01-Dec-2006
Motley Fool calls for "FarePak" legislation
Those of you that read my earlier posts will know that I got quite angry over a BBC Breakfast News article on TV whereby a representative (David Kuo) from The Motley Fool implied that the victims had only themselves to blame even although it would appear that FarePak has stolen their money away to shore up their parent company.
As someone not connected to the scandal, but very saddened by its impact, what appalled me during the BBC Breakfast News segment was David’s apparently dispassionate approach suggesting that these consumers had a myriad of choices and had only themselves to blame, yet he failed to recognise that the very alluring attraction of the FarePak product was precisely the fact that it tied up the money in such a way that there could be no temptation to get at it until Christmas came round. For the majority of these consumers, a bank account was still not a suitable product even if they had access to open one.
I found it an offensive suggestion that the consumers were effectively “stupid” in giving money to FarePak (the company has been around for ~40 years for goodness sake) and I do not think that David’s comments and approach would have won many supporters for Motley Fool…..I do think that this was bad PR for Motley Fool and that had more attention been given to the reasons why those poor people used schemes such as FarePak and the need for Government legislation to protect them, then the news item could have been much more sensitive and constructive.
Clearly, someone from The Motley Fool was aware of my blog and I received an email from the PR Manager drawing my attention to a new article on their site entitled "Farepak: A Disaster Waiting To Happen!". I wholeheartedly support all that is now said there, especially given that it now properly appreciates that the customers were the victims.
I am very happy now to see Motley Fool recognise that consumers were the victims – This is not unlike Enron, but affecting people typically at the opposite end of the financial spectrum to those that would be buying shares for investment returns and for the most part knew that they were having a gamble. The US brought in Sarbanes-Oxley to deal with Corporate scandals such as that and I agree with Motley Fool that the UK needs to look much wider into the need to legislate around other financial arrangements.
For the other savings schemes out there operating in that same space (e.g. Park Hampers, Tesco, Sainsbury etc.. savings stamps schemes), perhaps it is time that at a minimum and in time for next Christmas that a voluntary code of conduct is put in place to ringfence an appropriate proportion of customers deposits to provide some form of guarantee.
Thanks to the Motley Fool for taking the time to find and contact me directly outside of the blog. I endorse everything that David now says in his new article, especially now that the consumers are appreciated to be the victims and I am now happy to regard the statements during the BBC report to be an unfortunate set of statements from a company that I have always held in high regard for the advice that they offer.
As someone not connected to the scandal, but very saddened by its impact, what appalled me during the BBC Breakfast News segment was David’s apparently dispassionate approach suggesting that these consumers had a myriad of choices and had only themselves to blame, yet he failed to recognise that the very alluring attraction of the FarePak product was precisely the fact that it tied up the money in such a way that there could be no temptation to get at it until Christmas came round. For the majority of these consumers, a bank account was still not a suitable product even if they had access to open one.
I found it an offensive suggestion that the consumers were effectively “stupid” in giving money to FarePak (the company has been around for ~40 years for goodness sake) and I do not think that David’s comments and approach would have won many supporters for Motley Fool…..I do think that this was bad PR for Motley Fool and that had more attention been given to the reasons why those poor people used schemes such as FarePak and the need for Government legislation to protect them, then the news item could have been much more sensitive and constructive.
Clearly, someone from The Motley Fool was aware of my blog and I received an email from the PR Manager drawing my attention to a new article on their site entitled "Farepak: A Disaster Waiting To Happen!". I wholeheartedly support all that is now said there, especially given that it now properly appreciates that the customers were the victims.
I am very happy now to see Motley Fool recognise that consumers were the victims – This is not unlike Enron, but affecting people typically at the opposite end of the financial spectrum to those that would be buying shares for investment returns and for the most part knew that they were having a gamble. The US brought in Sarbanes-Oxley to deal with Corporate scandals such as that and I agree with Motley Fool that the UK needs to look much wider into the need to legislate around other financial arrangements.
For the other savings schemes out there operating in that same space (e.g. Park Hampers, Tesco, Sainsbury etc.. savings stamps schemes), perhaps it is time that at a minimum and in time for next Christmas that a voluntary code of conduct is put in place to ringfence an appropriate proportion of customers deposits to provide some form of guarantee.
Thanks to the Motley Fool for taking the time to find and contact me directly outside of the blog. I endorse everything that David now says in his new article, especially now that the consumers are appreciated to be the victims and I am now happy to regard the statements during the BBC report to be an unfortunate set of statements from a company that I have always held in high regard for the advice that they offer.
Labels: Christmas, FarePak, legislation, Motley Fool, saving, victim
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]