When a financial "expert" flunks even the most basic premise of compound interest, any advice given becomes highly suspect. A cap of 20% after five years does not represent 4% annually, it is 3.71% compounded annually, or less than the dividend of the typical bank stock. Just think of the Rule-Of-72, where a 6% gain annually does not mean 72% after twelve years, but a doubling of the original investment.

Mr. Berman also fails to mention that the fine print means that this cap applies to every holding in the PPN, so every individual one is capped at a max rate of 4%. So, there's no cushion for an outperformer to make up for a laggard, and the weaker ones will further reduce the gross return below the 4% ceiling for the whole PPN.

Many PPNs also include a clause regarding an unspecified "negative event" which will completely disable any growth for the entire PPN, yielding nothing more than the guaranteed 2% (or less). Who writes the rules, why the provider, of course.

Humbug!!!