The etiquette of buying a boat - surveys and offers...

[vjmehra]

??? "My comfy existence"??? I don't think we have ever met, so not sure how you are able to judge whether I am comfy or not. But I have bought and sold a number of yachts over several decades of boat ownership in various different countries, so have a fair amount of practical experience in boat transactions. I have also in the past been an owner or part owner of businesses involved in marine matters, so have seen it from the other side as well. What I have been trying to bring to this thread is a bit of reality in the face of some lovely but impractical suggestions.
Peter

Thats the whole point!!!!

You are being incredibly defensive of the current system and raising practical limitations of what I suggested. Thats fine, no one is suggesting things are likely to change overnight, I've said multiple times the costs are prohibitive, I accept that.

But...surely you can't disagree my suggestions would not be better for the buyer (remember if they are in a hurry they can decline a sea trial or whatever else should they wish, no one can force them, but they should have the right to insist on one)?

With that in mind, is it not plausible as we've seen in banking over the last few years and currently residential property that the market could change (for the better), existing costs may be completely different, who knows what may happen to the oil price for example?

So despite your superior knowledge of the process (which I fully accept is the case as I have very little, albeit enough to point out the negative aspects for the buyer) that doesn't make me wrong at all. It means my suggestions (as I've said) are not plausible at this moment in time. However are you honestly suggesting you wouldn't want the process improved for the buyer if it was cost effective?

If so then surely as the market evolves eventually it could happen?

 

[bitbaltic]

So ... that doesn't make me wrong at all. It means my suggestions ... are not plausible at this moment in time.

Without having an opinion either way on your opinion (as it were), may I congratulate you on a fantastic redefinition of the difference between being right and being wrong. I think I shall use it. It comes from a great tradition of rhetorical redefinition of course, and rather reminds me of Alan Clark, who of course was not lying to parliament but rather being "economical with the actualité".

This has been an enlightening thread, 'bloke who doesn't want to buy a boat would do it differently if he could', great stuff, time for a hot chocolate, it's cold outside.

 

[vjmehra]

Without having an opinion either way on your opinion (as it were), may I congratulate you on a fantastic redefinition of the difference between being right and being wrong. I think I shall use it. It comes from a great tradition of rhetorical redefinition of course, and rather reminds me of Alan Clark, who of course was not lying to parliament but rather being "economical with the actualité".

This has been an enlightening thread, 'bloke who doesn't want to buy a boat would do it differently if he could', great stuff, time for a hot chocolate, it's cold outside.

It's very annoying being accused of being wrong when I've stated so many times throughout the thread that I fully appreciate my suggestions are not cost effective at this moment in time. That said other industries have regulators to force through initiatives that aren't always cost effective for every broker...

My stance is purely that as with many industries the buyer is currently poorly serviced and over time the industry could (in my opinion should) take steps to address this.

Whether I buy a boat today, tomorrow, 5 years, 10 years is irrelevant. I'd still be at the mercy of the market standard, which as it stands results in unquantifiable (or at least undesirable in my opinion) risk for the buyer.

 

[Resolution]

It's very annoying being accused of being wrong when I've stated so many times throughout the thread that I fully appreciate my suggestions are not cost effective at this moment in time. T.

Have you got any suggestions that could improve the system, that are realistic and practical now?

 

[vjmehra]

Have you got any suggestions that could improve the system, that are realistic and practical now?

I don't think any mature market can be changed overnight, I struggle to see how anything could be done to improve things for buyers in the short term.

If I had to, I guess I'd say brokers could sign up to a voluntary code whereby the survey is done as soon as practical after listing and the advertised sale price includes the cost, so what the buyer sees is at least theoretically a more accurate reflection of value (the seller will of course have seen the survey and so will presumably adjust the price accordingly). Better still if the survey was downloadable online so you could read over it before viewing.

Would that not arguably be good for brokers too as it would reduce timewasters?

