Wrap story in todays SMH

[Sultan of Swing]

Thanks

Hi Yuch

Thankyou for you explaination of the situation.

I'm quite new here and have never come accross wrapping before so you've explained a lot of it to me and i'm sure to many other forumites.

Even before your explaination I'd taken the view that if some of the moderators and regular forumites said that your ethics and business practices are beyond reproach, that was good enough for me.

Don't feel you need to defend yourself against the odd poster that may think they know everything because they've read the SMH article or a book written by a certain person. From what I've observed in this forum, they're in a minority with the majority on here being able to think for themselves and realising that generally the media does sensationalise to sell more newspapers without letting the facts get in the way.

I wish you and Michael all the best for the festive season and we'd love to hear how it all pans out for you in the future.

SOS

 

[asy]

Great response Yuchie...

The only thing you forgot to mention was just how MANY payments these wrappees missed, oh, and how many of the missed payments were prior to the wife's unfortunate diagnoses, establishing a pattern of non-payment prior to her illness (not the one missed payment DUE TO her illness as the 'paper suggested).

You were too kind with these people. Next time do what the banks do, and issue proceedings as soon as they fall behind. That way it would have been all over and done with prior to the diagnosis and you wouldn't have seemed such an ogre...

Lissy, I loved your reply. I can't imagine wrappees being too pleased with being called 'bottom feeders', and your post was spot on in all regards.

Unfortunately I'm not allowed to comment on the original article, so I won't, but I bet you can all imagine what I'm thinking.

Anyway, Yuchie and MG, hold your heads up, and don't worry about the nay-sayers, you are both people with total integrity and the vast majority of us here know you well enough not to listen to the bs.

asy

 

[yuch.]

Thank you, every one, for your moral support and believing in me.

I think this is the nest Christmas present for me this year!!

Asy - I didn't forget.... but under The Privacy Act I am not allowed to disclose the specifics.

Merry Christmas to you all!

 

[Francesco]

Yuch

It must be really difficult for you trying to get the wrappee out, if they want to stay. I know because I have been there!

I know some of the problems you may be experiencing:

- not getting cashflow but still paying interest, land tax, rates, insurance, credit provider licence
- facing criticism from armchair critics about putting people out of their 'homes'
- worry about whether the wrappee may turn feral and wreck the place
- wait, wait and wait for your solicitor to act, the barrister to advice and act, the court to decide and the bailiff to overcome inertia to act
- wrappee turning star performers (and liars) to wring the ounce of 'natural' support from do-gooders for the underdog. The do-gooders in some instances may be encouraging the wrappees to overstay without payment, increasing debt owing and creating a history of poor credit worthiness
- the cost of court procedures, solicitor fees and disbursements

When you have finally got them out:

- repair the place
- secure the place from potential return visits or vandalism
- clean out their mess
- redirect their letters
- get the debt recovery agencies on their tails

In my case, my wife has ruled out ever doing a wrap again. I do not blame her. In my opinion, even if I can overcome all the problems above, the injustice of being considered by many in society that wrapping is feeding on the financially unfortunate is too much to bear.

PS. The state of the property left by the wrappee was know in the neigbourhood and apparently attracted its commiseration.

The carpet cleaner who cleaned the muck (including blue tack, soil and coffee) off my carpet heard the background (and feeling) from his friend living in the neighbourhood and passing by in her car. Yes, he wanted to be considered for wrapping also - but no I said, 'once bitten, twice shy'. The nanny state will have to look after the home aspirations of such self-employed people.

 

[geoffw]

In my opinion, even if I can overcome all the problems above, the injustice of being considered by many in society that wrapping is feeding on the financially unfortunate is too much to bear.

This comes to the heart of wrapping as far as I was concerned. I was quite happy personally with wrapping- I did like Rick Otton's approach a little better than Steve McKnight's, just as a personal preference- but the bad perception that can be sometimes made, even by people who are quite ignorant of the real facts, swayed me against it.

Yuch, well done on your post. Thanks.

 

[quiggles]

Probably another factor that most who haven't considered wrapping themselves won't be aware of is the concern with which michaleg and yuch viewed a certain class of wrapper best described as predatory - the sort that the SMH probably should have hunted out but were too lazy to do so.

