.com> writes
>Keydata is OK but if your product does not have a guaranteed return of
>capital
Nobody except the Government can use the word 'guaranteed' in this
scenario.
>after the period then it's what's known as a precipice bond
Only if the formula for the payout allows a return of capital lower than
the original investment.
>and a
>lot of people have lost a lot of money when these bonds matured after the
>stockmarket crash a few years ago. If you're happy with that possibility,
>then fine. But think about it.
I think in this case there is at least a return of capital with a
possible participation in an index. They just cant say that the return
of capital is guaranteed because there is a chance the provider may go
bust.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Possible "safe" investment [message #399775 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 20:22 |
|
In message <upjnb2pfsvlmialis1cdpgcktb965al8rl [at] 4ax.com>, Daytona
<me [at] privacy.net> writes
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:58:49 +0100, John Boyle
><john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Thats because the Government guarantees GEBs and the FSA (for some
>>reason) allow the Government to use the word and bans anybody else from
>>doing so. I wonder why?
>
>Because of the respective frequency of default ?
>
>How often does the government default ?
>
>How often does a 'strong' insurer default ?
I was being sarcastic! It just enables the Government to attract more
dosh into NatSav but we all know Govts can just change their minds about
things at a whim.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Possible "safe" investment [message #399782 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 22:08 |
|
John Boyle wrote:
> In message <upjnb2pfsvlmialis1cdpgcktb965al8rl [at] 4ax.com>, Daytona
> <me [at] privacy.net> writes
>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:58:49 +0100, John Boyle
>><john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Thats because the Government guarantees GEBs and the FSA (for some
>>>reason) allow the Government to use the word and bans anybody else from
>>>doing so. I wonder why?
>>
>>Because of the respective frequency of default ?
>>
>>How often does the government default ?
>>
>>How often does a 'strong' insurer default ?
>
> I was being sarcastic! It just enables the Government to attract more
> dosh into NatSav
I didn't know this government were into SatNav, that's the US!
> but we all know Govts can just change their minds about
> things at a whim.
Like whether to honour guarantees, you mean?
|
|
|
| Re: Possible "safe" investment [message #399783 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 23:01 |
|
In message <J6Sug.102715$wl.51970 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Ronald
Raygun <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> writes
>> I was being sarcastic! It just enables the Government to attract more
>> dosh into NatSav
>
>I didn't know this government were into SatNav, that's the US!
:-)Dont you mean SU?
>
>> but we all know Govts can just change their minds about
>> things at a whim.
>
>Like whether to honour guarantees, you mean?
>
I only meant that the Dept of NatSav is allowed to say its deposits are
'guaranteed', whether they are or not remains to be seen.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
