Based on the info provided in the website, I can't find any fault in the arrangement. Looks like it is a very thoroughly thought of financial plan to attract investors. However, that leads me to ask the question. At 12% pa, why would the company failed to get financing from financial institution ? If you consider they have to appoint agents to market for them, their borrowing cost could go up to 15% (?). It would be much simpler to get financing from 1 bank/consortium of banks instead of managing thousands of investors. The only logical answer I can think of (and ASSUMING it is a legitimate investment) is it is a very high risk business. Even at 15%, banks refuse to get involve

BTW, anybody knows how much the agent earn from recruiting ?

Yes bank takes time. But this scheme has been >1 year since the launch. And they are still recruiting. Even Malaysian banks does not take >1 year to process loan. You really think Canadian banks are that inefficient ?

What is Canadian bank interest rates ? I put the link of BOC overnight rates below. The benchmark rate remains at 1% since 2010. Hope you know how to estimate the rate for business loan from there

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-ca...-at-1-1.2450462

I have read the link many times but it does not explain why they resort to capital market instead of leveraging. There are many other projects/business that last >1 year and FYI there are also many debt instruments that cater to the needs of various types of project/business of different time line. There must be some reasons/constraints/purpose they are willing to pay 12%-15% instead of getting cheaper funding via leveraging. We are talking about extra ~10% pa here. If they borrow US$100m, then that is extra US$10m cost per year

Ask yourself. If you have a viable business which needs funding. Will you go to the 1 bank that charge you 5% or will you go to find thousands of investors who you need to pay them 12%-15% ?

Anyway, good luck in your investment

This post has been edited by Showtime747: Dec 27 2013, 11:08 AM

There is no such thing as conventional or unconventional investment. Whatever fancy name the promoter may call the investment, be it alternative investment, new era investment, hybrid investment etc, eventually it is all about dollar and cent. Changing a name does not alter the objective of any business, which is "making profits". If the business is capable of borrowing at 5.0%, they won't borrow at 5.1%

It is all about level of risk. As said, if the banks don't want to take up the risk, there are many others like you who are willing to. There are always people who are willing to tolerate more risk than a bank. The business just need to raise the returns high enough to lure investors in. In this case, it is 12%

Yes, if 1 bank refuse, but the other bank willing to offer loan to a borrower, then I don't think the borrower is fishy.

But if all banks also not willing to offer loans to a borrower, and the borrower has to find investors and pay them 12%, will you say the borrower is fishy now ?

Obviously you have no experience with big corporate loans. If all information is available for bank's consideration, 3 months duration is possible. And what collateral you want for US$100m corporate loans ? Banks look at the viability of the business, more than collateral. If your business is viable, even if there is no collateral, the bank will provide loans. If you business is not viable, even if you have 100% collateral, banks will ask you to fly kite.

BTW, LTV is a term for consumer property loan. For corporate loans, we dont use such term

1. Look at the time needed for CAG needed to raise financing. Until today they are still taking money from "investors". How many YEARS has it been raising capital ? As compare to bank's MONTHS ?

2. What collateral did CAG offer to investors ? None That could be the reason why bank REFUSED to loan because the risk is too high even for 12% the company willing to pay. Bear in mind banks' other loan is offered only at around 5%



The bottom line is CAG's business is so risky that it failed to get loans from banks, have to pay >12% interest to lure in "investors", and has to take ages to raise financing (what a pity until today they still need to do "marketing" on the forum)

I was in corporate banking line for many years and my job was to arrange corporate loans for companies. I even arrange syndicated loans (if you have heard of it before) involving many banks (yes, banks do spread their risk among themselves too) to the tunes of hundreds of millions. I guess that is "a puny amount" to you

Banks don't look at the future potential ? It just showed that you have only encountered consumer property loans and credit cards. You are right for consumer banking though. But in corporate loans, future earnings are the primary concern. Banks assess the risk of a business by looking at how viable the business is. In business, past experience, although important as a gauge, does not guarantee that the business will be as profitable in the future. It is therefore important for the bank to assess the future earnings because it is where the borrowers get the money to pay interest to the banks

As opposed to consumer loans like property and credit cards, your current salary is the most important gauge of your future earning potential. If you have a job now that pays a salary of $5k, that means it is most likely you can earn the equivalent or more in the future. Even if you lose your job now, you can most probably find another job from other companies. But in business, if it fails, the income stops and there is no "other employers" that you can earn your money from. So, consumer banking and corporate banking is very different. I can see why you believe they are the same because you have only dealt with your own property and credit cards loans and assume it is the same way in corporate banking. No, it is not.

