Kejar ptp

Showing posts with label money. Show all posts

Never mind the bankers...

While we were all getting worked up about the size of bankers' bonuses and whether or not these represented the payment of obscene amounts of money, we seem to have been taking our eye off the ball...(pun intended)

Monday last week marked the closure of the football transfer window, and some of the sums of money changing hands made bankers' bonuses look like petty cash!

Last year, Chelsea reported a loss of around £70 million, and yet they were able to pay £50 million to 'buy' Fernando Torres from Liverpool and £20 million for Benfica's David Luiz.

This was of course payrolled by Roman Abramovitz whose estimated fortune is around $11,200,000,000 which is a lot of wonga in any currency. I worked out that at the UK's paultry interest rates, that could earn him around £100 million a year in a building society! So let's face it, £70 million is nothing to him!

But does this make it right?

My regular reader will know that I am not a football fan. In fact, I consider it to be a boring game which is just a surrogate for tribal warfare. Nevertheless, even if I was the greatest fan in the world I would have to question whether you could ever justify paying £50 million plus an huge salary just to employ a bloke to kick a ball around a field. On that basis, what's a consultant surgeon worth?

This week, the European FA issued a statement saying that it was considering barring any club who posted a loss three years in a row from playing in the Champion's League. On that basis, Chelsea would be ineligible. Almost immediately on this being pointed out, they modified the statement to 'any club which was insolvent' which would let Chelsea back in because of it's sugar daddy owner.

And who says money doesn't talk.

But the most obscene thing about all this is that these ridiculous transfer figures can only result in one thing : higher ticket prices. So at the end of the day, it's the ordinary fan who loses out...

Your home as an ATM

A load of old bollocks has been spouted recently on the Biased Broadcasting Corporation about how the current generation regard the so called 'Baby Boomers' who turn 65 this year.

Apparently the youngsters resent the boomers because they have been able to get a cash rich retirement by cashing in the equity in their houses and thus are now spending their kids inheritance.

Furthermore, they resent the fact that we had a house price boom and they haven't got one of their own.

Well, I'm here to set them straight.

Let's compare 1965 with 2005 with regard to buying your own home :

1965 : There are a limitted number of building societies who lend mortgages in order to buy a home
2005 : There are hundred of lenders. It's a competitive market.

1965 : Don't even think of asking for a mortgage unless you have been saving with this society for 2 years
2005 : How much do you want?

1965 : Have you saved at least a 10% deposit?
2005 : Would you like a 110% mortgage or perhaps something larger?

1965 : How much do you earn? How much does your partner earn?
2005 : Please fill in the self certification form.

1965 : This is the rate you pay
2005 : Who is offering the best deal?

1965 : It is generally accepted that married couples will need two incomes to afford to buy a house
2005 : Single people regard the right to own a home as an inalienable human right!

1965 : I can't afford a house here, so I'll have to move further out to a cheaper area
2005 : I should have a right to buy a house in my home town!!

Now I am the first to admit that since the credit crunch, things have got tougher. But just think about it - it's still easier than it was in our day to get a mortgage BUT why the hell do you think that you have a right to be able to buy a home were you have always lived without sufficient income to cover the mortgage and without having to save a deposit?? Get fucking real, will you?!?

Here's the reason we have managed to build up the retirement fund that you resent us having - it's because we didn't use our homes as a cash point machine. Let's illustrate this with a simple example :

You buy a house for £200,000 on a 120% mortgage of £240,000
You spend the £40,000 surplus on supplementing your income, buying a new car, eating out every night, buying designer clobber and going on holiday
After 2 years, the house value has risen to £240,000, so you remortgage at £280,000 and use the surplus £40,000 etc,etc.
After another 2 years, your house is worth £280,000, so you remortgage etc, etc.

And that, in a nutshell, is why you will never be able to do what we did. You cannot accumulate equity in your home if you are continually remortgaging and spending it to subsidise your lifestyle. You can't have the money AND spend it...

We never had that option and whilst house prices are depressed, neither do you. Which is why some of you are in the financial shit - so listen and learn, get a grip on reality and stop wingeing about us!

Autochugger has arrived...

Expect to see this soon on a cash point near you.

I heard on the BBC Breakfast News the other morning that some bright spark is suggesting a tie up between charities and Cash Point manufacturers which will 'give people the opportunity to make charitabe donations whenever they use a cash point'.

I can just see it now. 'This machine is sponsored by XYZ charity. Please make a donation in order to proceed further'. No donation, no money. Simples init?

Brilliant! So we spend a small fortune modifying all the cashpoint machine software to provide this 'opportunity' then we have to shop around the town to find the cash point that's sponsored by a charity we would actually be prepared to donate to.

This is a perfect example of wooly thinking that permeates throughout 21st century life - use the money that's collected in order to collect more money.

Here's a better idea - save the money and give that to the charity instead.

I'm back - and so's Gordon!

Well, I'm back. Totally shagged out after two 11 hour flights, so you'll hopefully forgive me if I am a little lethargic in picking up the reigns again...

Meanwhile, here's a little I-Spy that I spotted out of the window at LA airport :

My God, I thought Blair had some money making ideas, but getting your face painted on the tail fin of every jet in the Air Alaska fleet? No wonder they got rid of Sarah Palin!

(Note for Ian Hislop : You can have this one for the I-Spy section in the Eye, but rest assured I will deal with you later. Watch this space...)

READ MORE » I'm back - and so's Gordon!

The €10,000 donkey

I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Eric.

Yes, I do know that Eric is a donkey. In fact he's a Greek donkey. And it's not his real name, but he looked like an Eric to me and the name kinda stuck.

