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 case anyone is still reading this article they may be interested to know that we invested in an SG guaranteed investment which matured nearly two months ago but they haven’t yet paid us the maturity proceeds. We’ve filled in all the forms, provided the proof of ID they wanted and chased by e-mail and phone but still nothing. We just get fobbed-off that they are speaking with their accounts department to get the payment made as soon as possible. Perhaps they really have given guarantees that they can’t fulfil. With no protection from the FCA we’re considering taking legal action if they don’t pay up soon. Very disappointed that they aren’t living up to the grand reputation they place so much stock by and obviously won’t be dealing with SG again in the future.

Made another call to SG and got through to the top person in their investment division. Apologised for delay in returning our funds and promised they would be paid in the next few days. To her credit, the money was in our bank account three days later. So all sorted now.

I used to work for Stanley Gibbons Auctions (1967-72) so it was before a major price crash.
History is about to repeat itself.
There are very few new collectors coming into the market, and these prices are being hyped to sell to people who do not understand. This hobby will go the same was as matchbox labels, bus tickets and cigarette cards. The crash WILL come, but l cannot tell you when