Posts by Fooman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
They do. The Clerk's site normally has a transcription after 5 pm on the same day. 2 or 3 days later, the official Hansard version comes out.
FM
-
You must not forget the often sheer joy of listening to people providing unintended delight to informed listeners. From yesterday's checkpoint, on the management of school infrastructure:
Mary Wilson: "If it is that good, why not extend it across the sector? Why not make every school do it?"
Bill English: "Well we...well we, we simply don't have the capacity or the desire to roll out models that have yet to be tested across every school"
This had me in stitches, wondering if he's managed to communicate this to Anne Tolley yet...
FM
-
Up Front: Life on Mars, in reply to Danielle,
Oh, the huge amenity?
#i'llgetmecoat
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Sacha,
While I otherwise agree with your logic, did you catch the earlier discussion that ‘market value’ in red zones when assessed will be close to zero?
Since the insurance companies appear to not consider the land, why should the valuers?
Land + Improvements is not necessarily zero even if Land = zero, for sufficiently large value of Improvements.
A nice, new, replacement house on shit land is still a nice, new replacement house. The receipts for materials and labour can be pointed to as a very good (and recent) guide to the value of the improvements on the property.
The cost of the land will have been addressed by taking up the land only side of the offer (still at a relative loss to pre-Sept values).
FM
PS. The automated conversion of 0 (zero) into what seems like a lower-case "o" sucks big time admins...
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to linger,
As the secuirty in the loan drops, the risks to the banks increase. Things like that are noticed by credit ranking agencies, moreso these days. Banks don't like their credit ratings to drop. Makes business more expensive.
FM
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to webweaver,
she told me that it wasn’t the insurance company’s problem – because they don’t insure the land.
As menttioned briefly upthread, I think the banks would have a major problem with this, as it would effectively reduce the value of their assets (mortgages over house+land) by a considerable amount.
(Addition: As insurance is required to get a mortgage, perhaps the asset list should be house+land+insurance policy)
FM
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to webweaver,
When I pushed the point and asked how on a practical level it is possible for them to claim that a house can be repaired when the land beneath it is no longer deemed liveable
The price of skyhooks has come down, obviously.
FM
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Ross Mason,
Do the Haywoods still lose on the deal???
Yes, because they lose the aesthetic value (that they had a great deal of investment in) of their particular house.
Imagine having a nice 1971 Ford Falcon GT-HO ( with a certain desirability or intangible value) and insuring for full replacement. Shit happens, and the insurance company offers a 2011 XR8 instead, take it or leave it ("what, they're both Ford V8's! What's the problem?)
FM
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to David Haywood,
I’m not entirely sure it would survive a trip. But the same idea has occurred to me – and it may be worth a go.
Especially as it is so obviously a requirement for repair, I am sure that the insurance company would pay for it and/or any damage sustained.
Have you had a chat to your bank*. I don't think they will be too happy about having an asset in which they hold an interest being devalued by being on land that will not be able to be sold/inhabited.
FM
*this assumes that the income from sucking at teh teat of public radio and private wordsmithing is not quite sufficient to free you from the tyranny of a mortgage.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Square Two, in reply to David Haywood,
I’ve had a chance to look at some of the LINZ vertical and horizontal shift data now for the post-Feb movements. It seems that:
The largest movement was 0.20m horizontally and 0.10m vertically at a mark close to the fault, just to the south of the city.
In other words, the bulk vertical movement appears to be less than 10 cm. So rumours that the whole of East Christchurch has sunk into the sea are greatly exaggerated.
GNS have a nice map of subsidence and lift that offers a slightly different answer, but again, a maximum subsidence of ~150 mm.
FM