It was the view of many that predatory practices would bring the entire concept into disrepute and could stimulate a regulatory crackdown in overreaction from the authorities. It was also seen as a pretty disgusting way to make a quid.

Isn't it wonderful that those who'd slam others' ethics take so little trouble to check out their own first?

 

[Peter 14.7]

Thank you, every one, for your moral support and believing in me.

I think this is the nest Christmas present for me this year!!

Asy - I didn't forget.... but under The Privacy Act I am not allowed to disclose the specifics.

Merry Christmas to you all!

Add me to that list of support, Yuch.

Your reply earlier shows how much the story is a load of BS taken out of context.

I dont know the solution but I feel as asking the media to put your side will only add fuel to the fire.
I guess let it die back and close the deal.

Personally I am glad wrapping has controls in place but as it would seem everyone goes in with the eyes open.

My only comment is calling a company Dark Thoughts is asking for media attention. As is calling it after yourself. A lesson I learnt in my first business that you wantto keep some privacy.

Regards, Peter 147

 

[asy]

My only comment is calling a company Dark Thoughts is asking for media attention. As is calling it after yourself. A lesson I learnt in my first business that you wantto keep some privacy.

Peter, Point taken, however, Dark Thoughts is Michael's company, not Yuch's, and in fact has nothing to do with Wrapping. It was set up for something entirely differrent.

Anyone who know's MG's slight bent toward Star Wars movies would understand where it came from...

I must say, in all of this I would love to ask: What would the nay-sayer's replies be if these were 'just tenants' and had missed so many payments that the landlord was now in danger of not being able to meet their obligations with the bank?

In the case of these tenants, they were paying LESS than the market rent for the same property (by around $50 per week)... And this in an effort to buy their own home.

So, had they been paying market rent, and had they missed all the payments that they HAVE missed, and had they made a payment arrangement (which THEY worked out) and had they not stuck to it... How many Landlords would have let them stay?

One other point... As to the wife's illness. I feel for her (I have had very close family with the same illness, most recently my mum, last year) but, does this give people an excuse to stop paying their obligations? I don't think so.

I can understand if you are recently diagnosed and simply miss a couple of payments, but you make them up! Centrelink doesn't stop paying you, and the money would simply have been in their bank, waiting to be transferred. So... Transfer it! (Assuming you didn't spend it, and if you did, how is that the landlord or wrapper's problem?)

The electric company still requires payment during sickness, the phone company requires payment during sickness, a landlord requires payment during sickness, a BANK requires payment during sickness, but why do (some of) you say that a wrapper should let them lapse??? wtf???

Yuchie, I hope you and MG take the SMH to task over this, not to mention voldemort...

my $.02 ...

asy

 

[perky29]

Asy,
I couldn't agree more.

Can't SMH (or he who must not be named) make a retraction/apology at the very least !!!!
There were many faults with the article (such as the contract not being in Michael's name for a start).
I knew the article was BS when I first saw it. The people here know that Yuch and Michael are amongst the most ethical wrappers in the country.

 

[Researcher]

This is clearly a highly-charged issue.

In addition to this lengthy (and most interesting) series of posts, I have read both the articles - the one from the paper and the one by the author you don't want to name (from whence this story seems to originate).

Rather than just getting heated about it, I feel you should put your side of the story to the person at the source of what you feel is an incorrect story.

I think it'd be really interesting to see what he has to say. At the very least, I think you should let him know how you feel.

Merry Christmas to all

Jane

 

[asy]

This is clearly a highly-charged issue.

In addition to this lengthy (and most interesting) series of posts, I have read both the articles - the one from the paper and the one by the author you don't want to name (from whence this story seems to originate).

Rather than just getting heated about it, I feel you should put your side of the story to the person at the source of what you feel is an incorrect story.

I think it'd be really interesting to see what he has to say. At the very least, I think you should let him know how you feel.

Merry Christmas to all

Jane

Hiya Jane.

Good idea... but...

Both sourced HAD the story directly from "the horses mouth", Yuch HAD spoken with a 'representative' from he who must not be named, and they had offerred some sort of assistance to her wrappees.

This assistance was not forthcoming, instead, the bilious article appeared.

