Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Beta Test

Folks, just to let you know that I have recently set up yet another site www.loanbuster.net which covers financial issues.

It is still in beta test mode, and not yet "officially" launched.

I wonder, if you have a spare moment, whether you could pop over and let me know if it looks OK?

Any suggestions to improve it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Ken

3 comments:

  1. Grant8:27 PM

    Ken,

    Loanbuster looks fine to me and seems to present a suitable aura of gravitas.

    I have yet to find any mention of twats - the only obvious omission so far! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:59 PM

    Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy in the Loanbuster site?
    Specifically, bitching about wanting Nanny to pay for your mistakes in buying an endowment mortgage.
    I was told by my parents when I was young that if it sounded to good to be true, it probably wasn't true.
    They also told me about caveat emptor or some such thing.
    So all through the seventies and eighties and up to the end of next week I had a repayment mortgage.
    Pray tell why I should pay for your greed?
    Julian

    ReplyDelete
  3. Julian

    If you go to www.endowmentdiary.com you will see that I am not asking Nanny to pay.

    I am calling for the insurance companies to underwrite these useless products.

    The reasons for this are laid out very clearly in the site. However, in brief summary:

    1 Endowments were sold like TV's, cars and other products. They had a defined purpose, that of paying off the mortgage. They failed, and have been shown to be not fit for purpose. When a TV or car fails to perform the manufacturer provides you with one that works, the same should apply to these products (ie underwrite them)

    2 Some life assurance companies have underwritten them

    3 Some endowments have performed significantly better than others, indicating that some have been exceptionally badly managed

    4 The cut taken by the salesmen (during the lifetime of the product) has eaten into the returns. Your comment re "greed" could be applied to the salesmen.

    5 The life assurance companies have done very well out of these products, yet are doing their best to avoid taking the blame for them. They should be brought to account.

    6 There is evidence that these products were known (by the life assurance companies) to be useless as far back as the 80's. Yet the companies still continued to sell them. There is a case to be made for litigation against certain individuals/companies for knowingly selling a failed product.

    etc

    Read the site, it has been running for several years now.

    ReplyDelete