On 31/07/2010 06:01, Michaelangelo wrote:
Adrian C burst on the scene, and said:

Costco are wholesalers. In the UK that means they cannot legally sell to
the 'riff-raff' (your term - which seems to include yourself).

Oi! :-)

I'm interested - what is exactly if the legal footing these and other
trade business enjoy to select customers? At the till, it's a VAT
receipt - like any other.

(I've dealt with organisations that do "Reverse Charge VAT", but Costco
is hardly in that boat)

They can
only legally sell to retailers, businesses, professionals and institutions.

I'm everything in that list but an institution. Should probably be in
one though ...

:-)

--
Adrian C

Michaelangelo wrote:
Norman Wells burst on the scene, and said:


I just wonder if anyone here has actually received back from their
house insurance company more than they've paid out in premiums.
There should be some if the companies aren't rampantly profiteering
on the back of unjustified anxiety.

You don't really understand insurance, do you?

I understand the insurance companies' view of the matter. What I'm not so
clear about is whether they're providing a worthwhile service to me.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Michaelangelo wrote:

Norman Wells burst on the scene, and said:


I just wonder if anyone here has actually received back from their
house insurance company more than they've paid out in premiums.
There should be some if the companies aren't rampantly profiteering
on the back of unjustified anxiety.

You don't really understand insurance, do you?

And, Norm, why d'you think it's unjustified?

It's a matter of the risk involved. After all, I could probably get insured
against pink elephants treading on my toes, but the risk is actually so low
that the premiums would never be justified.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article c%Q4o.8541$806.1461@hurricane,
"Norman Wells" wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

Insurance only really works when risks are fairly low. So if 1 in
10,000 houses burns down each year, and the average house is worth
say ?250k, everyone pays ?25/year in fire insurance (plus a bit
more). That means all 10,000 householders can cease to worry about
that particular risk.
That's what you're paying the premium for - so you don't have to
worry. It's for you to decide which risks you don't care about. To
do that in a sensible way, of course, you'll have to do a risk
assessment for each type of risk. That's what insurance companies
do, and they're quite good at it (they go bust if they're not).
Better at it than you are, at any rate.

Judging by the profits they make, they're much, much better at it
than me, to the extent of charging me possibly double what the risk
actually is. That's the gripe.

So shop around. There's this little thing called competition. At the
end of the day, you're faced with the choice. Is the premium they want
higher than avoiding the risk is worth to you? If so, don't take out
the insurance.

I did a few years back, but got constantly refused on numerous websites for
not being able to answer questions such as 'Brick or stone construction?'
with a simple yes or no. My house is 200 years old and it's not quite that
simple because some of it is, but other bits are timber frame, lath and
plaster. Also it's a bit difficult even to say whether it's detached or
semi-detached because it's mainly detached but there is a small join to the
neighbouring house.

Most insurance companies seem only to want bog standard business based on
bog standard houses. If you don't fall into that category, it gets a lot
more difficult and time-consuming. So, it's not quite that easy.

Mr Invisible said he paid less than £200 a year. I bet
you spend that much in a couple of months on petrol. Hardly seems
excessive to me.

I agree. If it was that low, I wouldn't give it much thought. It's because
it's just crept up over £300 that I am.

I just wonder if anyone here has actually received back from their
house insurance company more than they've paid out in premiums. There
should be some if the companies aren't rampantly profiteering
on the back of unjustified anxiety.

Well I have - I told you up-thread. I had subsidence that would prolly
cost £20k or more to fix. One phone call the the company (More Than)
and they sorted it. Took a few years, but they wait for at least a
year to be sure that the movement has stopped.

OK, fair enough.

I know. It's my choice!

In message , Michaelangelo
writes
Bob Eager burst on the scene, and said:


And in practice, in my nearest Costco (Thurrock, Essex) there are
plenty of 'riff raff'! They seem to qualify somehow...

Indeed. People 'borrow' legitimate users cards. Difficult for a company
like Costco to control that. Checking the validity of every customer
would take time and cost money, so prices would rise. It's also not
good for business if customers are routinely challenged in-store.