 

[Resolution]

I don't think any mature market can be changed overnight, I struggle to see how anything could be done to improve things for buyers in the short term.

If I had to, I guess I'd say brokers could sign up to a voluntary code whereby the survey is done as soon as practical after listing and the advertised sale price includes the cost, so what the buyer sees is at least theoretically a more accurate reflection of value (the seller will of course have seen the survey and so will presumably adjust the price accordingly). Better still if the survey was downloadable online so you could read over it before viewing.

Would that not arguably be good for brokers too as it would reduce timewasters?

Why do you think the present system favours sellers over buyers?

Back to your suggestion on surveys. This has of course been considered but there are wrinkles. Would buyers trust a surveyor appointed by the seller? What contractual relationship do you anticipate between the surveyor and each and every potential buyer? Normally the buyer (of either house or boat) appoints the surveyor and pays for the survey, a neat and normal contractual relationship. And there is a time factor- how much could a buyer trust a survey done some time ago, since when the boat may have been out in action (your trial sails or just the owners usage) or mouldering in the boatyard?
Details, please.

 

[Concerto]

Whether I buy a boat today, tomorrow, 5 years, 10 years is irrelevant. I'd still be at the mercy of the market standard, which as it stands results in unquantifiable (or at least undesirable in my opinion) risk for the buyer.

Having followed this thread, I have to say your "ideas" are so wrong.

The basic fact is an owner selling his boat, wants to sell it at a price he is happy to let it go or needs to sell it for a specific reason that could be for a divorce, death of a partner, financial problems, etc. The buyer is trying to find a boat suitable for his needs (or a family's needs) and at a price he can afford. If the buyer and seller can meet and agree on a sale it is brilliant, but life is not that simple. Many people do not have the skills to advertise their boat to attract buyers, let alone know how to effectively price their boat, photograph it, create a specification, deal with enquiries, sort the correct documentation, etc. So they employ an agent.

An agent is working for the seller to achieve a sale, which may take as little as a few days or a number of years if the seller is unrealistic as to its value or condition. An agent works to find the one person who wants to buy a specific boat at a mutually agreeable price.

The whole process for the buyer can be lots of wasted visits to boats that may not meet their requirements or show a lack of care by the present owners. Most agents will try and guide an inexperienced buyer to a boat to suit their needs and budget. At all times buying any secondhand item should be treated as Buyer Beware, boats are no different. Once a buyer has seen a boat he likes and negociates a mutually agreeable price and pays a deposit to show good intent, then the process of ensuring what the buyer has agreed to buy is correct. This usually means the buyer employing a surveyor to check everything is in order with the boat out of the water. Usually there are no checks on the engine(s), and limited comments on many items like rigging, electrical systems etc., as a specialist should be employed. Faults found by the surveyor (and any specialist) at this time can then adjust the price. A further check can be made with the boat in the water. There is no way this system should be changed as there are too many variables that are different in every sale.

Coming back to your comment about you potentially buying a boat as being irrelevant. Well to be honest you sound just like the usual "thinking about buying a boat person" who has not got a clue about boats and thinks this time tested system should be modernise to make it easier and cheaper. The real question most sellers are interested in is, does the potential buy actually have the money to buy my boat. Maybe you should show your ability to afford the purchase price and associated fees before we should even show you any boat. That would keep the tyre kickers away from wasting owners and agents time.

 

[vjmehra]

Having followed this thread, I have to say your "ideas" are so wrong.

The basic fact is an owner selling his boat, wants to sell it at a price he is happy to let it go or needs to sell it for a specific reason that could be for a divorce, death of a partner, financial problems, etc. The buyer is trying to find a boat suitable for his needs (or a family's needs) and at a price he can afford. If the buyer and seller can meet and agree on a sale it is brilliant, but life is not that simple. Many people do not have the skills to advertise their boat to attract buyers, let alone know how to effectively price their boat, photograph it, create a specification, deal with enquiries, sort the correct documentation, etc. So they employ an agent.

An agent is working for the seller to achieve a sale, which may take as little as a few days or a number of years if the seller is unrealistic as to its value or condition. An agent works to find the one person who wants to buy a specific boat at a mutually agreeable price.

The whole process for the buyer can be lots of wasted visits to boats that may not meet their requirements or show a lack of care by the present owners. Most agents will try and guide an inexperienced buyer to a boat to suit their needs and budget. At all times buying any secondhand item should be treated as Buyer Beware, boats are no different. Once a buyer has seen a boat he likes and negociates a mutually agreeable price and pays a deposit to show good intent, then the process of ensuring what the buyer has agreed to buy is correct. This usually means the buyer employing a surveyor to check everything is in order with the boat out of the water. Usually there are no checks on the engine(s), and limited comments on many items like rigging, electrical systems etc., as a specialist should be employed. Faults found by the surveyor (and any specialist) at this time can then adjust the price. A further check can be made with the boat in the water. There is no way this system should be changed as there are too many variables that are different in every sale.

Coming back to your comment about you potentially buying a boat as being irrelevant. Well to be honest you sound just like the usual "thinking about buying a boat person" who has not got a clue about boats and thinks this time tested system should be modernise to make it easier and cheaper. The real question most sellers are interested in is, does the potential buy actually have the money to buy my boat. Maybe you should show your ability to afford the purchase price and associated fees before we should even show you any boat. That would keep the tyre kickers away from wasting owners and agents time.

A fantastic example of exactly what I was talking about, thank you for demonstrating my point about resistance to change so clearly.

 

[vjmehra]

Why do you think the present system favours sellers over buyers?

A good point actually as I wasn't clear on that. So firstly I fully accept its a buyers market in the sense that sellers have to be flexible with prices at the moment (I think we can probably all agree on that).

What I meant by the system favouring sellers over buyers is with regards to risk. As a buyer (not dissimilar to a house in some respects) you have to make a decision with fairly limited information, especially without a sea trial. That (in my opinion) puts undue risk onto the buyer. If the buyer had a better way of assessing the facts (i.e. the true condition of the boat) they would be better placed to assess value.

Now, I'm not suggesting that is easy, I'm just saying it would be better for the buyer.

Back to your suggestion on surveys. This has of course been considered but there are wrinkles. Would buyers trust a surveyor appointed by the seller? What contractual relationship do you anticipate between the surveyor and each and every potential buyer? Normally the buyer (of either house or boat) appoints the surveyor and pays for the survey, a neat and normal contractual relationship. And there is a time factor- how much could a buyer trust a survey done some time ago, since when the boat may have been out in action (your trial sails or just the owners usage) or mouldering in the boatyard?
Details, please.

You raise some good points here. Firstly with regards to appointing the surveyor, I believe in Scotland this is done by the selling party (or agent) on property transactions and whenever people talk about it on here they seem to suggest it works quite well, so logically its seems that would be an approach to take.

No system is foolproof and of course you could have dishonesty creeping in, but you could even now, I don't see why (m)any surveyors would risk their job and reputation in order to try and make the broker a few extra pounds, even if they received a cut (not to say no one could, there is sometimes a rogue element, but it seems fairly unlikely).

As for time factor, another excellent point. Again I'd say how does it work in Scotland as a starter (I don't know)...but lets also accept that boats and houses are different and a year old survey on a house is probably more acceptable than on a boat. Then I think a refresher is realistically the only option, i.e. a survey-lite every x motnhs (6-12 presumably)?

Now of course that raises the costs and we get back to what I said originally, my proposals don't work at the moment, I'm merely saying the industry should (in my opinion) move in a certain direction to benefit the buyer (i.e. to reduce the chance of the buyer taking undue risk through the purchase process).

As for more details, well I'm just some guy on an internet forum trying to have a discussion about something, so I clearly don't have more!

Whats disappointing is when people refuse to accept just because someone has less knowledge their opinions are invalid, sometimes a neutral onlooker has no vested interests and can see things without the bias of owning a boat for example (for clarity I'm not referring to you here Resolution, I hope/assume you are genuinely engaging in debate here rather than sarcasm

 

[Resolution]

vj
It is always worth standing back and reviewing established practices to see if they can be improved. In a commercial world, this is normally a continuing competitive process.

As an example in relation to this subject, many years ago the broking business with which I was associated did experiment with pre-sale surveys. In essence, we had the seller commission a simple survey, rather like an MOT. When a prospective buyer was getting seriously interested, the idea was that in exchange for a small fee paid by the buyer to the surveyor, the buyer would be able to see the survey and know if there were any major matters to consider(and the surveyor agreed to be responsible to the buyer for any survey statements.) Then all parties could proceed to final negotiations more quickly.
It didn't really work. In practice, most buyers either trusted their own knowledge to take them through to conditional contracts, or wanted to have their own choice of surveyor acting for them against the seller. So we dropped it and went back to the normal system.

So I and others in this thread are not refusing to accept new ideas just because they come from someone with less experience. I am saying that your suggestion (on surveys) is impractical and should be discarded.
I think we should all move on now.
Peter

 

[jordanbasset]

At it's most simple if the buyer wishes a sea trial and the seller is willing they can have one. If the buyer wishes one and the seller does not want to give one then they can't and the potential buyer has to make a choice to buy or not on the information they have.
If we wanted to change this it realistically could only be done by compulsion/legislation. I would not want to go down that route.

 

[jac]

A good point actually as I wasn't clear on that. So firstly I fully accept its a buyers market in the sense that sellers have to be flexible with prices at the moment (I think we can probably all agree on that).

What I meant by the system favouring sellers over buyers is with regards to risk. As a buyer (not dissimilar to a house in some respects) you have to make a decision with fairly limited information, especially without a sea trial. That (in my opinion) puts undue risk onto the buyer. If the buyer had a better way of assessing the facts (i.e. the true condition of the boat) they would be better placed to assess value.

Now, I'm not suggesting that is easy, I'm just saying it would be better for the buyer.



You raise some good points here. Firstly with regards to appointing the surveyor, I believe in Scotland this is done by the selling party (or agent) on property transactions and whenever people talk about it on here they seem to suggest it works quite well, so logically its seems that would be an approach to take.

No system is foolproof and of course you could have dishonesty creeping in, but you could even now, I don't see why (m)any surveyors would risk their job and reputation in order to try and make the broker a few extra pounds, even if they received a cut (not to say no one could, there is sometimes a rogue element, but it seems fairly unlikely).

As for time factor, another excellent point. Again I'd say how does it work in Scotland as a starter (I don't know)...but lets also accept that boats and houses are different and a year old survey on a house is probably more acceptable than on a boat. Then I think a refresher is realistically the only option, i.e. a survey-lite every x motnhs (6-12 presumably)?

Now of course that raises the costs and we get back to what I said originally, my proposals don't work at the moment, I'm merely saying the industry should (in my opinion) move in a certain direction to benefit the buyer (i.e. to reduce the chance of the buyer taking undue risk through the purchase process).

As for more details, well I'm just some guy on an internet forum trying to have a discussion about something, so I clearly don't have more!

Whats disappointing is when people refuse to accept just because someone has less knowledge their opinions are invalid, sometimes a neutral onlooker has no vested interests and can see things without the bias of owning a boat for example (for clarity I'm not referring to you here Resolution, I hope/assume you are genuinely engaging in debate here rather than sarcasm

Sorry but this comes across as naïve rubbish.

