Fake charity watchMay 17, 2010 Tim WorstallYour Tax Money At Work9 CommentsWell, at least one organisation seems to have realised that the money from the taxpayers has run out. previousFun little factnextMy lord the man has problems understanding markets, doesn\’t he? 9 thoughts on “Fake charity watch” KMcC May 17, 2010 at 5:57 pm Well, bondholders get a lovely certificate and a chance to meet other loonies for breakfast a couple of times a year. That’s well worth a monkey. Tim Calvert May 17, 2010 at 7:49 pm Yes but no but Every trade on the CME is classified as either speculative or hedging/commercial. That’s why the exchange can publish figures for gross and net speculative positions despite the fact the the total of all the position always sum to zero. Roger Thornhill May 17, 2010 at 9:08 pm Surely they are misrepresenting. A bond is normally paper that has face value, offers a coupon*, has a date of redemption… Ah, I forgot, with the NEF, there is no redemption. * sometimes a zero coupon is offered, the paper being sold at below face value but redeemed for face. FlatEric May 18, 2010 at 5:22 am A ‘bond’ – it sounds like something quite economics-y. Like a proper financial thing. But…”Bonds are non-refundable (you will not get your money back) and do not provide any financial return.” So it’s not really what it pretends to be, it’s just a straightforward demand for a handout, dressed up as something more sophisticated. It is very ‘nef’ isn’t it? John Lettice May 18, 2010 at 8:53 am Kind of like sponsoring a donkey. FCAblog May 18, 2010 at 12:34 pm The bit where they say you can invest in a bond is particularly odious. They use the word ‘invest’ like Gordon Brown always did – in a total and utter perversion of the English language. They say that the ‘bonds’ are mandatorily converted into support for nef, but that they are ‘due 30 June 2011’. Does that mean nef sits on the money for a year, or does it mean they will be back with their hands out in a year’s time for another ‘bond’? Shouldn’t they be calling them ‘conds’ instead? rech May 18, 2010 at 12:42 pm Shouldn’t they be calling them ‘cons’ instead? Roger Thornhill May 18, 2010 at 1:16 pm Or maybe just “nobs”? @FCA – yes, this perversion is so typical of the Fabian way. But to them, money for what they want to do is an investment, for them and not for the person paying. The only thing I think they regret is not having the ability to force us to buy them – then their pleasure would be compleat. @John Lettuce – one is. john miller May 18, 2010 at 1:41 pm I am reminded of the Python sketch in which John Cleese, the merchant banker, has a bit of a problem with the whole concept of “giving to the orphans”. Naf, sorry, nef, appear to have rejigged the script and used it as a prospectus. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.