Legal & General plans to become large-scale landlord

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

unbelievable

Not really. A CEO is merely the figurehead. In an organisation employing thousands of people you'll find the higher tiers of management with many like minded people. Let alone many further down the pyramid.

Banks are merely a reflection of wider society. I know of a number of people who turned their backs on business. As they became disenchanted in the broadest sense.

The people you cite were Gordon Brown's heroes. It was their easy credit lending between 2001-07 that gave the UK growth. So no I don't admire them. If it wasn't them it would have been someone else.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not really. A CEO is merely the figurehead. In an organisation employing thousands of people you'll find the higher tiers of management with many like minded people. Let alone many further down the pyramid.

Banks are merely a reflection of wider society. I know of a number of people who turned their backs on business. As they became disenchanted in the broadest sense.

The people you cite were Gordon Brown's heroes. It was their easy credit lending between 2001-07 that gave the UK growth. So no I don't admire them. If it wasn't them it would have been someone else.

good

I'm glad we agree that some CEOs are morons

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

His comment about intergenerational matters is the reason I consider him a moron and unsuitable to be a CEO of a major company who have a huge number of customers who are boomers.

Oh right.

So he's a moron because he said something which wasn't in boomers interest.

Sweet.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh right.

So he's a moron because he said something which wasn't in boomers interest.

Sweet.

no

1. he made a very divisive and very controversial comment without any real context

2. CEO don't normally insult their own clients base (now I know that Rattner said his own productions were cra p but he paid a heavy price)

3. he suggested no solutions to the 'problems' he recognised

4. he provided no details of L&Gs proposals


but I do praise (most) proposals to build property

IveSeenTheLight

Percy1983 wrote: »

Its about max profit, higher margins = less sales, lower margins = more sales.

So in this case they can split admin costs accross many houses and probably charge a little more as they offer a much better deal.

So, discussing admin costs.

I let out 3 properties and do not charge for my administration time.

How is this more profitable for a large company as they would would have admin costs to allocate (however diluted you think they might be)?

How are they offering a better deal if they are charging more for it?

P.S. Glad you agree the large companies would want to increase their margins by reducing their costs / increasing their sell price.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

....How is this more profitable for a large company as they would would have admin costs to allocate (however diluted you think they might be)?....

In the same way as Tesco is more profitable than your local independent grocer?

In any case, margins won't be of prime concern to L&G, they'll be looking at investment returns, i.e. the return on capital invested. The fact that they'll probably have access to cheaper funds than your typical BTL investor will have a greater impact on their return than any administration costs.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So, discussing admin costs.

I let out 3 properties and do not charge for my administration time.

How is this more profitable for a large company as they would would have admin costs to allocate (however diluted you think they might be)?

How are they offering a better deal if they are charging more for it?

P.S. Glad you agree the large companies would want to increase their margins by reducing their costs / increasing their sell price.

Simple. Economies of scale.

From what you are saying, it would always cost more to buy from larger business. We all know that's obviously not the case.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Simple. Economies of scale.

Interestingly it's the same online characters who complain about Tesco crowding out small businesses and pushing margins down for farmers who are now advocates of economies of scale...

That moral high ground is starting to fill up with a lot of hypocrites...

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Simple. Economies of scale.

From what you are saying, it would always cost more to buy from larger business. We all know that's obviously not the case.

we know that economies of scale do apply in some situations and do not occur in others.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There appears to be a need to find a sinister motive in this?

Everyone, including you clapton, have been saying this is what's needed to bring prices down. Now it looks as if someone is planning to do it, you are looking for anything, guessing even, to suggest it's a bad thing?

With increased administration costs and a desire to increase margins, please explain why you believe this will bring costs down for the tenant and what the impact would be on the services income for supporting the large corporation?