There is a photograph on mine! I suppose they don't see it until I get
to the checkout.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On 30/07/2010 21:59, Clive George wrote:
On 30/07/2010 21:42, Norman Wells wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 30/07/2010 17:21, Norman Wells wrote:
Invisible Man wrote:
On 30/07/2010 16:35, Norman Wells wrote:
Invisible Man wrote:

Have you ever claimed on your house insurance, I wonder? Mine's
just come up for renewal and I can't recall ever making a claim in
35 years except one in 1990 for a relatively small amount of damage
caused by a couple of ridge tiles being dislodged by high winds.

The house is unlikely to collapse or hit an aeroplane, so what's it
for exactly? What are the most common claims?

I'm thinking of not renewing mine (£300 quoted) as I think I'm
relatively low risk. You are too, so why do you pay to keep it going?

You talking buildings or contents?

It's both.

I've got buildings, because should something go wrong like a house
fire, I simply can't afford a full rebuild. The chance is very low,
but I'm prepared to take a loss on the bet because the potential loss
of not taking it is catastrophic.

Yes, since open fires went, and we don't smoke, the risk really is only
of something going wrong while cooking or an electrical fault. You just
don't see house fires like you used to!

Maybe not, but the risk is still there. Don't forget to include other
sources of ignition - including malicious (burglar dropping a fag?).

I'll agree contents is closer to optional, but again, take the house
fire example : there's a lot of stuff to cover. I could probably start
again, but it would be very tight for a while.

Contents also gets you third party insurance when out of your house,
which is potentially useful. My parents claimed on it for a bike
crash I caused when I was a kid.

True, but again the risk is very low, I'd have thought. You're most
unlikely to lose the lot in one go.

But if you do, you're screwed, and really badly so.

Are you prepared to take the risk that in high winds, a slate or tile
flies off and injures somebody, meaning you get sued personally and have
to sell the house to pay for their care?

Of course you're entirely at liberty to take the risk, and it will give
you a little bit of extra cash. The chances are that you'll be ok, and
quite strongly in your favour. But are you prepared to gamble your house
on that? It's bad enough suffering a biggish claim if you are insured.

('course if your house is in the right place, could be that the land
underneath it is worth enough for you to simply sell on the bust house
for redevelopment and you buy a cheaper one elsewhere. Doesn't work for
big 3rd party claims though)

Kids putting fireworks through letterbox or setting fire to wheely bin
beside house, descending chinese lantern, faulty electrical appliance

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:01:32 +0100, Michaelangelo wrote:

Adrian C burst on the scene, and said:


Thing that I don't like about Costco, is their an 'anti-riff-raff'
policy on selecting only trade or professional status UK customers. I
don't see evidence of that in their American stores.

Costco are wholesalers. In the UK that means they cannot legally sell to
the 'riff-raff' (your term - which seems to include yourself). They can
only legally sell to retailers, businesses, professionals and
institutions.

And in practice, in my nearest Costco (Thurrock, Essex) there are plenty
of 'riff raff'! They seem to qualify somehow...

One company membership allows for 6 people , also, if you worked (in the
loosest sense of the word, obviously) for the gas board or some other
institutiun, you could get "riff-raff" membership


--
geoff

On 30/07/2010 22:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article DRG4o.4135$Rv5.1669@hurricane,
"Norman Wells" wrote:

Invisible Man wrote:

We pay �180. I am retired and don't have �1/4M+ to rebuild and replace
the contents. That is why we have house insurance, not for day to day
small losses.

Fair enough, but the chances of having to rebuild everything and to
replace all the contents must be exceedingly low. Normally, it's just
a bit, and a small bit at that, isn't it?

Mr Invisible has calculated the risk and decided it's worth �180/yr to
him avoid the various risks.

Insurance only really works when risks are fairly low. So if 1 in 10,000
houses burns down each year, and the average house is worth say �250k,
everyone pays �25/year in fire insurance (plus a bit more). That means
all 10,000 householders can cease to worry about that particular risk.

That's what you're paying the premium for - so you don't have to worry.
It's for you to decide which risks you don't care about. To do that in a
sensible way, of course, you'll have to do a risk assessment for each
type of risk. That's what insurance companies do, and they're quite good
at it (they go bust if they're not). Better at it than you are, at any
rate.

And better than govt depts, too. Remember the postman who was told he
couldn't deliver the mail to some folks anymore, because it involved
climbing over a style and crossing a field (dangerous!)? The powers that
be had identified that a risk existed (fine so far), and then done a
****ty job at *quantifying* the risk. They'd rated it high (high enough
to stop the postie doing his job) instead of low (number of accidents in
previous 50 years on that round - zero).

If a risk is quite high (e.g. for a tanker going up the Gulf during the
Iran-Iraq war), then the premium is correspondingly high, and the notion
of "insurance" ceases to mean very much.

There is one overriding reason why people should buy lots of insurance -
to make sure the company can continue paying my pension.

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message , Michaelangelo
writes
Bob Eager burst on the scene, and said:


And in practice, in my nearest Costco (Thurrock, Essex) there are
plenty of 'riff raff'! They seem to qualify somehow...

Indeed. People 'borrow' legitimate users cards. Difficult for a
company like Costco to control that. Checking the validity of every
customer would take time and cost money, so prices would rise. It's
also not good for business if customers are routinely challenged in-store.

There is a photograph on mine! I suppose they don't see it until I get
to the checkout.

And you think that they ever look

apart from the fact that my photo must be 15 years old now


--
geoff

On 31/07/2010 09:18, Norman Wells wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Insurance only really works when risks are fairly low. So if 1 in
10,000 houses burns down each year, and the average house is worth
say �250k, everyone pays �25/year in fire insurance (plus a bit
more). That means all 10,000 householders can cease to worry about
that particular risk.
That's what you're paying the premium for - so you don't have to
worry. It's for you to decide which risks you don't care about. To do
that in a sensible way, of course, you'll have to do a risk
assessment for each type of risk. That's what insurance companies do,
and they're quite good at it (they go bust if they're not). Better at
it than you are, at any rate.

Judging by the profits they make, they're much, much better at it than
me, to the extent of charging me possibly double what the risk actually
is. That's the gripe.

I just wonder if anyone here has actually received back from their house
insurance company more than they've paid out in premiums. There should
be some if the companies aren't rampantly profiteering on the back of
unjustified anxiety.

I think I have on buildings (flood), though in another 10 years I'll be
back on the other side, and you still miss the point. We're a small
group, the odds of a huge claim are tiny, so the chances are none of us
will have had one, but those huge losses are potentially catastrophic so
it's still worth covering against them.

On 31/07/2010 09:18, Norman Wells wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Insurance only really works when risks are fairly low. So if 1 in
10,000 houses burns down each year, and the average house is worth
say �250k, everyone pays �25/year in fire insurance (plus a bit
more). That means all 10,000 householders can cease to worry about
that particular risk.
That's what you're paying the premium for - so you don't have to
worry. It's for you to decide which risks you don't care about. To do
that in a sensible way, of course, you'll have to do a risk
assessment for each type of risk. That's what insurance companies do,
and they're quite good at it (they go bust if they're not). Better at
it than you are, at any rate.

Judging by the profits they make, they're much, much better at it than
me, to the extent of charging me possibly double what the risk actually
is. That's the gripe.

I just wonder if anyone here has actually received back from their house
insurance company more than they've paid out in premiums. There should
be some if the companies aren't rampantly profiteering on the back of
unjustified anxiety.

The insurance business is far too competitive to charge excessive premiums.

On 31/07/2010 09:20, Mike Henry wrote:
, wrote:

In , Alan White
writes
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:49:55 +0100, Invisible Man
wrote:

Whenever someone tries to sell me a warranty or insurance I say I worked
for an insurance company for 36 years and don't believe in it. Car
insurance, house and contents insurance and travel insurance I do have.

I ask them do have so little faith in the reliability of the product
that they think I need it. Some get very cross when pressed for a 'yes'
or 'no' answer.

What's the point ?

They are only sales assistants there to sell products for the store i.e.
The goods and the extended warranty. It's not their product, not their
store, they don't make the rules or choose what the store sells

Indeed, so what's the point in them getting cross? They should just give
the answer when asked, and accept that some customers don't want an
extended warranty.

I nearly walked out of somewhere without the computer I wanted because
they were so insistent. Trouble is they are desperate to meet warranty
sales targets to keep their jobs.

Adrian C wrote:
On 31/07/2010 06:01, Michaelangelo wrote:

Costco are wholesalers. In the UK that means they cannot legally sell to
the 'riff-raff'

I'm interested - what is exactly if the legal footing these and other
trade business enjoy to select customers? At the till, it's a VAT
receipt - like any other.

I wondered too, different VAT rules might apply (e.g. retail schemes vs
cash&carry schemes) but legally preventing them selling to certain
customers? Sounds wrong to me ...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:56:29 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Adrian C wrote:
On 31/07/2010 06:01, Michaelangelo wrote:

Costco are wholesalers. In the UK that means they cannot legally sell to
the 'riff-raff'

I'm interested - what is exactly if the legal footing these and other
trade business enjoy to select customers? At the till, it's a VAT
receipt - like any other.

I wondered too, different VAT rules might apply (e.g. retail schemes vs
cash&carry schemes) but legally preventing them selling to certain
customers? Sounds wrong to me ...

I don't know the answer.

However, is it a legal restriction or a commercial restriction?

Is it the major retail chains which decide who should be able to buy at
wholesale prices? Those retail chains have considerable purchasing
power. They can boycott a supplier (manufacturer or importer) if that
business supplies goods to wholesale-price outlets that sell to just
anyone.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Norman Wells burst on the scene, and said:

I understand the insurance companies' view of the matter. What I'm
not so clear about is whether they're providing a worthwhile service
to me.

When you suffer a devastating burglary, or a fire, or a gas explosion,
or storm damage, or flooding, or... you'll find out.

--
Michaelangelo
www.flickr.com/photos/mikenagel

Self-catering, holiday accommodation in the Scottish Highlands - for
disabled people:
www.woodhead-cottage.co.uk

Clive George wrote:
On 31/07/2010 09:18, Norman Wells wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Insurance only really works when risks are fairly low. So if 1 in
10,000 houses burns down each year, and the average house is worth
say �250k, everyone pays �25/year in fire insurance (plus a bit
more). That means all 10,000 householders can cease to worry about
that particular risk.
That's what you're paying the premium for - so you don't have to
worry. It's for you to decide which risks you don't care about. To do
that in a sensible way, of course, you'll have to do a risk
assessment for each type of risk. That's what insurance companies do,
and they're quite good at it (they go bust if they're not). Better at
it than you are, at any rate.

Judging by the profits they make, they're much, much better at it than
me, to the extent of charging me possibly double what the risk actually
is. That's the gripe.

I just wonder if anyone here has actually received back from their house
insurance company more than they've paid out in premiums. There should
be some if the companies aren't rampantly profiteering on the back of
unjustified anxiety.

I think I have on buildings (flood), though in another 10 years I'll be
back on the other side, and you still miss the point. We're a small
group, the odds of a huge claim are tiny, so the chances are none of us
will have had one, but those huge losses are potentially catastrophic so
it's still worth covering against them.

The general rule is to insure against losses that you could never
afford to meet. Or are mandated to have.

To repay the loan on a burnt down house you no longer have to live in,
is such a loss.

The general rule is that if you can afford to repair replace whatever,
and the risk is moderate to high, don't insure.

E.g. my claims are a bit less than my payments, on car insurance, over
the years.

But a third party claim against me by a smart lawyer if I cocked up and
ruined someone life, would ruin mine. Without insurance.

So third party is always worth it.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Adrian C wrote:

Thing that I don't like about Costco, is their an 'anti-riff-raff'
policy on selecting only trade or professional status UK customers. I
don't see evidence of that in their American stores.

I don't mond that, it's the fact that there are so few branches and they
are all in out-of-the-way places that puts me off. I've seen on at
Trafford Park near to the giant Asda which I suppose is convenient for
some, but the others I've seen are in places line Avonmouth (why? the
place is a dump)

I went there the other day with my daughter (an NHS employee) and SIL to
have a look around to see if it was worthwhile joining, you're right
about the location, the Avonmouth roundabout system can pose a wee bit of a
nightmare for the uninitiated.
The general consensus was that by the time VAT had been added, most of the
stuff didn't appear to be very much, if any, cheaper than could be bought
elsewhere, especially if one is prepared to shop around, I can't honestly
say that we were exactly overwhelmed, so in the end we decided not to
bother.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:23:31 +0100, Michaelangelo wrote:

Norman Wells burst on the scene, and said:


I just wonder if anyone here has actually received back from their
house insurance company more than they've paid out in premiums.
There should be some if the companies aren't rampantly profiteering
on the back of unjustified anxiety.

You don't really understand insurance, do you?

Yup - legalised evasion of payment.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:16:19 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:36:25 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:01:08 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

in the middle of the night to be told the machine mashine has finished.

"mashine"? How did that get there?


Maybe you were using it to make illicit spirits from beer ...

I've never tried that. If the spirits are strong enough the "spin cycle"
would be the world as seen through the eyes of the drinker after a
suitable quantity.

But I do like this new word mash-shine that you have just coined

shirley it should be wash-shine?
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

"Invisible Man" wrote in message
...

There is one overriding reason why people should buy lots of insurance -
to make sure the company can continue paying my pension.

You have the wrong company if it needs to stay profitable to continue paying
your pension.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:39:09 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

Over the years, consumer advice has consistently been against paying
for such extended warranties. They are a rip-off. In fact, if you
think about, there is a sense in which all insurance is a rip-off.

The best form of insurance is to have enough money earning interest to
replace whatever it is that is being insured. That is unlikely to be
possible with your life, your house, or your legally required car
insurance, but for anything else, don't bother with it.

Interest??? More like disinterest nowadays

The other side of the equation makes up for that to some extent, a new
one will be better and cheaper and may use significantly less
electric/gas

On 31/07/2010 13:16, dennis@home wrote:


"Invisible Man" wrote in message
...

There is one overriding reason why people should buy lots of insurance
- to make sure the company can continue paying my pension.

You have the wrong company if it needs to stay profitable to continue
paying your pension.

It is a final salary pension from the insurance company I worked for for
36 years. Fortunately the hole in this scheme is not too big at present
and presumably in the unlikely event that the company went bust the govt
organised compensation scheme would pay out.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:33:52 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 30/07/2010 17:21, Norman Wells wrote:
Invisible Man wrote:
On 30/07/2010 16:35, Norman Wells wrote:
Invisible Man wrote:

Have you ever claimed on your house insurance, I wonder? Mine's just
come up for renewal and I can't recall ever making a claim in 35
years except one in 1990 for a relatively small amount of damage
caused by a couple of ridge tiles being dislodged by high winds.

I've made a couple of claims over the years. For one they insisted I
had to employ their plumber who came from 50 miles away, charged
accordingly then conveniently failed to fill in the correct forms so
they wouldn't pay out. Quel surprise.

A different lot paid out no hassle at all


snip

I've got buildings, because should something go wrong like a house fire,
I simply can't afford a full rebuild. The chance is very low, but I'm
prepared to take a loss on the bet because the potential loss of not
taking it is catastrophic.

Happened to a place I used to live (after I'd gone, officer!) AFAICR a
chip pan fire in a basement flat took out the entire building. It took
many years before they finally paid out and the landlord's daughter
finally got the place rebuilt. By then it was probably several
million. If they'd paid out promptly it would have been significantly
less.

I'll agree contents is closer to optional, but again, take the house
fire example : there's a lot of stuff to cover. I could probably start
again, but it would be very tight for a while.

In many places the Police are totally disinterested in things like
burglaries and will just tell you to claim on your insurance.

Contents also gets you third party insurance when out of your house,
which is potentially useful. My parents claimed on it for a bike crash I
caused when I was a kid.

Yes cheaper to extend my contents insurance to cover stuff like my
photographic gear than buy separate insurance. Sigma lenses that die
just out of warranty not covered however.

Peter Duncanson wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:56:29 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Adrian C wrote:
On 31/07/2010 06:01, Michaelangelo wrote:

Costco are wholesalers. In the UK that means they cannot legally sell
to the 'riff-raff'

I'm interested - what is exactly if the legal footing these and other
trade business enjoy to select customers? At the till, it's a VAT
receipt - like any other.

I wondered too, different VAT rules might apply (e.g. retail schemes vs
cash&carry schemes) but legally preventing them selling to certain
customers? Sounds wrong to me ...

I don't know the answer.

However, is it a legal restriction or a commercial restriction?

Is it the major retail chains which decide who should be able to buy at
wholesale prices? Those retail chains have considerable purchasing
power. They can boycott a supplier (manufacturer or importer) if that
business supplies goods to wholesale-price outlets that sell to just
anyone.

Well I doubt if any the major retail chains ever buy from Costco so they
won't have much in the way of clout. I suppose it's possible that planning
permission issues might sometimes result in this type of rule.

--
Mike Clarke

Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , Michaelangelo
writes
Bob Eager burst on the scene, and said:


And in practice, in my nearest Costco (Thurrock, Essex) there are
plenty of 'riff raff'! They seem to qualify somehow...

Indeed. People 'borrow' legitimate users cards. Difficult for a company
like Costco to control that. Checking the validity of every customer
would take time and cost money, so prices would rise. It's also not
good for business if customers are routinely challenged in-store.

There is a photograph on mine! I suppose they don't see it until I get
to the checkout.

Well the Leeds one has a bouncer at the door giving the cards a very cursory
glance as you go in.

--
Mike Clarke

In message VWQ4o.8453$806.4685@hurricane, Norman Wells
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Java Jive
writes
Over the years, consumer advice has consistently been against paying
for such extended warranties. They are a rip-off. In fact, if you
think about, there is a sense in which all insurance is a rip-off.

The best form of insurance is to have enough money earning interest
to replace whatever it is that is being insured.

Really ?

Would you like to remind up how much money you would have to put away
for how long at today's interest rates to replace an item which cost,
shall we say, £400 ?

If it's something electronic, about £200.

Completely failed to understand, didn't you

The previous posted is saying that rather insuring, put that money away
for the interest to buy you a new one when it dies

So ... how much money would you have to put away, OK, lets sat for 5
years as that's the length of the warranty period we're talking about to
accrue £400 interest (at what, 2.5%?)

--
geoff

In message , PeterC
writes
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:16:19 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:36:25 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:01:08 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

in the middle of the night to be told the machine mashine has finished.

"mashine"? How did that get there?


Maybe you were using it to make illicit spirits from beer ...

I've never tried that. If the spirits are strong enough the "spin cycle"
would be the world as seen through the eyes of the drinker after a
suitable quantity.

But I do like this new word mash-shine that you have just coined

shirley it should be wash-shine?

Not if it's beer

--
geoff

In message , Java Jive
writes
Certainly.

Payin £79/yr into an account paying current interest rates would be
worth £400 after 5 years. Whereas, in the most probable outcome of
your appliance lasting that time, the amount you paid for extended
warranty is worth absolutely nothing!

No, you TPB

You're including the capital as well as the interest


On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:43:19 +0100, geoff wrote:

Would you like to remind up how much money you would have to put away
for how long at today's interest rates to replace an item which cost,
shall we say, £400 ?

--
geoff

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:19:11 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message VWQ4o.8453$806.4685@hurricane, Norman Wells
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Java Jive
writes
Over the years, consumer advice has consistently been against paying
for such extended warranties. They are a rip-off. In fact, if you
think about, there is a sense in which all insurance is a rip-off.

The best form of insurance is to have enough money earning interest
to replace whatever it is that is being insured.

Really ?

Would you like to remind up how much money you would have to put away
for how long at today's interest rates to replace an item which cost,
shall we say, £400 ?

If it's something electronic, about £200.

Completely failed to understand, didn't you

The previous posted is saying that rather insuring, put that money away
for the interest to buy you a new one when it dies

So ... how much money would you have to put away, OK, lets sat for 5
years as that's the length of the warranty period we're talking about to
accrue £400 interest (at what, 2.5%?)

In a normal domestic setting there may be several appliances
(entertainment, kitchen, etc) valued at a few £100 each. How many of
those are likely to fail in any 5 year period? If you guess that no more
than one of them will fail then all the money you need to save or have
available is enough to repair or replace one item. You do not need to
have enough to deal with all of them failing.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:19:11 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message VWQ4o.8453$806.4685@hurricane, Norman Wells
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Java Jive
writes
Over the years, consumer advice has consistently been against paying
for such extended warranties. They are a rip-off. In fact, if you
think about, there is a sense in which all insurance is a rip-off.

The best form of insurance is to have enough money earning interest
to replace whatever it is that is being insured.

Really ?

Would you like to remind up how much money you would have to put away
for how long at today's interest rates to replace an item which cost,
shall we say, £400 ?

If it's something electronic, about £200.

Completely failed to understand, didn't you

The previous posted is saying that rather insuring, put that money away
for the interest to buy you a new one when it dies

So ... how much money would you have to put away, OK, lets sat for 5
years as that's the length of the warranty period we're talking about to
accrue £400 interest (at what, 2.5%?)

In a normal domestic setting there may be several appliances
(entertainment, kitchen, etc) valued at a few £100 each. How many of
those are likely to fail in any 5 year period? If you guess that no more
than one of them will fail then all the money you need to save or have
available is enough to repair or replace one item. You do not need to
have enough to deal with all of them failing.

Nobody said you do


--
geoff

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

The general rule is that if you can afford to repair replace whatever,
and the risk is moderate to high, don't insure.

I was astonished to learn following the fire that gutted their
Chichester store that Sainsbury never insured their premises.

Then, after the Big Read case, I learned that the BBC no longer carried
copyright infrigment insurance. They had dismissed most of their
copyright staff that kept them out of trouble.

Funny old world

--
James Follett

geoff wrote:
In message VWQ4o.8453$806.4685@hurricane, Norman Wells
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Java Jive
writes
Over the years, consumer advice has consistently been against
paying for such extended warranties. They are a rip-off. In
fact, if you think about, there is a sense in which all insurance
is a rip-off. The best form of insurance is to have enough money
earning interest
to replace whatever it is that is being insured.

Really ?

Would you like to remind up how much money you would have to put
away for how long at today's interest rates to replace an item
which cost, shall we say, £400 ?

If it's something electronic, about £200.

Completely failed to understand, didn't you

The previous posted is saying that rather insuring, put that money
away for the interest to buy you a new one when it dies

So ... how much money would you have to put away, OK, lets sat for 5
years as that's the length of the warranty period we're talking about
to accrue £400 interest (at what, 2.5%?)

If you don't pay your insurance premium, you put that away. The interest on
it is irrelevant. Put £200 away that you save by having no insurance, and
that will pay for replacement of your £400 item. So, I don't think I've
failed to understand at all.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
news:c%Q4o.8541$806.1461@hurricane...
Tim Streater wrote:

Insurance only really works when risks are fairly low. So if 1 in
10,000 houses burns down each year, and the average house is worth
say ?250k, everyone pays ?25/year in fire insurance (plus a bit
more). That means all 10,000 householders can cease to worry about
that particular risk.
That's what you're paying the premium for - so you don't have to
worry. It's for you to decide which risks you don't care about. To do
that in a sensible way, of course, you'll have to do a risk
assessment for each type of risk. That's what insurance companies do,
and they're quite good at it (they go bust if they're not). Better at
it than you are, at any rate.

Judging by the profits they make, they're much, much better at it than me,
to the extent of charging me possibly double what the risk actually is.
That's the gripe.

I just wonder if anyone here has actually received back from their house
insurance company more than they've paid out in premiums. There should be
some if the companies aren't rampantly profiteering on the back of
unjustified anxiety.

Not I, but I helped people who were paid a claim worth much 100 years'
premiums last
year. Claim was for damage to foundations, at least some of it caused by
third party negligence (interference with drainage arrangements)
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
news:c%Q4o.8541$806.1461@hurricane...
Tim Streater wrote:

Insurance only really works when risks are fairly low. So if 1 in
10,000 houses burns down each year, and the average house is worth
say ?250k, everyone pays ?25/year in fire insurance (plus a bit
more). That means all 10,000 householders can cease to worry about
that particular risk.
That's what you're paying the premium for - so you don't have to
worry. It's for you to decide which risks you don't care about. To do
that in a sensible way, of course, you'll have to do a risk
assessment for each type of risk. That's what insurance companies do,
and they're quite good at it (they go bust if they're not). Better at
it than you are, at any rate.

Judging by the profits they make, they're much, much better at it than me,
to the extent of charging me possibly double what the risk actually is.
That's the gripe.

I just wonder if anyone here has actually received back from their house
insurance company more than they've paid out in premiums. There should be
some if the companies aren't rampantly profiteering on the back of
unjustified anxiety.

Not I, but I helped people who were paid a claim worth about 100 years'
premiums last year. Claim was for damage to foundations, at least some of it
caused by
third party negligence (interference with drainage arrangements)
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)






--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

james wrote:

I was astonished to learn following the fire that gutted their
Chichester store that Sainsbury never insured their premises.

Hogg Robinson never used to insure any of their car fleet (effectively
they self-insured).

On 31/07/2010 18:02, james wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

The general rule is that if you can afford to repair replace whatever,
and the risk is moderate to high, don't insure.

I was astonished to learn following the fire that gutted their
Chichester store that Sainsbury never insured their premises.

Then, after the Big Read case, I learned that the BBC no longer carried
copyright infrigment insurance. They had dismissed most of their
copyright staff that kept them out of trouble.

Funny old world

Sainsbury have a lot of stores so if they lose the odd one it may not
cost as much as paying premium for all of them.
I understand that at one time Woolworths did not have sprinklers in
their stores because it was cheaper to have the occasional one burn down.
Many large companies have huge deductibles per event subject to an
aggregate limit for any one year. Some have their own captive insurance
companies in the UK or offshore. Many multinationals have incredibly
complex insurance programmes.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:02:15 +0100, Invisible Man wrote:

Which? seem to be scoring top LEDs and top LCDs above top Plasmas now
though.

AFAIAA there are no LED TV's of decent domestic screen size(*) about.
There are LCD's with LED backlight which isn't quite the same thing.
But does allow them to control the level of backlight over small
areas of screen and thus wind the backlight down in dark areas to
enchance the contrast ratio of the LCD panel.

I'd also take a large pinch of salt with what ever Which? says.

(*) There are plenty of big screens that are LED but not many would
have room for a 5m (203", 17' (ish)) to 14.6m (575", 48' (ish))
screen in their living room and be able to get far enough away from
it.

http://www.adi.tv/rental/products.html

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:41:02 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

the nearest to me is 35 miles away as the crow files (1h15m by car) and
56 miles by dual cariageway/motorway (59 minutes). That's a lot of fuel
to go shopping.

It's about that for us as well. Used to go once a month but now it's
when we need to, about every 2 1/2 months and combine it with the
weekly shop. I reckon we do just about save when you take into
account the membership fee and the 50 extra round trip miles to get
there and back. Bottled beer used to be about £1.50/bottle, two cases
would save enough over Tesco prices to pay the diesel... It really
does depend on what you buy, we tend to go for long life bulk stuff
and shorter life stuff that is needed at the time of the visit.

Are they actually any better on price/service than the likes of
Makro/Bookers?

Makro is further away than Costco. Bookers is better, they have a
branch in Carlisle, but have yet to convince them that I should be
allowed to "join", not that I've tried very hard. Makro have a much
bigger range of goods but prices are not quite as good as CostCo.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:36:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Re

A relative buys from Richer Sounds, says good prices and good
warranties. Believe when he buys an extended one he gets money back if
he does not make a claim.

That is not how insurance works.;-)

Agreed, but this is Richer Sounds. If you can remember when the five
years is up, then you have one month to claim a full refund.

http://www.richersounds.com/information/warranties

GrahamC

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:40:55 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:41:02 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

the nearest to me is 35 miles away as the crow files (1h15m by car) and
56 miles by dual cariageway/motorway (59 minutes). That's a lot of fuel
to go shopping.

Agreed. It's about 45 miles for us, but I tend to go every 3 months and
fill the car (on an early visit, we bought steel shelving to store it
all!). I calculated that the saving on cat food alone paid for the fuel.

Bottled beer used to be about £1.50/bottle, two cases would save enough
over Tesco prices to pay the diesel... It really does depend on what you
buy, we tend to go for long life bulk stuff and shorter life stuff that
is needed at the time of the visit.

Exactly. My wife drives past half a dozen times a year (in a Ford Fusion)
so she picks up some extra shorter life stuff with no real overhead. I
pretty well fill the S-Max when I go, but it's less than 10 litres of
diesel.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor