Resolution
Well-Known Member
Are you a phone-hacking tabloid reporter in real life, Daka?
Enough of this sensationalist ****, I am out of this subject.
Enough of this sensationalist ****, I am out of this subject.
Yacht Brokers / Dealers and safeguarding clients money- Time for legislation
- Thread starter DAKA
- Start date
rubberduck
Well-Known Member
Perhaps now is the time for those arguing this point to declare any vested interest. (Boat sales etc) In existence or planned.
For anyone involved in this industry, the threat of risk, perceived or otherwise, forms a barrier between your business & the customer. Remove those barriers & watch business double.
For anyone involved in this industry, the threat of risk, perceived or otherwise, forms a barrier between your business & the customer. Remove those barriers & watch business double.
gjgm
Well-Known Member
I think that is nonsense. Using a broker is only one option, usually with some fair expense. Plenty of people sell without using a broker, and very few people end up with an issue with a broker. In fact.. other than Daka, I havent noticed a stream of forumites suggesting that they have first (or second) hand knowledge of any problems.
I'd suggest the biggest threat to business is the fees.
Last edited:
Nigelpickin
Well-Known Member
meh
gjgm
Well-Known Member
Point 1.. sorry you have lost me ????
Point 2 Rogues, surely
Point 3. Both parties in effect choose if they wish to deal through a particular dealer/broker etc.
Point/question 4.. regulated by whom ?
gjgm
Well-Known Member
I thought you might say FCA.
Then I think we are back to the point that there has to be enough of an issue that the public need protecting, and that FCA involvement would achieve that.
0800 111 6768
Then I think we are back to the point that there has to be enough of an issue that the public need protecting, and that FCA involvement would achieve that.
0800 111 6768
rubberduck
Well-Known Member
???????????????????
How is it nonsense, all I said was if you have barrier's business does not thrive. We all know there are other options but for brokers trying to atract business, removing barriers certainly helps. Princess & EBY seem to have worked this one out, why cant you ????????
gjgm
Well-Known Member
Maybe you were making a generic comment, but otherwise we are discussing the perceived financial risks of using a broker.
Given an aweful lot of people already use a broker,I personally think it is nonsense that removing ( a possible) perceived risk (and it isnt even agreed there is such a perception) would lead to a doubling in broking business.
Why? Firstly I cant think that brokers have less than 50pct of the second hand boat business available to them (you did say double, right?), and secondly there isnt alot to indicate many people are concerned about the risks- at least not to the extent they wont use a broker.
Still, if you simply meant that removing obstacles to doing business will lead to an increase in business, fair enough.
P4Paul
Well-Known Member
I am with you on this, 4200 active members on this forum, (125k members in total) and only 29 feel this is a problem.
Maybe the answer is to adopt the house purchase model and instruct your own solicitor to protect your money on your behalf.
Last edited:
rafiki_
Well-Known Member
I would be more than happy to use Adam Baker from Global Yachts anytime. Really knowledgeable, been in the business 30+ years, sensible, and an all round nice guy and good egg.
gjgm
Well-Known Member
Or 41 out of 125k have any opinion to express.
For me, I am perfectly happy if someone comes up with a viable, workable, low/no cost alternative that becomes the norm. Just dont ask me to believe it it is out of urgent necessity due to rampart fraud.
Unfortunately, after however many similar threads. no one seems to have managed to establish adequate support or a viable means to achieve that.
Which is probably why we continue as we are.
rubberduck
Well-Known Member
I thought we were discussing the dangers of using some brokers, not all, & how to identify the bad ones.
I am not suggesting that you can double the amount of brokerage business in the UK, merely that the good ones could take a larger share of the market by offering comfort unavailable from those either unwilling or financially unable to do so.
gjgm
Well-Known Member
We end up with the same old point, thread after thread.. quite what is the extent of the problem?
As with any walk in life, it pays to pay a bit of attention and be reasonably comfortable who you deal with, and accept there might be some risks and take that responsibility yourself.
Some people are very risk averse and have a zero tolerance..something must be done,something must be resolved, someone must protect me.
Other regulars on the forum have modified how they deal with a broker to reduce a risk they are uncomfortable with;many go with the flow, and, lets be frank, the vast amjority of deals must go through without a hitch or there wouldnt be any brokers left.
Yes, unfortuantaely, things can go wrong; there are dishonest people. The FCA cant cure that, just look at the number of people they fine and close down. In the end, it comes down to the law and prison, and yes, just like many many other crimes, people can lose out.
If you can make things financially safer, then well done, but the coccasional faud might not be enough to change boat broking, and I havent after several years seen anything workable.
