Monday, May 04, 2009
End of the btl boom
ThisWasMoney: Anthea Turner and Grant Bovey go for broke - again
In a way, well done to Grant for having sc£@#ed a few thousand BTLetters (and his cleaner)! You've got to admire these entrepreneurs who make £billions out of hot air.
Posted by confused76 @ 07:03 PM (1264 views) Add Comment
35 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. crunchy said...
If it was not for the kind of culture we have today these two ordinary people would be running a hair/nail studio in the Elephant and Castle right now and holding on by there ........................!
2. cyril said...
What a lovely couple. Now there's no chance of anyone getting their money back, someone might exact a bit of revenge. Let's hope so.
3. str 2007 said...
True Crunchy
They are the epitomy of all that's wrong.
I don't have a problem with people being successful, but it never seems to be enough for some and greed gets the better of them.
The last thing I'd want is a communist society, but you have to ask questions about how we go about things when individuals are able to leverage themselves up so much that the first sign of trouble spells disaster for not only them but everyone else as well.
Perhaps if there were some international rule on a companies leverage it would help curb the boom and bust economies we seem to be in.
If companies had to grow more orgaincally, firstly they'd be expanding on firmer footings if there were a down turn and secondly without such a rush to have the 'next' product out or next branch open etc we would have a slower but more stable economy.
Oh well, this is the way everyone seems to want it, who am I to interfere.
4. Welshie1701 said...
But, but, but......
I thought he was sitting on millions of pounds of "unrealized profits" and would sue anybody who said otherwise.
What a t0sser!
5. crunchy said...
3. str 2007
Contary to my own interests I agree in principle, but who then gets the leg up, the investment. Who chooses the judgement panel?
It's all leverage to me, but I may be wrong.
6. crunchy said...
Chicken and egg!
7. str 2007 said...
Crunchy
The owner of the company decides how to raise and how much finance he takes on by working to a rule book (internationally agreed) that stops companies taking on too much debt.
If an idea is so good, but equally so big that it requires enormous capital to get it off the ground then perhpas 2 or 3 large companies have to join forces.
In my limited experience though, really huge projects aren't profitable anyway and perhaps some sort of pre-agreed ratio of levergae would stifle a few projects. But equally may well stop alot of wasted money.
A perfect current example is Fiat looking to take over Chrysler and Vauxaul/Opel. I don't know the full ins and outs but I do suggest it will all end in tears as Fiat I don't believe are hugely profitable themselves.
So more money will be borrowed and another round of of bailouts from governments in a few years time willl ensue.
And it will be because Fiat were leant too much money.
No doubt Fiat are convincing their financiers that economy of scale will help reduce unit costs. But really they'll just produce another load of cars there isn't really a market for (unless they're sold below cost or about 1/2 the price BMW or Audi would charge and get for their equivalent product).
I'm all for true market forces, my problem is people interfere with the market forces when they've gone wrong, at great expense, instead of having some sort of basic framework to stop them going wrong (or at least reduce the risk) in the first place.
8. crunchy said...
Str.. that's a good point. Would this allocated/managed money go to all worthy companies, if so I agree.
I feel there lies the problem. There is always a conflict of interest on whatever level that may be..........."my problem is people interfere with the market forces when they've gone wrong." crunch-lol.
9. str 2007 said...
Crunchy
I wasn't aprticularly seeing it as allocated/managed money, more case of having a standardised ratio of debt against t/o and profit.
That does already exists in company accounts. But should more attention be paid to that figure ?
I sense it should.
10. crunchy said...
What about unproductive years or disasters. How would it work then. It's a great idea, but as with so many concepts it's hard to get them to work, especialy in the complex world of commerce. You are pro free market but this idea seems a little in congress. I understand your point, but I just can't see how it would work. Again I feel it important to mention that there may be political conflicts of interest.
11. crunchy said...
Let say I had a start up company with huge potential but low turnover due to under investment/capital what would happen then with ratios?
12. Crunchy said...
The potential of a company can't be quantified. That's where things start to get complicated I feel.
13. crunchy said...
The potential of a new company can't be quantified. That's the complication. Do you stunt the growth of that company or do you force the owner to sell out to a corporate.
14. crunchy said...
opps....#9 incongruous not in congress!
15. Kara Gee said...
Yuckkkk.......What awful people Bovey and Turner sound. Motivated by fame and greed. Lovely! Lets just hope no other businesses are suckered into investing into any more of their projects.
16. str 2007 said...
Crunchy, sorry I should've signed off last night - got distracted by little ones waking up etc.
I guess in my Eutopia companies start and grow more slowly and yes seek investment (real money) for development etc. Clearly there's not a problem with borrowing some money, I just sense there's too much being borrowed leaving that 'good idea' as you put under as much threat in an economic down turn as with my model.
In years of hardship banks seem to pull the plug on loans because they suddenly see the imbalance between turnover and profit against outstanding debt.
Whereas if the company had taken a little longer to expand and borrowed a little less then perhaps it would have been more able to continue to develop through the lean years.
Clearly, when the world is such a small place there has to be an international agreement otherwise loosing out to competition becomes a big issue.
17. crunchy said...
I agree with you. The only problem I have with it is that most inovation comes from individuals not corporations who tend to get lazy and lack passion and vision. With your model v politics there would really have to be a big shift in the masses buying into this. There would also have to be reform in pensions to kerb the short term (riding bubbles is my pension) gain mentality, otherwise the party reforming this would never get elected.
Now that leaves the Stock Market?
18. crunchy said...
This is obviously where most of the investment money is derived and in some cases this is where the overload comes from.
19. str 2007 said...
Wouldn't my 'model' make the stock market a less volatile and potentially safer place to invest ?
Perhaps not such short term huge gains as can be achieved currently.
Also, wouldn't it be better that as a nation we invested 'actual' money in our stock markets and companies to a greater extent than we do, instead of ever more expensive houses ?
20. inbreda said...
"clients had to buy the company furniture pack, with the sofas 'designed by Anthea'. " - wonder how she managed that?!?! errrrmmm, '4 legs and some soft stuff which I think I'll put on top for people to sit on'??
"She was paid £1m a year by GMTV" WTF!?!?!?!?!!!!! This is similar to jonathon ross salary. both talentless twerps. Why do the TV companies do this sort of thing? Is it a case of who you know, not how good you really are?
"We're ordinary Middle England and, like a lot of those people, we've taken a hit." - middle england?? Middle earth more like! Sanctimonious tart.
21. str 2007 said...
Kara Gee
Get a password from admin then you can post instantly.
You're quite right and it's a pity so many loose only for Grant Bovey to still be holding onto multi million pond assets.
22. crunchy said...
str, I feel that there are powers at work that just love the volitility. That would have to stop dead. That I feel is the fly in the ointment.
You are making total sense to me, and yes we would all be better off in the long run. The problem is in the all instead of the few.
As well as financial gains for these few there is also so much power in reaction to this volitility that is feeding on itself. A vicious circle!
23. str 2007 said...
Inbreda
TV hosts and footballers. Not sure how any of these ridiculous salaries can actually be justified.
At least the likes of Valentino Rossi (Moto GP) actually risks his neck to entertain me, that at least part justifies his £25+m a year.
24. crunchy said...
Or shouid I say a vicious cycle.
25. str 2007 said...
Very true
26. crunchy said...
The pension problem? Well!
27. str 2007 said...
Well it won't be sorted by people renting, and in fact that makes the problem twice as bad as they have to find accomodation income aswell as everyday expenses during retirement.
We're not just cooking up a huge problem as people have seen pension pots wiped out several times in the last 20 years and hence now don't bother investing in stocks and shares, but the pension pot required for those planning to rent long term needs to be twice the size than it would have been if they'd bought a house with a repayment mortgage.
28. crunchy said...
I guess it's all about robbing from Peter to give to Paul for now. No long term sense. I have said before that Britian is eating itself from within on here and this is just one example. It is a shame that so much wealth=influence is held by the few.
Now that makes me think about where all this is going. It has to go somewhere. Will CHANGE be for our benifit? It would sure make CHANGE.
29. str 2007 said...
I know there's a conspiracy about the elite causing all this chaos.
What's intriguing is how they are currently gaining as destruction seems to be all around.
Stock makets off 30% house prices off 20-30% depending where you are.
Gold up but been in a bear market for the last 6-8 weeks.
If Peter is being robbed by Paul, it's not immediately obvious (to me anyway) where Paul is putting all the funds he's stolen.
The BTL theft of property from the next generation was an obvious example of transfer of wealth.
If this current bust and downturn was orchestrated, it doesn't appear to have been done too well as the money seems to be vanishing on all fronts.
30. str 2007 said...
BTW Crunchy
Did yoiu have an opinion on the current stock market rises ?
Seems incredible to me that all problems are now sorted in such a short period of time.
My gut feeling says this is a suck in before more significant falls. But that isn't based on any fact, just seems too early to be recovering strongly.
31. crunchy said...
More manipulation I think. I dont follow this market too much. It messes with my system that does not give a hoot for such projections or expectations.
If pushed I would say it is that volitility I was writing about earlier. Keeping to host alive!
32. crunchy said...
Keeping "the" host alive. Must concentrate. lol
33. crunchy said...
29. str 2007 said...If this current bust and downturn was orchestrated, it doesn't appear to have been done too well as the money seems to be vanishing on all fronts.
Money does not disapear unless burnt. Money is transfered and in some cases hiden for want of more to hide.
If you can control market reaction you can benifit. The reaction has to be there otherwise manipulation does not work.
Fear and greed are powerful motivators.
34. str 2007 said...
Keeping the host alive - I like that analogy.
35. crunchy said...
Remember what happened to the markets before the first US bailout?
Now that is power. One can cut that whichever way one likes, but that spoke volumes to me.
A faint indeed!