I am alarmed you said CAG is a "SME" when you are talking about tens or even hundreds of millions. Even if it is a SME, banks will still extend loans. In fact, SME accounts for a significant part of banks' corporate business. And there is no such thing as bank extend only a portion of loans applied. If it is the case, then SME can never grow.

Please do not blindly accept what CAG throw at you. Think logically and critically why a company doesn't resort to a cheap loan instead of paying 12+% interest. It is all about risk transfer. High risk high return. Low risk low return. There is no free lunch in this world. Except from your parents

Wow ! The fact that you think Genneva is not really a scam shows that you are just another greedy "investor" that can't think logically. Blinded by the attractive returns and willing to spread unfounded lies to justify your own investment decision. Now I understand why you think CAG is a good investment

I feel like talking to a brick wall

Anyway, it is your money. If you feel the "investment" is worth while, just like you feel "Genneva is not a scam", then by all means go ahead and "invest" more. I am not your father and you will be responsible for your own action.

Likewise, the readers who seek info about CAG here will judge for themselves and decide whether CAG is a worthwhile "investment"

Good luck to you

Ask your question here. You will have more fun in that thread. Make sure you don't chicken out

https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/2666347

In your first post here, you sound so confident about bank loan. How come suddenly you ask so many questions (some are dumb questions, no offence) on corporate banking which clearly show you knew nothing about corporate banking ? Seems that you were just blowing water on your first post

Again, please start a thread on corporate banking in FBI. This thread is about CAG and has nothing to do with educating newbie on corporate banking

Friend, I have answered in my previous reply. Bank will loan you the amount you wanted if your business is viable. But you chose not to believe because it contradicts the answer you want. That's why I said I feel like talking to a brick wall

Go and ask your bosses in Canada why they failed to get cheaper loans from bank and have to resort to >12% loans from investors. Or they are just some kind hearted people who's objective in their life is to "help" people ?

How come I have not seen you posting your question in the thread I refer you to ? Chicken out ? Or have you finally realised genneva is in fact a scam ?

Just curious, are you an ex-agent from genneva now switch job to sell CAG ? The way you spoke about genneva, high chance you were one of those unscrupulous genneva agent

Buddy, our friend Kaji2g is not convinced genneva is a scam and wants me to prove to him And I have directed him to a thread discussing about genneva https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/2666347 But he chicken out

Tried googled it but no results. Are you kind enough to share the link from a reputable news source ?

Oh...last year....BNM has since put the company in alert list this year. Fishy companies like Genneva was on the same BNM's list last time

http://www.bnm.gov.my/documents/2015/20151013_FCA_EN.pdf

Why the company only ask small fry to apologise, but didn't ask BNM to apologise ?

Don't know the blogger (colossuscapital.co) is true or not also. Google cannot find. But can see got one Colossus capital from Zimbabwe

Not really, the company forced small fry to close down his blog by theathning to sue (assuming the blog is true). While the company does nothing against big shots like BNM which has caused even more damage to their reputation. If they have done so against BNM, please show us here.


The same list contained infamous scam companies like Genneva Gold. By putting a company in the same list as Genneva Gold, the reputation is tarnished by BNM. Any companies who is serious to do business would have fought BNM to their last breath.

Did this company do anything to BNM ?


Personally I rather believe BNM instead of getting my money into trouble. If there are people who would get into trouble, BNM should be the first.

If you know the management, please advise them to rectify BNM's list. BNM has caused them way more reputation damage than the small fries

This post has been edited by Showtime747: Nov 10 2015, 09:19 AM

Oh no.....

So you no rugi right ? How about jack2 guy3288 and anybody here who invested ? Got back all money ?

After the collapse, do you still think the business model is flawed ? 12% return justified by the risk ?