Why we challenged Stanley Gibbons’ stamp investment advert

If this is such a sure-fire winner of an investment opportunity, why are the shareholders, directors and executives of Stanley Gibbons not keeping it to themselves? I think in this case their need for some new capital exceeds my desire for an illiquid portfolio of postage stamps [which might or might not be worth the paper they are printed on]. Premium Bonds have the same guarantee and [a] it is credible, [b] it is secured by HMTreasury, [c] they are easily cashed, and [d] they are fun. Reading between the perforations I can see an investment in stamps coming unstuck.

Given the specialist nature of this investment I agree with the ASA.
Investors and the public need to take some responsibility themselves to check out and understand any investment they buy.

One could argue that firms shouldnt be allowed to offer guarantees on their products unless they arrange 3rd party insurance in case they go into administration, or offer gift vouchers which again become worthless if the shop goes into administration.

Fair point rarrar. Most product warranties are unsecured. Many extended guarantees are provided by a third party [e.g Domestic & General] which presumably charges the retailer a fee in respect of each guarantee sold; after admin costs this money is presumably kept on deposit in order to meet liabilities and claims. But how do we know whether it is underwritten securely?
While I agree that the Stanley Gibbons investment is specialist, fairly sophisticated, and probably only of interest to a certain clientele, the marketing of it is clearly aiming at a broad appeal. People will clutch at anything that claims to be risk free, especially when every other opportunity is either deficient or dodgy – and that is not just gullibility for which we might think there should be no protection, it is an outcome from deliberate marketing enticement. Whereas I think the ASA adjudication was technically correct, I also firmly believe there should be better regulation and consumer protection in this area and that Which? is right to press for it. A domestic appliance warranty is not in the same league as a serious financial investment and all advertising or promotion should be entirely truthful and completely ethical. If what Stanley Gibbons aremeans is “because of our history and reputation, and the track record of stamps as an investment, we don’t need to, and do not intend to, underwrite our guarantee”, why don’t they just say so in so many words? Their underlying asset might well be specie but it’s not absolutely immune from loss or depreciation.

A little story – Years ago I collected stamps enthusiastically and seriously – I had a wide-ranging collection in an old yellowing leather bound stamp book – and took it to the Stanley Gibbons shop in London. I was offered £200 (possibly over £2000 now) which to me at the time was very rewarding – so I agreed the sale. I handed over the book – the assistant removed all the stamps and gave them back – It was just the book that was worth £200! – Apparently it was a very rare 19th century publication in superb condition! I gave up collecting stamps :).

I have been collecting stamps for nigh on 50 years, my response to Stanley Gibbons offer: Total hogwash!
Especially as the offer is not guaranteed, I wonder how the ASA justify their decision, that a company is promising an iron clad guarantee with no means of enforcing it
Value increase & decrease along with the market, new discoveries of more previously rare stamps, and the willingness of investors and just what is currently in vogue.

As an old hand I know my round the philatelic world, and know how fingers can be burnt. I think it is wrong for an old reputable company such as Stanley Gibbons to make these claims, clearly tempting amateurs to invest with them on the basis of unkeepable promises, unless they agree to purchase back everyone’s portfolio when the market drops, but then that would make them insolvent!
To all, my stamp portfolio has gone down as well as up during the past few decades.

This makes distressing reading:
The ASA considered that the small print in the advert meant that ‘it would be clear to readers that any investment with Stanley Gibbons was underwritten by them alone and was dependent upon their continuing solvency.’

After all the discourse we have had about small print vs clarity? What is the point of the ASA if not to protect us from the hidden small print clauses?
I wonder which wonder kid thought this one up

In the 1990’s I ran a company which promoted investment in rare top end certified coins. We sold many millions of pounds worth of coins. However, with a (then) flat market and the mark up we had to charge to cover advertising, salesmen’s commissions, VAT etc we were unable to maintain a liquid market and make redemptions to our investors on time without fresh blood coming in to buy. Stanley Gibbons will find themselves in an identical situation , it is only a matter of when. My company got prosecuted for making false promises and I was sent to prison. How I would like to have those coins to deal with now! Their value has soared, and certification has proved to be extremely popular just as I envisaged. I was right, long term. Stanley Gibbons may well be right that LONG TERM their stamps will go up in value, but in my experience any company offering a guarantee in an investment in this nature fail, and investors get left empty handed. Given the enormous sums being spent by SG in advertising this investment I wonder how they can even offer any guarantees? This could be a classic ponzi scheme. Also their guarantee of a profit relates to the catalogue value of the stamps you purchase, not their resale value. And no guesses as to who publishes the catalogue? Yes, Stanley Gibbons, of course. Maybe this is why Ian Goldbart has resigned from the board before the shit hits the fan. The SG share price traded below £1 yesterday. I would stay shore all the way down to 25p personally. Probably a better wager than buying the stamps!

I mean stay short!

It is a shame that the CAwiki does not exist to have this article and the valuable comments at a readily accessible point for all subscribers.

The ASA might be asked for a comment : )