CORRESPONDENCE Q.D. AND H.P.

Evening Star, Issue 19800, 25 February 1928, Page 12

CORRESPONDENCE

Q.D. AND H.P.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—My attention lias been drawn to a long letter by the managing director of these concerns in your issue of 11th inst. While devoting the greater part of his letter to your correspondent “Accountant,” he honors mo with about 32in of his space in reply to my “.foolish criticism” and “deliberately calculated untruth.He is certainly not squeamish when it comes to bandying epithets, and I envy him his plausibility and his facility in manipulating figures. Such gfts would be invaluable in my profession; but, alas! I cannot compete with him there. Anyone who can follow his calculations is welcome to the task of criticising them in detail. For my part, T feel that life is too short for such self-imposed mortifications, particularly when common sense is a sufficient guide. . The managing- director s ire is roused by my question as to how £2 deposited in the two companies can yield “a return of 20 per cent., not on £2, but on £11.” This is, he feels, a “deliberately calculated” untruth. He proceeds to demonstrate this by showing bow, after the second loan bas_ “matured,” the depositor of an original £2 will have £3l in Q.D. (£ls. 10s .of which is in “actual sovereigns in the reserve fund”), besides £25 deposited in H.P. There would appear, also, to bo a liability of £SO to H.P., but, lulled by the I literature of the scheme, I will tollow the managing director’s lead and ignore liability. T have it on the printed authority of Q.D.' and H.P. that “these debts are totally different Irom any other debts of which you have ever heard,” and that “it is literally true that the more you borrow the less you owe.” We have, then, £3l in Quarterly Dividends, Ltd., the characteristic of which concern is that it pays a quarterly dividend on each £1 deposited therein. And the process is to go on, according to the managing director’s letter, until “the poorest person would have invested £2,500 in the reserve fund, and would have made a donation of another £2,500 to swell the common benefit fund for all.” This is too much for me. My error seems to have lain in understating the miraculous nature of this scheme. The managing director says the whole trouble with me is that I bring the two funds into one, instead of keeping them two separate companies. T decline, to see double, as be would have me do. Mow, just to make it clear that l I am not dealing unfairly with this added dream. I shall be glad if yon will permit- me to give your readers a little series of quotations from a printed leaflet in my possession which has all the appearances of- genuine Q.D. and H.P. literature, and at least purports to be part of their propaganda. The greater part of it is in the form of a letter signed by, the “ Honorary. Local Representative ' at Bond’s Drift, Tugcla Rail, Natal, under date February, 1927. It is headed with file names of the two companies, and purports to have been printed at Fishponds, Bristol, where the companies have their registered offices. The quotations are a« follow;

For "the very small outlay of only £2'ls (one pound in each company, with one shilling entrance fee) you can draw dividends quarter by quarter, the number of which will constantly bo on the increase. In' fact, if you allowed your dividends to accumulate for about ten years, and reinvest them in National House Purchase, Ltd., you would have well over £I,OOO invested in Quarterly Dividends, Ltd., by that time. No one who can once become a depositor to the extent of £2 Is, or more, need have any anxiety about the future. There arc no weekly, monthly, or yearly payments to bother about, no lapsing. "Yon may invest any number of pounds in either company at any time you please, up to a £5,000 limit, and this large sum can be reached by the' poorest person, by means of a succession of loans from National House Purchase, Ltd., invested in Quarterly Dividends, Ltd. This scheme is practical and humanitarian. The dividends paid during the past twenty-three quarters amounted to the surprising sum of 51s lOd per £ to every depositor, giving an average of 2s Old per £ per quarter. Hero are the figures proving how £2 can become £I,OOO: —Ist year, £1 in each company; 3rd year, £5 in each company out of first loan; sth year, £25 in each company out of second loan; 7tb year. £125 in each company out of third loan; 9th year, £1.050 in Q.D. and £2OO in H.P. for a £2,000 loan; 11th year, £I,BOO in Q.D., £2,000 in H.P. for a fifth loan of another £2,000 —£3.006 invested in Q.D., LTD. This last passage is worth volumes. "Wherein lies the “proof”? And what has become of the £I,OOO when you reach the foot of the. calculation? The best 1 can make of it is that the lucky investor is left with £3.006 in Q.D. and a further £2OO in H.P. (“ for a fifth loan of another £2,000”), making £3,206 in all; against which (here is presumably to bo set a liability of £2,000 on the fourth loan, thus leaving a balance in bis favor of £1,206. Truly the original £2 has been well watered and has grown amazingly. "Why does the managing director trouble to dispute my mild suggestion that £2 is to yield 20 per cent, on £11? If your readers can swallow the above quotations and regard the scheme as sound, then 1 give it up. 1 will not follow the managing director in the use of epithets. The concluding paragraphs of his letter would seem to show that lie is a man of many writs and greatly to be feared. "Were I to express my views in unrestrained terms t might involve your esteemed and hospitable journal in a suit for libel, and might find myself involved in it, too, in an entirety unprofessional' capacity. If my quotations do not justly represent bis scheme, let the managing director publicly disclaim them and tell us plainly and simply what bis companies do promise, and, above all. bow it is done. Let it be plainly and clearly stated so that even I, though a fool, may understand.—l am, etc., Solicitor. February 23.