jonic
Well-Known Member
"a BL@@DY used car salesman!"
.....I see. It's beginning to make a bit more sense now.
.....I see. It's beginning to make a bit more sense now.
Buying from a broker, what's at risk ?
- Thread starter PaulGooch
- Start date
After my little outburst which I am not taking back (you haven't had to deal with the daft posts and questions for as long as I have) I feel I need to once again apologise to all helpful, kind, useful and genuine contributors to this forum.
I learn a hell of a lot on here and from time to time hope I can raise a smile or (I doubt) occasionally share a pearl of wisdom.
It is forums like this that are a credit to leisure boaters within the UK and the people that run and maintain them.
Brokerage:
I want to expressly point out that whilst I feel that the current system is fine in the vast majority of cases and that the model has been proven to work and so it is in use, I do know that flexibility is required and from time to time the rules can be bent in exceptional circumstances.
If there was a big majority who buyers and sellers who truly felt that, when dealing with brokers, the system could be improved by making changes then I would be pleased to help and work with the likes of ABYA and the buyers and sellers to look at the ways those changes could be made and implemented. I'd be pleased to embrace them IF they were shown to be needed.
At this point, whilst ABYA isn't the b all and end all, it does offer some great best practise advice and provides assistance in the event of difficulties, which I think most of us agree are rare.
Tom
Last edited:
ColdFusion
Well-Known Member
Sorry Tom (Nautibusiness) but I think throwing personal insults around achieves nothing other than reflecting badly on yourself.
yesod
Well-Known Member
Thought he was quite restrained considering the provocation....
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
I'm sure everyone here can read back through the thread and see whether or not i've abused any broker on this forum, or the WSF one. I have not sent any PM's to Tom, other than in reply to his, where i simply asked him not to PM him.
His abuse and personal insults are totally uncalled for, both here and on the WSF forum, not to mention his little campaign of abuse on FaceBook.
Tom isn't actually a broker as such, he's a boat salesman that works for a broker, so he possibly has no control over the contract that he uses.
Reading back to the earlier posts he made in this thread, he clearly demonstrates that he does not use the same ABYA contract as Jonic.
His abuse and personal insults are totally uncalled for, both here and on the WSF forum, not to mention his little campaign of abuse on FaceBook.
Tom isn't actually a broker as such, he's a boat salesman that works for a broker, so he possibly has no control over the contract that he uses.
Reading back to the earlier posts he made in this thread, he clearly demonstrates that he does not use the same ABYA contract as Jonic.
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
<snip>
According to Jonic, it's the same in the 2010 version too.
Don't really see the need for such insults. Any more than there wa a need in post #104 of the WSF thread here http://www.worldseafishing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=378927
Tranona
Well-Known Member
No. It is unnecessary - unless you can show that there are REAL cases of brokers doing what you claim they do.
The whole issue was fully considered some years ago by all the interested parties and rejected as being an unnecessary expense - to solve a "problem" that did not exist.
There is already enough remedies available in law to pursue people who steal money from you.
And no, I do not work in the industry, my objection to the hysteria on this subject is because it is just that - with no basis in fact.
And if it makes you feel any better I am absolutely in favour, for example of the Law Society compensation scheme. Why? Because crooked lawyers steal from clients and because of their special position in society and their legal status they leave others with the problem. Despite all the sanctions lawyers still steal money from clients. Or is it because there is a compensation scheme which means they can avoid their responsibilities?
The reason brokers don't steal is for twofold. Firstly the time scales when they have possesion of significant amounts of money are so short - in other words it is not long before they get found out. And secondly they are personally liable for losses.
I am quite prepared to accept the opposite is the case IF somebody can produce hard evidence to prove it.
As I have said over and over again there are examples of bad , and indeed criminal behaviour in the boatiing business, but stealing from client accounts is not one of them. Might I suggest you think through the circumstances in which people have lost money then you will find it very easy to avoid it yourself. However, as I have also pointed out people lose money in all sorts of transactions for similar reasons - they are not "special" to the marine business.
jonic
Well-Known Member
Guys, Guys. Calm down. This is supposed to be a friendly exchange of factual information.
Paul all you points in your first post are covered in the ABYA contract.
Except point 5 where you want your survey costs refunded if the engine blows up on the sea trial.
Of course those survey costs are yours. It's for your survey. If it was going to blow up the surveyor would probably have said don't buy it anyway, before you even had the sea trial. You couldn't then ask for someone to pay the surveyor for you because it failed the survey!
And in those circumstances, which I have never ever heard of anyway, you would be glad you had an ABYA contract which meant you could now legally pull out of the deal and have your deposit returned. The owner now has the real nightmare.
If you were really worried about it you could have the sea trial first before paying a surveyor. But the fact is, most people want the survey done first because he will advise on specific things he wants investigated during the trial.
Right the op is answered. Shall we all stop now.
Paul all you points in your first post are covered in the ABYA contract.
Except point 5 where you want your survey costs refunded if the engine blows up on the sea trial.
Of course those survey costs are yours. It's for your survey. If it was going to blow up the surveyor would probably have said don't buy it anyway, before you even had the sea trial. You couldn't then ask for someone to pay the surveyor for you because it failed the survey!