Eric lives in a field behind the apartment we rented in Ithaca. He's very friendly and he gets upset if you don't talk to him. A bit like Mrs D except she lives in a house...

Anyway, the point of this is that there is a donkey crisis in Greece. Apparently, there is a shortage. Partly this is due to the number of brides demanding that they ride to church on a donkey just like the girl in Mammi Mia. Honestly.

The other side to the problem is that Greek donkey milk is highly prized. Remember, Cleopatra used to bathe in it. Its milk has been used since antiquity as a cure of ailments, a substitute for breast milk and as an anti-ageing skin salve.

So the Greek government has hatched a plan. For every donkey you keep, they will pay you €10,000 a year. That's a lot of carrots in any currency. So Eric's owners get a big fat fee for him to stand in his field and beg off the passers by.

As benefits go, even Gordon never thought of this one...

Working for charity

Recently, I had a bit of a moan about charities and direct debits. I expected to get slagged for it. I was amazed to find pretty much universal agreement.

I was reminded of an experience I had a few years ago when I was offered an IT contract for a well known international charity who shall remain nameless for fear of being sued for telling the truth.

The charity in question, who for the sake of argument we shall refer to as "Oxfam", controlled a lot of projects to help the local communities out in Africa. This is a good thing and it also generated work for the locals in not only building the thing, but also in keeping track of what was being spent.

I am a great believer in helping people help themselves. It builds their self respect - so when this project was described to me, I was a bit taken aback.

The idea was to spend huge amounts of money on a laptop based computer system to enable the local project managers to keep their own records and then send them back to HQ via satellite links.

"What's wrong with that?" you ask. Well, I'll tell you :

(1) For every system that was being rolled out, we put three or four local clerks out of work thus depriving them of the opportunity to earn money and damaging the local economy.

(2) The money being spent on the system was depriving starving natives in Africa of food.

"That last one's a bit strong, isn't it?"

Well, no actually. The idiot interviewing me told me that for every £1 he knocked off my hourly rate, he could feed a starving family in Africa for a week. I asked him how many he could feed by scrapping this daft system.

"I think you're missing the point" was his reply.

Actually, I dont think I was...

What in God's name are we teaching our kids ????

It's Easter Sunday, the family are all coming round for lunch, then perhaps we'll all settle down to a nice game of Monopoly. You remember - that good old property trading game we play at Chistmas and family gatherings. It teaches our kids how to handle money and helps hone their bargaining and social skills...

Well, guess what? - they've updated it!

Now I can understand that the money values on the notes might need to be increased a bit, although I think that taking the top value from 500 to 2.5 million is just a little over the top - even by New Labour's estimates of inflation - but replacing roads with entire cities seems just a little excessive to me!

But that's not the worst of it! They've done away with the money! There is now a version where you deal with a plastic card and the bank is just a crappy bit of electronic shit that sits around doing not a lot -although this is admittedly a lot like real banks....

So why the hell have they done this? How are our kids supposed to learn to count change and do simple adding and subtraction? Well this is what the makers, Parkers, have to say about it :

"Players will instead use a Visa mock debit card to keep track of how much they win or lose" - so not like real life where the only winners are the card companies. And what about the other card companies? Why are they not represented?

Well that's because "It is part of an international deal between Parker and finance giant Visa, which designed the mock debit card and its electronic machine" - or, in other words, "We got it for free to promote their product."

"The new electronic Monopoly reflects the changing nature of society and the advancement of technology" - so we brainwash the kids into using plastic instead of cash. After all, a recent survey of 6th formers revealed that over 80% thought a credit card never had to be paid off! That should be good for Visa's profits!

"The new version follows a YouGov survey of 2,056 adults which showed 70% used cash less often than they did a decade ago" - well, we kind of guessed that the government had a finger in there somewhere.

Now we get to the real reason : "Monopoly Here and Now Electronic Banking costs around £24.99, compared to £12.99 for the standard "cash" version" - so basically it is nothing to do with the aforementioned claptrap; it's about making an extra 12 quid a shot for the same product...

Anyway, in the interests of fairness, here are 20 suggestions for the 'chance' and 'community chest' cards in the next version of Monopoly - all in the interests of reflecting the reality of the modern world, you understand :

"The Russians have bombed Berlin, fall back to Paris"
"Suicide bombers have destroyed your station. Pay £1m for repairs"
"You have only paid the minimum balance on your credit card. Pay £100 interest" (Oh! Sorry! They already used that one)
"You have been issued with an ASBO - so get out of jail free"
"You are pregnant and lose your job. Receive £50,000 compensation"
"You are elected to Parliament. Claim £10,000 expenses"
"Minister agrees to represent your lobbying group. Advance to Go"
"Stock market crashes. Recieve £20,000 from your Hedge Fund"
"Prime Minister declares support for US - Go immediately to Kabul, do not pass go or recieve equipment"
"Your pension fund matures. Recieve sod all"
"Bank profits down! Recieve £250,000 bonus"
"~~Recieve student loan £2,500~~" (Sorry, that's just too unbelievable!)
"You retire from Parliament. Recieve golden goodbye of £63,000"
"Pay road tax on your 4x4 of £960"
"You buy a million pound house. Pay £50,000 stamp duty"
"Your ageing mother needs to go into a care home. Return one property to the bank"
"Your boob implants leak. Receive £25,000 compensation"
"Budget announced! Go immediately to a different country"
"You bet £5,000 on England losing the World Cup. Recieve £10 winnings"
"You have spoken out against the Government. Go immediately to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not recieve fair trial"

If you can think of any more suggestions, then please leave a comment. I'm sure the makers will be duly grateful....