Of course every sustainable business needs to continuously improve and many do. With regard to brokers look at how the web has transformed marketing but when it comes to the sales process it needs to be grounded in practicalities. You even say yourself that your suggestions are impractical but wouldn't they be nice. Yes they are. But equally I would like to double my pay and have to do no real work - however my boss may think that impractical.

With regard to surveys being done by someone independent - very nice but if you think i'm going to spend £50 - £100k on a 2nd hand boat without getting a professional that I have chosen to have a look then you're sadly mistaken. IIRC this was tried in Engalnd for houses to speed the process and quickly dropped.

WRT sea trials. I'm confused here. You've been told many times that a sea trial is a standard option and clauses exist for it to be part of the deal. So if you want a sea trial - have one and if it shows the engine is carp - refuse the boat. You seem to want to have a test sail to see if you like the boat.

Going back to your analogy - I suppose you'd be quite happy to let people live in your house for a few days to see if they liked it before buying? Thought not.

As so many have tried to explain - a test sail ( as opposed to a sea trial) is a pointless exercise. Even if you could somehow weed out the tyrekickers, what are you expecting to learn? Beating with a fair tide and you may be impressed at how the boat has effortlessly made it's way to windward. or you may be put off because the motion was horrible as it was Wind over Tide and everyone hated it. However - it may have been better than the other boat on your shortlist.

The boat has horrible weather helm. Presumably you are sufficiently expert in rig trim to decide whether or not it is down to the set up of that boat as opposed to a design flaw. If it is a design flaw though, surely reviews / owners would have picked that up.

You might find out that she's short of handholds or that she doesn't work at a high heel but firstly any owner worth his salt will know that and will reef - probably explaining that as she has a large sail area to get her going in light winds - she needs reefing early. Secondly - how would you test for that if the day of your test sail was a F2-3. Would you come back when a F6 was forecast?

What about mooring. Will you be able to trial all the various combinations of sea / wind states to work out that the boat can't be moored astern.

Equipment hard to handle? Are you fit enough, does the winch just need stripping and cleaning or is it more serious.

I get that you're playing devils advocate but your whole argument seems to be that new people into the sport will take risks when buying that could be avoided when they know more. I agree, but I'm just not sure that your solutions will fix that, even if they could be implemented. AWBs of the same age / size / market segment are so similar in many respects that even test sailing two side by side will I think offer little illumination.

 

[vjmehra]

Sorry but this comes across as naïve rubbish.

Of course every sustainable business needs to continuously improve and many do. With regard to brokers look at how the web has transformed marketing but when it comes to the sales process it needs to be grounded in practicalities. You even say yourself that your suggestions are impractical but wouldn't they be nice. Yes they are. But equally I would like to double my pay and have to do no real work - however my boss may think that impractical.

With regard to surveys being done by someone independent - very nice but if you think i'm going to spend £50 - £100k on a 2nd hand boat without getting a professional that I have chosen to have a look then you're sadly mistaken. IIRC this was tried in Engalnd for houses to speed the process and quickly dropped.

WRT sea trials. I'm confused here. You've been told many times that a sea trial is a standard option and clauses exist for it to be part of the deal. So if you want a sea trial - have one and if it shows the engine is carp - refuse the boat. You seem to want to have a test sail to see if you like the boat.

Going back to your analogy - I suppose you'd be quite happy to let people live in your house for a few days to see if they liked it before buying? Thought not.

As so many have tried to explain - a test sail ( as opposed to a sea trial) is a pointless exercise. Even if you could somehow weed out the tyrekickers, what are you expecting to learn? Beating with a fair tide and you may be impressed at how the boat has effortlessly made it's way to windward. or you may be put off because the motion was horrible as it was Wind over Tide and everyone hated it. However - it may have been better than the other boat on your shortlist.

The boat has horrible weather helm. Presumably you are sufficiently expert in rig trim to decide whether or not it is down to the set up of that boat as opposed to a design flaw. If it is a design flaw though, surely reviews / owners would have picked that up.

