Re: Possible "safe" investment
- From: John Boyle <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:22:33 +0100
In message <upjnb2pfsvlmialis1cdpgcktb965al8rl@xxxxxxx>, Daytona <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:58:49 +0100, John Boyle
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Possible "safe" investment
- From: Ronald Raygun
- Re: Possible "safe" investment
- References:
- Possible "safe" investment
- From: Jim
- Re: Possible "safe" investment
- From: Daytona
- Re: Possible "safe" investment
- From: John Boyle
- Possible "safe" investment
- Prev by Date: Re: Possible "safe" investment
- Next by Date: Terminating an endowment
- Previous by thread: Re: Possible "safe" investment
- Next by thread: Re: Possible "safe" investment
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|