And in those circumstances, which I have never ever heard of anyway, you would be glad you had an ABYA contract which meant you could now legally pull out of the deal and have your deposit returned. The owner now has the real nightmare.
If you were really worried about it you could have the sea trial first before paying a surveyor. But the fact is, most people want the survey done first because he will advise on specific things he wants investigated during the trial.
Right the op is answered. Shall we all stop now.
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
Considering i've shown you nothing but good manners and been more than courteous, to the point of agreeing that the contract you posted was pretty much what everyone was asking for as an industry standard, i'm a little disapointed you've chosen to resort to joining another broker in posting personal insults. Shame.
ROFLWML!
It won't end... it never does.
It won't end... it never does.
jonic
Well-Known Member
All right I'll take that back, it just seems to have got a bit hysterical here.
No offence meant.
Sorry CF, you don't have this man telling you black is white everytime you try to get involved in a discussion on anything to do with your leisure time.
And I am him because I like boats, not 'cos I sell them both as a dealer and as a broker which many people seem to get confused over too.
As said, I apologise profusely to all the people who genuinely enjoy this forum.
jonic
Well-Known Member
DAKA
Well-Known Member
We don't get stuff like this on Scuttlebutt.
Theres an easy way find out if it is just Paul who sees a fault in the system or if it is more widespread.....POLL, POLL, POLL
Alright no need for pm exchanges the poll questions have been there long enough for objections.
We can wait a day or two for the results calming down and then eats lots of humble pie and apologise to each other before going back to col regs
ColdFusion
Well-Known Member
How many buyers were included in the "interested parties"?
In that case the insurance premium should be minimal.
No there are not. If a broker goes bankrupt and takes a buyer's money with him, there is little chance of recovering that money, and even if there was, it would require a long and costly legal battle, to be paid for by the buyer.
But you did work in the industry and no doubt still have connections with it. Why else would you be so closed-minded to improving things and broker regulation?
Lawyers are only human and as such that means there will be a small number of crooks amongst them. Clearly the same can be said of any profession, and that includes yacht brokers. The difference between lawyers and brokers is that lawyers are regulated. Brokers are not. Lawyers have a compensation scheme for clients. Brokers do not. Clients dealing with lawyers are therefore not putting their money at risk. Clients dealing with brokers are.
That's exactly the same as buying a house with a lawyer.
Which means if they go bankrupt there is little realistic chance of a buyer recovering their money. All the more reason for regulation and an insurance-backed compensation scheme, wouldn't you say?
Again, all the more reason for regulation and a compensation scheme.
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
I appreciate that, thanks.
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
As suggested, i've put a poll up. There was a maximum of 10 options, so i was unable to add any more questions to those i suggested earlier.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
You have still not demonstartated that there is a problem! Please, oh please provide ONE example of a broker who has stolen money from a client account!
Just the same as with lawyers. They generally don't steal from moneys involved in house transactions for exactly the same reason as brokers don't steal - it is not worth it and they will easily get found out. Any half intelligent crook would find a better scam than that. You will find that most lawyers steal money from client trust accounts where it can be years before anybody finds out - particularly if the lawyer is a sole practitioner. Partnership practices are much more rigorous, partly because partners are jointly and severally liable. Despite all this the compensation scheme premiums are high - because the number of offences is high.
If you want to stop people from losing money, ban the taking of deposits for goods and services to be provided in the future - particularly by limited liability companies. There is a strong argument for a bonding scheme to cover this, as there is in some industries (such as travel) where failures are commonplace. Such bonds are essential as there is no other form of security - that is there is no asset to secure funds against.
If you look at it rationally money in a brokerage transaction is more secure than most, because the money ALWAYS legally belongs to the client (either buyer or seller depending on the stage of the transaction). The only other form that is more secure is if there is a bank guarante (which costs), whereas a client account is essentially free.
By all means express your concerns and opinions - but in this case they do not stand up to rational analysis.
jonic
Well-Known Member
Well I see Paul has posted a poll now. We shall soon see just how wide spread this epidemic of blatant client account theft is.
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
Well I see Paul has posted a poll now. We shall soon see just how wide spread this epidemic of blatant client account theft is.
We'll only see how it is perceived to be
I do have concerns about clients accounts, but not so much that brokers would steal from them though.
I'll risk being accused of kissing your arse again, your own use of a client account is absolutely spot on. You have a properly setup client account and you pay the monies into it. In your case, everyone's money is safe, 100%.
But, there is no requirement to do so. Any old Tom, Dick or Harry can set up and be a broker. He can't legally steal the money, but he can put it in his own account and lose it "by accident" if he goes bust. He could also have a poorly set up account that doesn't give the protection it's believed to give.
I think regulations should be in place that legally require a broker to setup a "proper" client account and to be legally required to place clients funds into it. He'll then be committing a criminal act if he puts the money anywhere else or "borrows" it.
I'm obviously not the only one that thinks brokers should use properly setup client accounts, as it's an ABYA "rule".
I'm inclined to think that an insurance scheme wouldn't be needed, provided the above legislation was in place.
