Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,770
Rory Gillen has just written an article on the topic:
Structured Investment Products are for Sellers not Investors
Structured Investment Products are for Sellers not Investors
Rory Gillen has just written an article on the topic:
Structured Investment Products are for Sellers not Investors
Have read BCP's reply to Rory's post and they have fairly and convincingly kicked his analysis out of the park in my oponion. My adviser tells me Societe Generale were looking for a retraction. The reply was sent to the broker community months ago.
My understanding is that 10% is gross. You pay 5% in commissions and fees.Have read BCP's reply to Rory's post and they have fairly and convincingly kicked his analysis out of the park in my oponion. My adviser tells me Societe Generale were looking for a retraction. The reply was sent to the broker community months ago.
On Kick Outs I'd be interested to hear some feedback on this one I'm looking at. Its the Wealth Options Bluechip kick out 6. A PDF is on their website. Its offering a 10% return on a 15% downside of 4 stocks. Capital at risk if one stock drops by 50% and none of the others are above starting price in 5 years time. All Euro based stocks and analysts bullish on Europe so an investment paying 10% on stocks that can drop by 15% seems very attractive. Any thoughts on this one
Only on phone so will try tomorrowHave you a link to that reply?
Have read BCP's reply to Rory's post and they have fairly and convincingly kicked his analysis out of the park in my oponion.
Can we all agree that there is a relationship between risk and returns?
Structured bonds seek to defy economics by offering low risk and high returns. ...If you believe that the producers of these products can defy economics and market forces, lock your money away with them for a number of years and get the limited growth potential that they offer.
My objection to these structured products is that they are designed primarily to produce income for the sellers and that they are opaque.
My fear is that these products are being missold and that at some point an OAP or other vulnerable client will have their capital base permanently devastated when one of them blows up.
and would having protection in a down market not protect against this.
But would you really have protection in a down market. Who knows. Only somebody who has read and fully understood all the terms and conditions, i.e. nobody.
I understand from the letter I got from my broker that if one stock drops below 50% and none of the others are above the start price my capital is at risk.
I understand from the letter I got from my broker that if .... one stock is above the start price on the final day my capital is protected.
If they drop by up to 14.99% I'm getting 10% back rolling every year for 5 years to a potential 50% if it takes that long for them to be above 85% of there starting price.
What does "at risk" mean, does it mean wiped out, or do you get some part of it back, if so what part?
If One stock is down more than 50% and none of the others are above their starting price your loss is the performance of the worst performing stock. So if one stock is down 75% and all others are below starting price you lose 75% of your funds. All 4 stocks can however drop by up to14.99% for a return of 10% cumulative. Capital at risk on the final day only
Does "protected" mean fully guaranteed ?
Yes 100% Capital back if any of the 4 stocks are at or above starting price and bond has not paid out already. Counter party is Societe Generale
Is this operative only if one stock drops below 50%, or anyway? What does "they" mean ? all 4 stocks, or 3 based on one falling 50%, or something else.
As above
More than any of the above I don't understand the economic logic of the investment strategy except to entice in investors. And for that reason I wouldn't invest in it.
If you don't understand the economic logic the I suggest that you shouldn't invest in it either.
If you do understand the economic logic, please explain it to me.