Job of the week
Latest jobs
Poll
|
|
New look Professional Adviser
The magazine is heavily focused on our Better Business section, which supports advisers in the run-up to RDR and beyond, and Investment.
Coffee Lounge
Not only is there a huge selection of games but why not try your hand at our Daily Sudoku
sponsored by
Comments
Not mutually exclusive
Perhaps it is the way I read it, but the article seems to imply that SCARPS and Structured Deposits are mutually exclusive. This is wrong, surely? Is it not possible to invest in an index-linked structured deposit, and lose your money if the index does not perform? 'SCARP vs Capital Protected' is about whether returns are linked to performance of eg a stock market index. Structured Deposit vs. Structured Investment Product is about the mechanism used for delivering protection of capital.
Posted by: MIssold Investments
Re Missold Investments comment
Re: "Is it not possible to invest in an index-linked structured deposit, and lose your money if the index does not perform?" Not to my knowledge. Ian
Posted by: Ian Lowes
Structured Deposits and SCARPS
Structured Deposits and SCARPS are mutually exclusive in the sense that a structured deposit is a bank deposit and as such you can not get back less than you put in (subject to FSCS protection paying out in the event of bankruptcy of the bank). In relation to SCARPS, the way I look at it, would I generally prefer to invest into a long only fund where the index needs to go up 8% a year for me to be happy whilst I take all the downside,or would I prefer something like a kickout where I can get that same return even if the index is flat? As an extra benefit, I typically get a 50% capital protection buffer on the downside. Makes sense to me.
Posted by: Ben Murison (SPGO)