You might find out that she's short of handholds or that she doesn't work at a high heel but firstly any owner worth his salt will know that and will reef - probably explaining that as she has a large sail area to get her going in light winds - she needs reefing early. Secondly - how would you test for that if the day of your test sail was a F2-3. Would you come back when a F6 was forecast?

What about mooring. Will you be able to trial all the various combinations of sea / wind states to work out that the boat can't be moored astern.

Equipment hard to handle? Are you fit enough, does the winch just need stripping and cleaning or is it more serious.

I get that you're playing devils advocate but your whole argument seems to be that new people into the sport will take risks when buying that could be avoided when they know more. I agree, but I'm just not sure that your solutions will fix that, even if they could be implemented. AWBs of the same age / size / market segment are so similar in many respects that even test sailing two side by side will I think offer little illumination.

My solutions may not work and aren't plausible right now, but I'm trying to get across the point that currently the market is stale and clearly run by people with no desire to evolve. Its important to debate these points otherwise nothing will change. Ignoring buyers for a second, are all sellers honestly happy with liquidity and the way their boats are marketed (generally I'm not suggesting every broker is equal)?

As for the test sail, yes I absolutely would want one, but to re-iterate again (and again and again) I appreciate due to time/cost issues that isn't plausible in 2016, that doesn't mean it isn't something to strive for as the market evolves. As a potential solution, what about the option to charter for a week for example, with the cost taken off the purchase price if you proceed, or absorbed by the buyer if you don't?

Anyway, in essence I appreciate my suggestions aren't cost effective now and maybe they never will be, they are however the best way I can think of to improve a flawed market.

 

[Lucky Duck]

So any boat on the market needs to be coded so it can chartered by any buyer who fancies a week's holiday and what happens if the buyer doesn't have acceptable qualifications?

 

[jac]

My solutions may not work and aren't plausible right now, but I'm trying to get across the point that currently the market is stale and clearly run by people with no desire to evolve. Its important to debate these points otherwise nothing will change. Ignoring buyers for a second, are all sellers honestly happy with liquidity and the way their boats are marketed (generally I'm not suggesting every broker is equal)?

As for the test sail, yes I absolutely would want one, but to re-iterate again (and again and again) I appreciate due to time/cost issues that isn't plausible in 2016, that doesn't mean it isn't something to strive for as the market evolves. As a potential solution, what about the option to charter for a week for example, with the cost taken off the purchase price if you proceed, or absorbed by the buyer if you don't?

Anyway, in essence I appreciate my suggestions aren't cost effective now and maybe they never will be, they are however the best way I can think of to improve a flawed market.

But liquidity is not down to the sales process. Liquidity is down to supply and demand being out of balance. I;m not sure how a testsail will work on that?

Your charter idea is a good one but not sure that it's practical. You mention that the costs should effectively be paid by the seller if he sells or the buyer if they don't buy. Fine for the basic costs of a charter but who will pay the thousands needed to get the boatr up to a standard to be MCA Coded?

And that is no different to now, If you're interested in a Bav 36 - go and charter one as part of your research.

You also assume the model is flawed.

Other than a a drop in numbers wanting to own boats, where is the evidence for your assumption?

 

[jac]

So any boat on the market needs to be coded so it can chartered by any buyer who fancies a week's holiday and what happens if the buyer doesn't have acceptable qualifications?

And WTF woould you pay thousands to code the boat when most sensible buyers won't need to charter it for a week to find out if they like it.

I suppose the latest suggestion would be not to code as it's not a proper charter. Can't see any loopholes in that waiting to be exploited by unscrupulous happy to send noobies off in dangerous boats.

 

[vjmehra]

But liquidity is not down to the sales process. Liquidity is down to supply and demand being out of balance. I;m not sure how a testsail will work on that?

