On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 08:35:53 +0100, Gyp <[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Stuart B
><[email protected]> writes
>>>>As for the amount of CB paid that is set out so ,providing you adhere
>>>>to the T+C they must pay what you are due but I guess you meant 75% of
>>>>the value of the contract period .
>>>
>>>No

>>
>>So what did you mean then ?.Too difficult to consider I might just
>>come back and ask you ? :-)

>
>Reading it back, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking.
>
>My point was that I'd be happier with a trading model where the cashback
>was set at an appropriate level and the process automated such that
>everyone who took out a contract got the entirely of their cashback
>worry-free, rather than setting the cashback unrealistically high and
>relying on a significant number of people defaulting.
>
>That make sense?

I think so It was the 75% that I didn't understand but I see what you
are getting at
CB's are arranged so you know what percentage of the contract you get
back .Most are 100% but some are slightly less so I suppose the ones
offering 100% might run the risk of not being able to suppport that
and failing to pay up .I think you are saying that if they set their
CB figure at a more realistic level then they would be able to pay out
I suppose there is a figure below which people might think it not
worthwhile to get a CB deal . .
As for the automation part don't companies rely on people NOT keeping
to the T+C or not sending in their claims so that helps to fund the
CB's so automation would n't allow that



See More: Reliable cashback retailers ?