Possible "safe" investment

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:

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.

TIA for any wise words.

Jim

Re: Possible "safe" investment

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:00:31 GMT, Jim <> 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)
<> are allowed to use
the guaranteed word.

Daytona

Re: Possible "safe" investment

In message <>, Daytona
<> 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)
><> 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

"Jim" <> wrote in message
news:
> 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:
>
> 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.
>
> 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

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:58:49 +0100, John Boyle
<> 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

In message <>, Rob graham
<> 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

In message <>, Daytona
<> writes
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:58:49 +0100, John Boyle
><> 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

John Boyle wrote:

> In message <>, Daytona
> <> writes
>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:58:49 +0100, John Boyle
>><> 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

In message <J6Sug.102715$>, Ronald
Raygun <> 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