ASA Adjudication on Stanley Gibbons (Guernsey) Ltd

Ad

A trade press ad, for rare stamp and autograph investment, was headlined "Thrillseekers need not apply". The ad included a graph comparing different levels of performance, text stated "Performance of GB Stamps & Autographs compared to the Stock Market, the UK House Price Index, the RPI UK Interest Rates, Gold Prices and the FTSE 100". Small-print at the bottom of the ad stated "This advertisement is intended for Financial Advisers only".

Issue

Mr Philip J Milton of Philip J Milton & Company plc, independent financial advisers, challenged whether the comparison with the FTSE in the graph was fair, because he believed it should include reinvested income.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Stanley Gibbons (Guernsey) (Stanley Gibbons) said the figures they had used were supplied by the London Stock Exchange and were factually correct. They said they understood that products regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) had to take into account income reinvested in their advertising; they asserted it was usual in such cases for the ad to state "net income reinvested". Stanley Gibbons said they were not regulated by the FSA and therefore it would be unreasonable to expect them to have to comply with FSA rules that did not apply to them. They asserted that, because their ad did not state that the graph for the FTSE included "net income reinvested" readers would understand that it did not include that. Stanley Gibbons asserted that, because the ad appeared in a trade publication for financial advisers, readers would be aware of the relevant regulations.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted Stanley Gibbons were not regulated by the FSA and were not therefore obliged to comply with FSA regulations. We also noted the ad appeared in the trade press and considered that readers were therefore likely to understand from the graph, and the claim "FTSE 100" in the accompanying text, that it made a comparison with the FTSE and did not include reinvested income. However, we understood that the most relevant comparison would be between the performance of GB stamps and autographs and the FTSE100 including reinvested income, because that took into account the dividends paid on shares and therefore compared the total returns on both types of asset. We concluded therefore that the comparison with the FTSE100 without reinvested income was unfair.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Stanley Gibbons to use the FTSE100 with reinvested income in future comparisons with the FTSE100.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)