There's not much point putting your side of view to someone who, at best, simply doesn't want to hear it, and at worst has a vested interest in not listening.

asy

 

[paulzag]

But let's be perfectly clear about it ... if you don't pay your mortgage for whatever reason ... the bank WILL evict you from your house (and any other house they have security over that they need to sell to recover their money).

That's the risk the borrowers take - and it's the risk the lenders take too.

It's all about risk - to both parties.

Banks will also evict tennants who have paid rent in advance on a property if they take possession of a property. That is the mortgagee-in-possession's right. Been on the receiving end of that before.

Similarly people using Harvey Norman's "Zero interest, no repayments for 2 years" are also using a high cost product. Many of whom cannot afford the goods much less the 20%+ repayments that kick in after the honeymoon. But the media is not full of horror stories about those "poor battlers".

Lastly read a news item about something you know about, be it a sport, hobby, company, business, community project or political fight. The factual inaccuracies will seem obvious to anybody who knows the facts. Realise now that the media introduces the same inaccuracies to EVERY news story. That is the nature of 30 second news (or 500 word articles). News is never accurate anymore (if it ever was).

I am responsible for my decisions, not a victim of circumstance. When circumstance moves against me, I choose to act to bring change and not blame fate, god, or other people for my lot in life.

Regards

PaulZag

 

[quiggles]

You're totally right about the correctness of media stories. In all my years dealing with public issues, I've only ever seen one story that had the basic facts correct.

[Continued rant deleted]

Sigh.

 

[paulzag]

You're totally right about the correctness of media stories. In all my years dealing with public issues, I've only ever seen one story that had the basic facts correct.

[Continued rant deleted]

Sigh.

I got a call asking if I sell electric scooters. After stating I don't stock them, I was asked if I knew anyone in the area who did. Only then did the person identify themselves as a journalist with the local Fairfax press.

I asked why she was looking for a scooter, she told me she was doing a story on them and "did you know they're illegal".

Given it was a busy trading day before Christmas I didn't have time to deal with this crud. I wish I had taken her on, but I don't need the bad press at this point in my business. But she was obviously looking for a sensational bit of beat up before Christmas.

For the record, there are two legal problems with electric scooters. Firstly selling a scooter with an unapproved battery charger is liable to penalties under the Fair Trading Act (NSW) - this includes using a travel adapter, and applies to Radio Controlled toys as well (and is also very dangerous). Secondly riding an electic scooter on a public street is driving an unregistered vehicle. Nothing about the scooters themselves is illegal.

But the story ran anyway.

And a friend in Alexandria selling legit scooters sold 240 of em in the Christmas rush

 

[Les]

G'day Asy,

Thanks for posting this:-

I must say, in all of this I would love to ask: What would the nay-sayer's replies be if these were 'just tenants' and had missed so many payments that the landlord was now in danger of not being able to meet their obligations with the bank?

In the case of these tenants, they were paying LESS than the market rent for the same property (by around $50 per week)... And this in an effort to buy their own home.

So, had they been paying market rent, and had they missed all the payments that they HAVE missed, and had they made a payment arrangement (which THEY worked out) and had they not stuck to it... How many Landlords would have let them stay?

THAT was the very obvious first thought I had when first reading of this. And for the authors of the various articles to conveniently ignore it does them no good at all in my eyes.

Also, in the original story, a figure was mentioned of how far (in $$) the wrappees had "slipped behind" - a few back of the envelope calcs (with a guess or two thrown in) told me they were MONTHS in arrears !!!!!!!! Why was this not mentioned in the original article - is it "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Looks to me like the original story was biased on facts (pun intended),



Yuch, and MG, jeez you guys have done far more than most would have - a shame that your wrappees let you down like this - didn't they KNOW what a good wicket they were on? They COULD'VE had that equity (wailed over in the first article) if they'd only kept their end of the bargain. Such a shame that all of the negative nastiness was directed at you - and thanks for the blog that "tells it like it was" (even if some facts need to remain private). I never doubted either of you for a minute. All the best for 2005,

Regards,

 

[asy]

THAT was the very obvious first thought I had when first reading of this. And for the authors of the various articles to conveniently ignore it does them no good at all in my eyes.

Hiya Les,

A few simple calculations which should not even have been too difficult for the reporter (!) go like this:

Based on their information The loan figure is $93k, we can guess at the usual wrap term of 25yr, and their stated 2% markup. Assume Yuch's loan is at 7% (the ave) and do the math:

=-PMT(0.09/52,52*25,93000,0) = $179.97 per week.

If you then look at the Dept Housing website, and have a look at their average rent tables, if you check them you will note that the average rent for Maitland is $230/wk, and the ave for Newcastle is $260 per week, This house is between the two. Assume median rent at around ((260+230)/2) = $245 per week.

This means that the wrappees were paying approximately $65 LESS THAN AVERAGE RENT FOR THE AREA!!!!!

Is it just me? I didn't notice that reported in EITHER of the original articles...



A wise man said to me recently:

If someone goes into a shop and picks up a book but leaves the store forgetting to pay for the book, then goes back and pays, what is this called?

If the same person picks up the book and gets to the cashier but realises they don't have the money, and organises a payment shedule, what's this called?

If the same person then leaves the store, with the book, reads the book, then decides not to pay for it, what's THIS called???

Hmmm... Makes ya think...

asy

 

[likewow]

If wrapping is so great and ethical, then can someone tell me why has it been banned in 2 (or is it 3) states of Australia ?

Yuch,

Thanks for the suggestion but i'll stick to ' Families with children dont live in cars' because that is the truth of the matter, emotive or nor not.

And regarding emotion, it seems that its ok to debate with emotion when its convenient to and not to when it isnt convenient.

I remember a post a while back that stated 'companys are only illusions, business is about people' which i reckon is a great quote and so true and which received some praise on the forum, including mine.

Now i am in a discussion where the opposite view is being praised. As always, I am trying to be consistent.

Anyway, we're not robots and its impossible for emotion not to enter discussions let alone business. I see that comment, Yuch, as an easy let off from the ethical responsibilities of ones business.

Lastly, I would like to see all members of the forum refrain from complaining the next time they are ripped off by a company supplying a service or product that they have bought. Because, being consistent, they would have had the chance for legal advice and no-one was holding a gun to their head at the time of purchase.

But, ultimately, using this argument is akin to suggesting there is to be no faith in society and that every time a business transcation is made, legal advice should be sought by the buyer and no ethical responsibilty required by the supplier. Well, guys, youre welcome to that dystopian society.

PS: In previous posts of mine in this thread i have not accused or implied that any member of the forum is unethical or dishonest, regardless of the spin put on it. I did state that for long term success in business, 100% honesty and integrity is required and i stand by that. Anything less is for get-rich-quick types and lesser achievers. I would think the large majority of forum members would agree with that. I also realise that Michael and Yuch are well known to some members of the forum and im sure they are honest people. My comments are pointed to (and would like this discussion to be about) wrapping in general as stated in my first or second post in this thread rather than specific people.

 

[Peter 14.7]

If wrapping is so great and ethical, then can someone tell me why has it been banned in 2 (or is it 3) states of Australia ?
t.

Hi LW

Because it is unfortunately open to abuse by those "Henry Kaye" types who would rip off their mother if they could.
So the Gov in these states ban it to avoid the hassle. Just because a gov bans something doesnot mean it is automatically wrong. Until recently the NSW gov banned water tanks on homes. Unsafe. Now is it essential to have one.


But wrapping has a role to play. It is suitable to help those who the banks will not touch get a start

I.E. I have cousins who lost everything in a failed billards business including their home and declared bankrupt but essentially paid everyone back. They now cannot find finance to start again and hence wrapping would help.

Also I wonder how Yuchs other clients would feel if wrapping was banned and she gave up and closed the contracts with them?

"OK you own 25%. Get a loan for 75% and pay me out and it is yours. If not I am forced to sell and you get 25% of the share. Would a bank help them out?"

Overall the issue here is the unfairness of the article, not a debate on wraps. There are threads elsewhere that do that.

Peter 147

 

[Sim]

Likewow, if I owed you money, wouldn't you say I had an ethical responsibility to repay you ?

 

[Merovingian]

You're totally right about the correctness of media stories. In all my years dealing with public issues, I've only ever seen one story that had the basic facts correct.

I think it is important to realise that the media is a money making industry. They will find stories, tilt them and massage them into a "good read", where the facts are only second fiddle. They will only tell the facts that contribute to the story they want to tell us. They want to sell papers, get better ratings...

My $0.02.