Savers are let down by the promise of sky high investment returns.

Below is information taken from the Guardian newspaper and Which magazine into the world of structured and capital protected products.  It is very UK centric but applies equally to the same products marketed in any country including Italy.  I for one, am not a great believer in these and think that they are mainly set up for the profits to be deemed from them rather than protecting the customer.  It is interesting to know (and this is not mentioned in the article), that if you invest in one of these, it earns an adviser about 8% in undisclosed commission and if you go direct to then bank they keep all that money to themselves.  Watch out and enjoy the information:

Cautious building society savers are putting thousands of pounds each into investment products whose advertised maximum returns are virtually impossible to achieve, an investigation by consumer watchdog Which? claims.

Seven leading societies, including the Yorkshire, Leeds and Chelsea, are or were until recently selling so-called "structured products" offering potential growth of up to 60% over six years.

These may sound like the answer to many savers' dreams because they allow people to benefit from any growth in the stock market without the uncertainty of investing directly in stocks and shares – plus they get 100% capital protection and the reassurance of a minimum return.

But when Which? looked at the historical performance of the FTSE 100 index, and "back-tested" these accounts to see how they would have fared, it discovered that "at no time in the last 25 years would the investment have achieved the advertised maximum return". In other words, even if you track back all the way to 1984, these accounts would never have delivered that magic 60%, it says.

Structured products, also known as protected products, are sold heavily by banks and building societies – everyone from Barclays (its version is called the Wealthbuilder Bond) and HSBC (Stockmarket Linked SavingsAccount) to Nationwide (Legal & General Stock Market Linked Savings Bond 6) and Britannia (Capital Bond) offer them.

They are fixed-term accounts, typically running for between three and six years, that are usually linked to the performance of one or more stock market indices and available as cash Isas. However, your money is not directly invested in the stock market so it is not exposed to the same risks.

They all tend to work in slightly different ways and offer different potential returns – for example, Nationwide's six-year product offers a maximum return of 50% of your original investment, while the HSBC one runs for three years and nine months, and offers the chance to earn a fixed 17%. Some (such as HSBC's) will give you just your capital back if the stock market falls; others (such as Leeds Building Society's latest Capital Growth Account) offer a minimum return.

The Financial Services Authority indicated a year ago that this was a sector it was keeping a close eye on, and earlier this year Which? labelled structured products one of the "top 10 useless financial products". In next month's issues of Which? and Which? Money, the organisation will claim many of these accounts "arguably just aren't fit for purpose" and "have historically delivered very poor value".

It will highlight the protected capital account, which is, or was until recently, being offered by seven societies – the Yorkshire, Chelsea, Barnsley, Leeds, Stroud & Swindon, Cambridge and Saffron – and advertised a maximum return of up to 60% at the end of the term. This is equivalent to an interest rate of more than 8% a year – way above what most savers are getting. The account manager in each case is investment bank Credit Suisse.

Which? says its findings, which show that historically this maximum return would never have been achieved, add weight to suggestions that savers should be very careful before committing cash to this type of product.

Which? Money editor James Daley says: "The maximum return figures were often in large type … Clearly you couldn't have read that literature without coming away in the knowledge that you were going to get up to a 60% return, yet in all likelihood you could never have achieved that." But he adds: "At least these ones offered a minimum return." The organisation says it believes "most structured products aren't suitable for most people most of the time", and that people should avoid investing in those sold by banks and building societies without taking independent financial advice.

Intriguingly, Coventry Building Society now owns Stroud & Swindon, and as a result, Stroud & Swindon is no longer selling the Credit Suisse product offering a maximum return of 60%. It was withdrawn from sale on 31 August, the day before the merger formally took effect. "It is not a product we sold ourselves," a Coventry spokeswoman told Guardian Money. "Now we have merged with them, it's a product that won't be available through Stroud & Swindon branches."

She adds that the organisation will be writing to customers holding the accounts "to make sure they are happy with them, and understand the terms and conditions of the product".

A Leeds Building Society leaflet advertising an earlier version of the account, which stopped taking deposits in June, featured the numbers "15%" (the minimum return) and "60%" (the maximum) in large type on the front page, though it is fair to say the 15% is a little bigger. However, the leaflet for the version currently available, Capital Growth Account (Issue 4), features only the 14% minimum return figure in bold type; the 48% maximum return figure is much smaller.

A Leeds spokesman says: "We take our responsibilities to members very seriously … The society's sales process for the Capital Growth Account requires that at the conclusion of a discussion where a customer has indicated to make an investment, they and the society staff member must complete a document which details the key terms of the product."

The Chelsea and Barnsley are both owned by Yorkshire Building Society; all three were this week offering two versions of the Protected Capital Account, one offering a maximum return of 40% over five years, and the other offering up to 60% over six years. The Yorkshire says it believes the account "is marketed in a clear, fair and not misleading manner, [and] has a robust sales process attached to it …"

Asked about the 60% figure, it says: "The society believes a greater prominence is given to the minimum return on the product. Not only is the minimum return figure displayed ahead of the maximum return in all financial promotions/documentation, it carries a larger font size than that used when noting the maximum return."

It adds that during the sales meeting, "the customer is made fully aware of the circumstances that would have to exist if the maximum return was to be realised. This is done verbally and using worked examples."

Cambridge Building Society – whose most recent product offering a maximum 60% was due to close to new business on Thursday – says it "would never introduce a customer to a partner or products that it believed were inappropriate or misleading". It adds: "We are very confident these products are introduced to customers in a balanced and transparent manner, and we are vigorous in our efforts to ensure customers are fully aware of the commitments they enter into, together with all the potential associated risks and benefits of their chosen product."