Your charter idea is a good one but not sure that it's practical. You mention that the costs should effectively be paid by the seller if he sells or the buyer if they don't buy. Fine for the basic costs of a charter but who will pay the thousands needed to get the boatr up to a standard to be MCA Coded?

And that is no different to now, If you're interested in a Bav 36 - go and charter one as part of your research.

You also assume the model is flawed.

Other than a a drop in numbers wanting to own boats, where is the evidence for your assumption?

All fair questions...

Liquidity is a tricky concept to prove in any market, I'm theorising (and yep I can not prove this) that liquidity would be improved if the sales process was better. My logic is partly that new participants to the market (buyers) are put off by the undue risk they face when buying a second hand boat. For new boats its not an issue, but with used boats it is and with fewer buyers (relatively or in absolute terms not sure) it means the system sort of gets clogged as potentially those with the money to spend on more expensive boats can't as those lower down the pecking order aren't willing to pull the trigger.

Aside from that, just reading the general complaints about brokers (WHO I APPRECIATE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME AND SOME WILL OFFER A GREAT SERVICE BEFORE ANYONE JUMPS ON ME, sorry CAPS not aimed at you jac), it stands to reason that a more efficient process would improve liquidity.

However...I also appreciate we are in testing economic times and a huge factor is of course the economy/job security, so I'm not claiming this is a magical fix.

With regards to coding, yes you are correct there would have to be a legislation change for that to work, something along the lines of the broker being present during the sale and having sufficient insurance/safety equipment to cover likely scenarios.

Essentially I'm trying to shift all the risk onto the broker market here.

Again true, for an AWB, but for something not totally mainstream it can be very difficult to charter and almost impossible for a Mobo!

The model being flawed is more my opinion than an assumption, I believe it is flawed because:

1) It currently creates too much undue risk for the buyer
2) It doesn't allow the buyer to assess the appropriateness of the boat properly (sort of an extension of point 1)
3) Liquidity is reduced due to an inefficient sales process

All of the above are subjective, so evidence is tricky!

 

[maby]

I haven't bought many boats. I have sailed for almost half a century but I have kept boats for longish spells.

Now I am about to buy another, but I am wondering about the question of haggling over the price. Some guidance will be very welcome!

I particularly dislike using a survey to get the price down, but I do think that brokers usually add to the price, perhaps expecting a buyer to haggle.

I think it is nicer to make an offer, subject to survey, and to make it clear that the survey will simply be to decide "yes" or "no", with no further arguments about the price. This also makes the surveyor's job easier.

What do people think?

We have never used the results of a survey to drive the price down. We have taken the results of a survey and drawn up a list of jobs we would want to see carried out by a professional boat yard before we were prepared to go ahead with the purchase - at the price agreed before the survey was carried out. Though I have to say that no seller has ever agreed to this approach and we have pulled out of the sale on the grounds that the boat was not in the condition that it was claimed to be in.

 

[jac]

Now i'm really confused

SO you now want the broker to come along on a weeks charter with the potential new owner? That may work on a 60 foot plus boat where there is space but if you're buying a 35-45 foot boat you are doing so as you need the space - will you be able to fit a broker in?

More to the point - how much should he be paid for accompanying you? He could be working so is loosing out on sales and will have to spend a week away from his family. ( appreciate it could just be a weekend charter but principle remains if not the scale) WHy would he do that when he can just sell to someone who knows what the yare doing?

If he is going as some sort of "insurance" he would also need to be shown the ropes "literally" of the boat before he goes. 2nd hand boats will have had loads of after market additions so none will be the same. How is the poor broker supposed to know how to empty the holding tank at sea?

He would also surely need a commercial YM and endorsement. That will add to the costs which have to be passed on. You could of course take along a professional skipper as owners representative which may get the broker off the hook.

