Under African Skies
Haiti’s latest tragedy makes many people think that more foreign aid will help in the long term, but Jo Figden’s report on BBC Radio 4′s From our own correspondent http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/default.stm makes me doubt this. Her programme dealing with Non-government Organisations (NGOs) in Zambia (formerly Northern Rhodesia) suggests that too much foreign aid is self-serving and little more than political vanity. Only 500,000 out of 12 million people have jobs in Zambia, the size of UK and France combined and there are few decent roads. My father-in-law told me many years ago that the structural weakness in Zambia is that the fertile food producing regions are a long way from the markets. Previous BBC Radio From our own correspondent programmes have mentioned that Zambia’s agriculture when managed properly, could feed the whole of Africa.
But instead of roads or investing in Zambia’s crumbling railway system that would solve this problem, we have workshops hosted by NGOs in new hotels all over Zambia where delegates are entitled to a generous daily allowance. They are well attended in the morning but only the jackets remain in the afternoon and the fluent jargon is not about implementation. The path to hell really is paved with good intentions. Well-meant advice from America nearly kills a successful business feeding 6,000 families selling high quality food to Europe. Mosquito nets prove to be more profitably employed in fishing which nearly wipes out the previously plentiful fish stocks in lakes nearby. The old saying “If you can’t beat them, join them” is proved when a local nurse decides to concentrate on setting up his own NGO, rather than use his training improving the health of his countrymen. He is not paid his meagre wages very often in a hospital which has only half the staff it needs, and justifies his actions perfectly logically “How else am I going to get a car?”
Farmers get compensation if crops fail, leading some farmers to neglect their crops and has a curious echo from the days of Communism in Europe “They pretend to pay me, so I pretend to work”.
Back in more developed Blighty, someone gives me a brochure for Sure Investment www.sureinvestment.net as they are thinking of investing? Always glad to help or listen, but free financial advice? sets some alarm bells ringing. Have not looked at the website, but the brochure is very well produced with pictures of yachts, diamonds, race horses and other wealth clichés while text is minimal. Based in Bournemouth, Sure are not “Authorised & Regulated by the Financial Services Authority” so are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme see http://www.georgeemsden.co.uk/2009/11/interesting-times-how-to-spend-14bn-in-a-weekend/
Nothing wrong there as long as the client (and adviser) understand this. Text mentions modestly that it is towards the high risk end of a balanced investment. Part of the return is generated by short selling, a strategy used by hedge funds for example which can be very high risk. Most people understand that if you buy a fund/commodity/share and sell it at higher price, then you can make a profit. This can be done in the same trading day or a longer period if you have the patience and the resources. Have met a few people who do this as a job and set themselves a profit target of say, next month’s living expenses and when they have made enough, switch off their laptop and go down the pub. They don’t make a profit every month, but seem to know what they are doing and are usually honest enough to admit that there is a learning curve here.
But a profit can also be made the other way round – SELL now at a high price and BUY back later at a lower price. This is sometimes called a bear transaction. However, there is a crucial difference here. If you buy shares and the value plummets, the most you can lose is your purchase cost and expenses. If you have sold shares and have to buy them back, the potential losses are infinite as the price could go up to any level. Most traders with more than a couple of brain cells would limit any potential losses by setting a maximum price movement, but it is not for amateurs.
The potential investor in this case has no savings, is unemployed and no knowledge of investments. It would be common with this type of investment for the investor to meet the definition of a Sophisticated Investor http://www.meteorical.co.uk/glossary_sophisticated_investor.php Business Angels for example, who invest in a start ups or other fledgling business, would have to sign such a declaration, see last week’s http://www.georgeemsden.co.uk/2010/01/fat-angels-or-too-much-of-a-good-thing/ This puts everyone on notice that this is not an everyday investment and outside any investor compensation scheme.
But minimum investment here is £10,000 for a minimum of 6 months so would this have to be borrowed? A key issue in recommending any investment is Suitability, so is this investment right for this client? In this case, hard to imagine a more unsuitable one.