From: Ronald Raygun 
Subject: Re: Endowment Shortfall - New questions (2)
Newsgroups: uk.finance uk.legal
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:28:25 GMT

Rhoy the Bhoy wrote:

> "Ronald Raygun"  wrote
>> animal@home.com wrote:
>> > On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:40:14 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>> >>
>> >>If, as you admit, you were told there was no guarantee, then
>> >>clearly you were made aware of the risk, and you took it.
>> >
>> > The point is that the adviser said two contradictory things:
>> >
>> > * There is no guarantee (it may not pay out the full amount).
>> > * It will pay out in excess of the required amount.
>>
>> Those aren't two contradictory things.  They're one empty promise
>> with a disclaimer. [snip]
> 
> Well, obviously, as I said before, like, all credit to your repartee
> (which is well up to insurance executive standard), but at the end of
> the deah, are you seriously suggesting that persons seeking financial
> advice should have to work out the difference ?

Naturally.

Which part of "there is no guarantee" do you expect the prospective
punter to misunderstand?  OK, it makes a difference how skilfully the
salesman papers over the cracks, but so long as "no guarantee" is at
least said, and said in writing, he'd be in the clear.

It's much like selling a holiday and "promising" you'll have a great
time but being unable to guarantee the weather.