You've also not addressed the additional costs. Chartering something like a Bav 36 will cost about £1500 for a weekend in the solent . About double that for the week. Assuming that the buyer and seller agree to include that as part of the sales price, then how would you suggest the other costs are apportioned. For example - I've seen ball park figures of between £5k and £10k needed to get an AWB up to cat 2. Who pays that? Great if the buyer does but if he doesn't like it - he's now £10k down. As the boat owner - thanks very much. if the boat owner pays it - that's £10k out of his pocket.

As for your 3 points - I'm afraid don't recognise them.

1) WHat risk ? - Get a survey, research the boat, get some experts in to test the equipment, speak to owners / ex owners.
2) as above - the only risk that remains is that the bpat isn't suitable for what you want to do / you don't like it in practice. - Charter the class for a week.
3)I think the process is fairly efficient - offer, deposit, survey, sea trial, complete. it can happen in a few days if the stars align. If boatyards / surveyors etc are busy then maybe longer but the sales process is fine and that's the bit you seem to be focussed on. The issues are in the market generally with an ageing ( and probably soon to be shrinking) demographic into sailing. Those that do want to sail - can now charter somewhere warm for 2 weeks for the same cost as keeping a 20 year old boat up a muddy UK river.

 

[vjmehra]

Now i'm really confused

SO you now want the broker to come along on a weeks charter with the potential new owner? That may work on a 60 foot plus boat where there is space but if you're buying a 35-45 foot boat you are doing so as you need the space - will you be able to fit a broker in?

More to the point - how much should he be paid for accompanying you? He could be working so is loosing out on sales and will have to spend a week away from his family. ( appreciate it could just be a weekend charter but principle remains if not the scale) WHy would he do that when he can just sell to someone who knows what the yare doing?

If he is going as some sort of "insurance" he would also need to be shown the ropes "literally" of the boat before he goes. 2nd hand boats will have had loads of after market additions so none will be the same. How is the poor broker supposed to know how to empty the holding tank at sea?

He would also surely need a commercial YM and endorsement. That will add to the costs which have to be passed on. You could of course take along a professional skipper as owners representative which may get the broker off the hook.

You've also not addressed the additional costs. Chartering something like a Bav 36 will cost about £1500 for a weekend in the solent . About double that for the week. Assuming that the buyer and seller agree to include that as part of the sales price, then how would you suggest the other costs are apportioned. For example - I've seen ball park figures of between £5k and £10k needed to get an AWB up to cat 2. Who pays that? Great if the buyer does but if he doesn't like it - he's now £10k down. As the boat owner - thanks very much. if the boat owner pays it - that's £10k out of his pocket.

As for your 3 points - I'm afraid don't recognise them.

1) WHat risk ? - Get a survey, research the boat, get some experts in to test the equipment, speak to owners / ex owners.
2) as above - the only risk that remains is that the bpat isn't suitable for what you want to do / you don't like it in practice. - Charter the class for a week.
3)I think the process is fairly efficient - offer, deposit, survey, sea trial, complete. it can happen in a few days if the stars align. If boatyards / surveyors etc are busy then maybe longer but the sales process is fine and that's the bit you seem to be focussed on. The issues are in the market generally with an ageing ( and probably soon to be shrinking) demographic into sailing. Those that do want to sail - can now charter somewhere warm for 2 weeks for the same cost as keeping a 20 year old boat up a muddy UK river.

Yep, you're correct on the week long chartering aspect, that wouldn't be viable. I initially was thinking of a trial (as opposed to test) sail where the broker accompanied, for longer it becomes horrendously complicated so probably a non-starter.

As for the risks, the key one is the lack of a definitive way of looking for charges/liens against a boat, I was stunned when I found out that you effectively never know, that's ridiculous in its current state.

The other one is coming back to the test sail, not all boats are the same, so there is always risk, I feel the balance is in favour of the seller in that the buyer can't walk away if they simply don't like a boat they've not had the opportunity to sail before.

Anyway, we disagree, but at least you put up some good reasoned points about why my ideas may not work, rather than simply getting angry, so I appreciate the debate!