Surviving the recession - naim finance?
Posted by: teabelly on 02 January 2009
In a recession people don't like to pay out big chunks of money for things. But what if you persuade them to pay out regular and small monthly chunks so they can have what they want now? If you back it up with payment insurance so if the worst happens they won't be any worse off would it be a good way of surviving the recession?
The finance could work like car PCP with a guaranteed future value ie trade in against an upgrade or a straight replacement. If people have a clear upgrade path up to hifi nirvana in easily affordable and regular payments would they be more likely to take it than if they had to pay out big chunks in one go?
I suppose purists would argue that you are merely encouraging riff-raff to buy naim as if you can't afford to cough up £3k for a cdx2 without flinching you should probably go buy a cheapo cyrus instead
I know there is a moral argument against using finance for non appreciating assets but in difficult times is it not more sensible to save jobs by using credit rather than having people give up on buying anything and sending more people into the dole queue?
Is a credit based ownership scheme a crazy idea?
The finance could work like car PCP with a guaranteed future value ie trade in against an upgrade or a straight replacement. If people have a clear upgrade path up to hifi nirvana in easily affordable and regular payments would they be more likely to take it than if they had to pay out big chunks in one go?
I suppose purists would argue that you are merely encouraging riff-raff to buy naim as if you can't afford to cough up £3k for a cdx2 without flinching you should probably go buy a cheapo cyrus instead
I know there is a moral argument against using finance for non appreciating assets but in difficult times is it not more sensible to save jobs by using credit rather than having people give up on buying anything and sending more people into the dole queue?
Is a credit based ownership scheme a crazy idea?
Hi Jim,
No problem with your comments
I think anything which is done without giving a darn about consequences is stupidity or greed, aspiration without limit falls under the the same heading. I think your comment
It's interesting as it suggests that these things are OK if there is a reasonable chance you can get away with them (I'm not sure if that is what you intended) maybe the personal arbiter is whatever a person is taught is right or wrong and therefore how their own moral compass works. But the world does seem to be more individual focussed with less social responsibility - but hey it takes all sorts
All the best from a fellow aspirational traveller
No problem with your comments
I think anything which is done without giving a darn about consequences is stupidity or greed, aspiration without limit falls under the the same heading. I think your comment
quote:Almost certainly but 99% of the people who now take the moral high ground and complain about those excesses would have done exactly the same thing had they been in the position to capitalize on the opportunity.
It's interesting as it suggests that these things are OK if there is a reasonable chance you can get away with them (I'm not sure if that is what you intended) maybe the personal arbiter is whatever a person is taught is right or wrong and therefore how their own moral compass works. But the world does seem to be more individual focussed with less social responsibility - but hey it takes all sorts
All the best from a fellow aspirational traveller
quote:Originally posted by munch:For once i agree with you.quote:Originally posted by gary1 (US):
Well the corporate thing is easy to see. I'm not saying it's right, but if you don't have a moral compass as you guys say it's a no brainer to see it occur. The highly paid executives have really no ownership of the companies which they steward. Yes, they own stock of whatever sort, but its value is nil compared to the market capitalization of their companies. Unfortunately this leads to decisions and behavior which only benefit that individual with the potential outcome on the company as a whole having little effect on decision making. Couple this with the ridiculous compensation, golden parachutes, and excessive bonuses even when the companies lose money and clearly there is no reason for the execs to think or worry about the company or its shareholders. They are going to be rich regardless. Can you believe that Greenspan actually trusted CEOs to act responsibly to their shareholders and it was a reason that they didn't act to overtly stop the NINJA lending programs? It's also the reason why, lack of ownership, most mergers go badly because the top execs make out like deamons with their shares and packages while the ordinary shareholder gets clobbered. The stats clearly show that privately held companies, VC companies which get involved in mergers have a higher rate of successful institution as the owners tend to actually own the company and they sink or swim on the result.
Only this time though.
Well munch your one up on me!