Bad Statistic for the superyacht industry

Wow, a pain to read... google translator?

anyways, there are a couple of things to just comment - i'm not sure what kind of reaction you were searching for... But why would yacht owner today or in any other time want to be "identified" and pulled up for an itnerview!? This is ridiculous... the stance that YF takes on yacht owners is exactly in line with the superyacht lifestyle, and makes total sense... ppl who dont get this (such as this reporter - from what I gathered, who was "shocked" that he was mistreated by the yacht owner quoted in parag 1), just arent fit for the industry...

Well yes, the world took a big hit... but go try and build a new yacht... Prices may be slightly more competitve, but only ever so silghtly... no one is going to build a yacht below cost just to "keep the yard busy"...

An lastly, just to comment quickly, "a millionaire" = a person with 1 million... a person with 1 million cant afford a "big yacht"... it is unlikely a person with 1 million can afford any sort of yacht... (unless he or she is quite wreckless - not considering just any boat, speed boat, whatever, the article specifically mengtions "luxury yachts", mentions a 43-meter yacht, and then tlks about "growing number of ppl with 1 million bucks"?? )... c'mon, the article is all over the place...

There may well be less orders on the books, it may be a natural fluctuation, it may not, I'm sure many people are more conscious about the economic situation around the world, despite some other countries currently prospering...

anyways, even I'm a bit lost with my own post lol... but the article just sounds to me like it is "trying to get people even more desparate"... who knows, maybe its essence was lost in translation...

In contrast, this press release just came across my desk(top)...

Now this makes more sense... Seems to have at least some base... the initial article is bullocks imho... reporter "thinks yachts are cool" so decides to write about the market.....

I love industry predictions by the "experts", especially 5 or 10 year predictions. They're better than the funny papers. Without paying for any great experts I'll predict the economy will get worse and it will get better, but not necessarily in that order. I may be off by a year or two and it may depend on which industry you're in and which company you work for at the time.
On a more serious not I predict that the companies who keep an eye on what's happening today, prepare for any eventuality and react properly to market fluxuations will do pretty good. Those that don't, won't. I'll put expert after my name and adjust my prediction for anybody who wishes to pay me for an in depth statistical analysis. A lot of "experts" lost their shirts over the last couple of years, and a lot of fools have been getting rich for a lot longer than that. What's more interesting is what shape companies are in today and what their plans are for the next year. What's that saying about watching the dimes and the dollars will take care of themselves? Most predictions we see today are nothing more than tails trying to wag dogs.

Are people buying new yachts up to 100' considered middle class?

I had considered that segment of the population to be well affluent.

This refers to the middle segment of yacht buyers, not middle class income.

That makes infinitely more sense, thanks.

US citizens, so far as I'm concerned, remain the most numerous owners of superyachts in 2012. Whatever means they employ, (foreign flags, on-shore Delaware etc. / offshore corporations etc. to disguise beneficial ownership), US multi-millionaires still own far more superyachts than the British, French, Chinese or Russians combined...

Whilst the US courts have over the past few years, levied huge fines measured in several US$ hundreds of millions , sometimes US$ billions and mostly targetted at large European companies which have operations in the USA but related to their operations worldwide (payments of inducements / bribes etc.), the US authorities apparently do not feel any need to investigate and/or curb the activities of US corporations and individuals (whether or not they own a superyacht)...

So long as most 1st world governments continue to prefer not to address the issue, especially as so many of the most important donators to campaigns by parties seeking re-election apparently continue to depend on these off-shore funds.

One of the hopeful US-presidential candidates, US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has declared paying a tax rate of 13.9% in 2010 and an expected rate of 15.4% in 2011

Just who decided that incomes from the dividends of share-ownership and capital-gains from the sale of these shares should be taxed at (a much lower rate) compared to earned income, and why...? That's what 99% of US citizens together with similar numbers of citizens of other countries should be asking themselves today. And expecting reasonable answers from their elected representatives / MPs etc.

It's to encourage investment. Reasonable enough?
As to the rest, you're talking about a very large population. The % of super-rich is no more than in several other countries. Most of the U.S. population is struggling. So the only valid comparrison would be with countries with similar populations. When you look at those countries consider how long they've had a fairly stable economy that promoted entrapeneural enterprise. Many countries feel they should be able to surpass the U.S. economy (which took 3 and a half centuries to reach the point it's at today) in a day. That's an unrealistic expectation although it has happened in places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Don't believe what you see on TV. It shows our imagination, not our reality.

the wealth is just like stocks you don't want to be a politican you just want to own the right one's

travler

Investment income should be taxed at a lower rate, as it is double taxation. The money someone would use in order to invest, was already taxed at their normal tax rate when they earned it before investing it.

Mitt Romney made I think it was $21.4 million, he donated $3million to charity, and paid $3 million in tax and was taxed on the same money prior to this year when he actually earned the money to invest. Look at how many needy people benefited from the $3 million he donated to charities.

I think $3 million is plenty in tax for a single person to pay even if it is 15%. It's not fair that 48% of the US workers don't pay a single cent in tax. That should be collected from all of these criminals that aren't paying tax, and I think everyone should pay a flat tax something along the lines of 15% of what you make.

Whatever, as long as they buy boats for what they get away with...

All very good information and I couldn't agree more. Now please, please, please... don't turn this into a political debacle.

I won't plea with anyone on this. The next political post will be removed, no matter how much seniority you have around here. People don't come here for politics!

No other subject will KILL a forum faster.

Ah c'mon... A rabbi, a priest and .... ok..

Carl (YachtForums) wrote:

Carl might have clarified: A mere US$ 1,095 including 6 months' membership and access to this IBI report, or just US$ 825 for access to the single report...?! I'm unsure whether or not most YF posters here have such amounts readily available from "petty cash" so as to be able to consult such reports in their entirety. How much does it cost to replace a full set of tyres on a Honda NSX though...?!

Capt J wrote:

If I understand your argument correctly, the individual in question would have accumulated his original nest-egg from earnings taxed at the usual rates. This nest-egg would in turn be reinvested and benefit from reduced taxation based on capital-gains, compared to earned income. So far as I'm concerned, I've no argument against. However, your own argument fails when it comes to the next round. When this nest-egg consists entirely of funds which have been accumulated and taxed under the lower tax rates of capital gains - please advise just how these funds are somehow subject to "double taxation"...?!

If anyone truly believes in this age and times of great hardship worldwide, that "investment income" should be treated any differently to "earned income", then they might as well wish for a return to feudal times, where their Lordships lived in great mansions and castles, controlled all the wealth and the means of creation of wealth across huge swathes of the country - and the rest of us were mere cannon-fodder when their Lordships decided to fight amongst themselves.

Whatever, back to superyachts. If ever I get to own a 50m+ superyacht, I've decided that the chef aboard would be the same chef that I employ at my home/s. Why? Simple economics. Suppose that it costs Euro 100-125,000 to employ a well-qualified chef per year (including social security contributions etc.), allowing for a take-home salary of Euro 6,500 per month before income taxes for the chef. That works out at approx. Euro 342.00 per day (plus accomodation provided, health insurance plan etc.). As a single man, I could dine everyday at a Michelin 2 or 3 star restaurant for much less than what it would cost me to employ a "personal chef"...?! So far as my yacht crew are concerned, each crew-member would take in turn, their daily duties "cleaning crew quarters / preparing the meals / ensuring the watch in port" etc. And if I ever arrived aboard unannounced, I'd be grateful for a bed and a simple bacon sarnie...

On privately owned and privately used yachts that is most often the case. But if the yacht is chartered or otherwise lent out the owners don't want to be restricted to PB&J sandwiches at home while their chef is occupied on board.

I'd just like the say that there are a lot of normal everyday people who benefit with a capital gains tax with their employer sponsored 401k's and such. So a great deal of the population benefits through reduced taxation on investments. Most middle and even lower class have a 401k of some sort.

Anyways, a lot of reason the rich are not buying superyachts is because even though it appears they have a ton of money. They too have lost 40% (give/take) of value in their stocks and mutual fund investments in a lot of cases, so say they had $100 mill in stocks and it now says $60 mill, they react to it just like the guy that had 10,000 in his 401k and now only has 6000. Also dividends are much less, so they're spending money from dividends might be cut short. A lot of it is also perception. People generally are more likely to commit to a 2-3 year megayacht build when they have a good feeling about the future and economy.

Having the same chef travel with you rarely works. Who provisions the boat for the chef before you get there, who cooks for the crew when your chef is gone, when does the chef have any time off, how can the chef get a head start on a trip when they arrive with you.

some times it just get's easer to get rid of all the corp perks and fire the dedicated staff that it takes to keep all these things organized and going so you can enjoy the golden years, some of us contribute to the economy and others just milk it dry unfortunatly there are both kind's

travler

There is one other trend that might affect "superluxury" industries such as yachtbuilding: tightening down on "cash refugee" schemes.

Sorry for "flamebait" - not intended as such - but the reality of things is that a huge % of wealthy people all around the world use "offshore" schemes. Some to lessen tax burdens, some (like in my beloved Motherland) simply to prevent seizure by corrupt officials, others for ease of operation and mobility - whatever.

With multiple efforts around the world made to take those schemes out - see for example the recent US - Swiss case - those people might start feeling "less safe" about their capital. Which in turn might affect their choices of "superpurchases".

I recently had a long run-in with guys from private jet industry, and they are very worried about this particular thing - saying they feel effects already. Not 100%, but line of reasoning makes sense to me.