So, yes, there will be another fruad, and then you will doubtless start another I told you so thread ...If you cant get the broking associations behind you (and maybe you can) I cant see where you think the support is going to come from.
As with any walk in life, it pays to pay a bit of attention and be reasonably comfortable who you deal with, and accept there might be some risks and take that responsibility yourself.
Some people are very risk averse and have a zero tolerance..something must be done,something must be resolved, someone must protect me.
Other regulars on the forum have modified how they deal with a broker to reduce a risk they are uncomfortable with;many go with the flow, and, lets be frank, the vast amjority of deals must go through without a hitch or there wouldnt be any brokers left.
Yes, unfortuantaely, things can go wrong; there are dishonest people. The FCA cant cure that, just look at the number of people they fine and close down. In the end, it comes down to the law and prison, and yes, just like many many other crimes, people can lose out.
If you can make things financially safer, then well done, but the coccasional faud might not be enough to change boat broking, and I havent after several years seen anything workable.
So, yes, there will be another fruad, and then you will doubtless start another I told you so thread ...If you cant get the broking associations behind you (and maybe you can) I cant see where you think the support is going to come from.
jonic
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
nickf
Well-Known Member
Apologies if I have missed this but when a "Yacht Broker" state that they are "qualified" what does this mean? What qualifications have they got?
Tranona
Well-Known Member
You can get the membership requirements from the ABYA website.
Observer
Well-Known Member
Daka, you are hopelessly confused about the legal/contractual frameworks that support the transactions you are discussing. You naively propose that a 'one size fits all' client account solution will provide fail safe security for all of the many risks that are an inherent part of any and all buying and selling transactions. There is no easy panacea.
A yacht dealer's customer is not the same as a yacht broker's client and a brokered transaction leads to potential risks for buyer and seller, each of whom has a very different relationship with the broker.
You blithely believe, because you can imagine a 'solution', that it must exist and be practical and economical to implement. You are wrong on all three counts. There is no easy solution that will cover all transactions; a simple partial solution (genuine client accounts operated by honest brokers) already exists and works well; a complex, wider solution would be impractical to devise and implement and would be expensive. Well-informed players would baulk at the cost (why should they pick up the bill for the naive and foolish) and without high penetration any scheme will probably not succeed.
The simple truth is that buyers and sellers must look after their own interests and not expect to be immune from the consequences of their own foolishness/gullibility/carelessness. Common sense is all that is needed. That should tell you whether you have sufficient knowledge and expertise to assess and complete a transaction unassisted. If not, get help from someone who does - a reputable solicitor.
A yacht dealer's customer is not the same as a yacht broker's client and a brokered transaction leads to potential risks for buyer and seller, each of whom has a very different relationship with the broker.
You blithely believe, because you can imagine a 'solution', that it must exist and be practical and economical to implement. You are wrong on all three counts. There is no easy solution that will cover all transactions; a simple partial solution (genuine client accounts operated by honest brokers) already exists and works well; a complex, wider solution would be impractical to devise and implement and would be expensive. Well-informed players would baulk at the cost (why should they pick up the bill for the naive and foolish) and without high penetration any scheme will probably not succeed.
The simple truth is that buyers and sellers must look after their own interests and not expect to be immune from the consequences of their own foolishness/gullibility/carelessness. Common sense is all that is needed. That should tell you whether you have sufficient knowledge and expertise to assess and complete a transaction unassisted. If not, get help from someone who does - a reputable solicitor.
Last edited:
Observer
Well-Known Member
You have no "depth" of knowledge whatever. You have an array of fragments of knowledge that you attempt to piece together in the belief that they are all part of one picture. They are not. There are many different pictures within an overall tapestry, which is the legal and contractual framework. Some fragments are common to all the pictures; others are unique to one; yet others appear to be found in two or more but are in fact subtly different.
I am not a qualified lawyer but I deal with high value finance and leasing contracts daily, always with the perspective of protecting the financial interests of one party or the other. However, I know the limits of my knowledge and, where needed, I buy in external expertise.
If jfm or benjenbav (who are qualified lawyers) see this and can be bothered to respond (I'm guessing jfm has been following this but has been unable to summon the will to once again spend time correcting the ill-informed gobbledygook that appears here), I am confident they will endorse what I have said.
http://www.pseudotheos.com/view_object.php?object_id=707
Last edited:
Observer
Well-Known Member
Daka. You may regard the post that follows as rude. If so, then I regret that it has to appear thay way. Perhaps I have been overly harsh but perhaps not. As far as I am concerned, this is plain speaking and my honest view of what you have written in this thread, and others on the same subject matter.
1. The fact that you came across a couple of bankers who were clearly ignorant about how trust funds and client accounts ought to be operated doesn't mean that they can't or won't be operated properly in most cases. However, it's not the way that the bank operates the account that matters - the bank only acts on instructions. It is the instructions given by the account holder (trustee) that ensure that client money remains protected. It is very concerning that bank officers who ought to know better may have led well intentioned and honest businessmen to operate a client account in a way that prejudiced the client security that was intended to exist, but there is no evidence that this is a widespread problem. It may have been that the account holder did not give sufficiently clear information about the businesss circumstances [edit]or that the business circumstances do not actually support a true client account structure. For example, the company I work for regularly handles substantial sums that are intended to be paid to another party for the purposes of a finance contract. In a broad sense, this is not our money (or may be only partly our money) but it is not "trust" money either. As a way of conveniently separating this money from our "own" funds, we operate a separate account that is called a client account but, in a true legal sense, is not. We also operate a number of separate accounts that are true "client accounts". On a daily basis, I have to think about whether funds received or expected are "our funds", "client funds" or "quasi client funds" and direct them to be allocated accordingly. [edit]One point you should be very clear on is that simply designating a particular parcel of funds as "client money" doesn't make it client money if there is no supporting trust (which could be an implied trust).
2. If a client account has been set up as a genuine trust account and it is operated properly then any security that the bank holds from the account holder (trustee) to secure the account holder's debts simply cannot bite on that account. So this statement that you made above:
is misleading to the point of seriously damaging to honest businesses. The bank cannot take security over it simply because it wants to and could not gain security over it if, as a matter of fact, it is actually "trust money". It could be misappropriated by the trustee and the bank may (note "may") end up having rights over it, but that is not the same thing.
3. You bang on about regulation or "compulsory registration" as a (complete or partial) solution to something or other. What does that mean? Registration of what, with what, by what, for what purpose? What does "fit and proper" mean, exactly? What is the penalty for non-compliance? Who pays for the administration? How is this different from what already exists (the YBDA). Your statements on these questions are no more than incoherent rambling.
4. You suggest that eligibility to trade (as a broker or as a dealer or both?) should be judged on the basis of filed accounts. Do you really believe that the honesty, intergity, trustworthiness and creditworthiness of a business can be judged from a set of accounts. Do you believe that a strong balance sheet or £x000 issued capital assures correct handing of trust monies?
What do you do about sole traders and partnerships? Or new companies that have not filed accounts? Or are late filing accounts? Or have other business activities? Who will be making these judgements? What are the criteria? Who is responsible if a business fails (a) because the judgement was made incorrectly; or (b) it was made correctly but the business failed anyway?
5. How do you distinguish between (a) brokers (b) dealers and (c) combined broker/dealers. Have you though through the different business models and how any proposed solution that 'guarantees' security could actually work in each case?
6. I guarantee to you that jfm believes you are totally wrong. He pretty much said that in post #4. I am also 99.99% sure he simply can't be bothered to keep repeating what he has thoughtfully and painstakingly written in the past to correct the gobbledegook you post, and that's why he has not posted any more since then. I am not writing this now for your benefit or in the expectation of shifting your views because you appear completely intransigent and recalcitrant on these matters. I am writing this because there may be readers out there who actually believe there is any serious validity to your overall view on this. You do have some valid views on individual pieces but your appreciation of the overall tapestry is hopelessly confused and jumbled and you are seriously badly informed on many important matters of law, contract and banking. So much so that it would be a massive exercise to dissect and properly explain where you are right, partly right, or just completely wrong. There are all sorts of nuances in these matters that you simply don't see and (it seems) don't try to see. You simply persist in wilful ignorance and misunderstanding.
[Edited by Admin - Please refrain from personal attacks against users]
1. The fact that you came across a couple of bankers who were clearly ignorant about how trust funds and client accounts ought to be operated doesn't mean that they can't or won't be operated properly in most cases. However, it's not the way that the bank operates the account that matters - the bank only acts on instructions. It is the instructions given by the account holder (trustee) that ensure that client money remains protected. It is very concerning that bank officers who ought to know better may have led well intentioned and honest businessmen to operate a client account in a way that prejudiced the client security that was intended to exist, but there is no evidence that this is a widespread problem. It may have been that the account holder did not give sufficiently clear information about the businesss circumstances [edit]or that the business circumstances do not actually support a true client account structure. For example, the company I work for regularly handles substantial sums that are intended to be paid to another party for the purposes of a finance contract. In a broad sense, this is not our money (or may be only partly our money) but it is not "trust" money either. As a way of conveniently separating this money from our "own" funds, we operate a separate account that is called a client account but, in a true legal sense, is not. We also operate a number of separate accounts that are true "client accounts". On a daily basis, I have to think about whether funds received or expected are "our funds", "client funds" or "quasi client funds" and direct them to be allocated accordingly. [edit]One point you should be very clear on is that simply designating a particular parcel of funds as "client money" doesn't make it client money if there is no supporting trust (which could be an implied trust).
2. If a client account has been set up as a genuine trust account and it is operated properly then any security that the bank holds from the account holder (trustee) to secure the account holder's debts simply cannot bite on that account. So this statement that you made above:
is misleading to the point of seriously damaging to honest businesses. The bank cannot take security over it simply because it wants to and could not gain security over it if, as a matter of fact, it is actually "trust money". It could be misappropriated by the trustee and the bank may (note "may") end up having rights over it, but that is not the same thing.
3. You bang on about regulation or "compulsory registration" as a (complete or partial) solution to something or other. What does that mean? Registration of what, with what, by what, for what purpose? What does "fit and proper" mean, exactly? What is the penalty for non-compliance? Who pays for the administration? How is this different from what already exists (the YBDA). Your statements on these questions are no more than incoherent rambling.
4. You suggest that eligibility to trade (as a broker or as a dealer or both?) should be judged on the basis of filed accounts. Do you really believe that the honesty, intergity, trustworthiness and creditworthiness of a business can be judged from a set of accounts. Do you believe that a strong balance sheet or £x000 issued capital assures correct handing of trust monies?
What do you do about sole traders and partnerships? Or new companies that have not filed accounts? Or are late filing accounts? Or have other business activities? Who will be making these judgements? What are the criteria? Who is responsible if a business fails (a) because the judgement was made incorrectly; or (b) it was made correctly but the business failed anyway?
5. How do you distinguish between (a) brokers (b) dealers and (c) combined broker/dealers. Have you though through the different business models and how any proposed solution that 'guarantees' security could actually work in each case?
6. I guarantee to you that jfm believes you are totally wrong. He pretty much said that in post #4. I am also 99.99% sure he simply can't be bothered to keep repeating what he has thoughtfully and painstakingly written in the past to correct the gobbledegook you post, and that's why he has not posted any more since then. I am not writing this now for your benefit or in the expectation of shifting your views because you appear completely intransigent and recalcitrant on these matters. I am writing this because there may be readers out there who actually believe there is any serious validity to your overall view on this. You do have some valid views on individual pieces but your appreciation of the overall tapestry is hopelessly confused and jumbled and you are seriously badly informed on many important matters of law, contract and banking. So much so that it would be a massive exercise to dissect and properly explain where you are right, partly right, or just completely wrong. There are all sorts of nuances in these matters that you simply don't see and (it seems) don't try to see. You simply persist in wilful ignorance and misunderstanding.
[Edited by Admin - Please refrain from personal attacks against users]
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Following on from Observer's comments, you really should not waste your time doing this sort of thing. You seem to have little grasp of the issues involved, nor any clear idea of what you want to "prove". You seem to see the boating trade as full of rogues who are doing everything they can to take advantage of naive boaters. Seems though that it is not an opinion shared by many other people - just 29 anonymous people showed some support for your proposals by ticking a box and less than a handful actually voicing any kind of positive agreement. Only 2 people, Observer and me have responded to your detailed proposals, and both negative.
Do not see what you have to gain from looking at business structures. Businesses are permitted by law to operate in a number of different ways and there are many perfectly sound reasons why an individual or a business organisation might control different legal entities - but it does not indicate any wrongdoing, either planned or actual. There is no legal requirement to have a specific amount of "capital" over the minimum in a business, only a legal requirement not to trade while insolvent. Lack of "capital", however one defines it is not an indicator of insolvency. So, there is nothing "amazing" about companies showing low levels of capital.
If you really want to see how fraudsters operate I suggest you read p6 of last Sunday's Telegraph. Report of one Alan Crickmore, solicitor, who was sentenced to 8 years in jail on November 28 at Southwark Crown Court for stealing just shy of £2m from clients over a 13 year period. Remember he comes from a profession with high qualifications requirements and a rigorous (?) selection and monitoring system. He was also the Gloucestershire coroner on a salary of £60k. Given your interest and faith in "compensation" schemes you will be pleased to see that £116,645 (out of £1,985,097) has been paid out by the Solicitors Compensation Fund - even though he was suspended in December 2010. Despite all this he is still a solicitor, although there is a hearing planned for April 2014 to consider his suspension.
Certainly puts your "flasher" example into perspective!
ps I wrote this before I saw Post #59 - which I agree with completely.
Please can this be the last post on this matter?
Last edited: