Re: The Apprentice.

michael adams wrote:
We're talking about commercial property here,

Are we? I thought we were talking about a tender?

not Van Gogh paintings
or Chippendale chairs.

You are the one who started generalising, saying that all cases where
bids are involved are like auctions and as ebay uses auctions all cases
where bids are involved must be similar to ebay. I never said that.

I'll tell you what sunshine exactly the same applies to money.

Bank deposits whatever. Why should people exchange real stuff -
hi-fi's, tellys, or more imprtantly food, etc which are an aid
to survival, for useless bits of paper?

You just have a little lie down in a darkened room and have a little
think about that for a couple of years.

Then when you can come up with a convincing answer report back
here. That's if Global warming hasn't got here first.

In fact yachts and castles happen to have rather more utility
value than does money. Castles supply shelter from the elements.
And enemies. Bank deposits don't.

My tip:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764557262/qid=1145095259/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i8_xgl/203-9388803-6122318

Forget money for a moment. I'm talking about the intrinsic value of
objects. If nobody thinks an object is valuable (to exchange with
whatever, money or anything else) then its value is 0.

Total rubbish.

The size of other peoples bids represents an item's value to "them".
Not to you. Or to the market as a whole.

If two multimillionaire collectors get carried away in a saleroom -
and regardless of abundant examples elsewhere, bid up a Chippendale
chair to 20 million, that doesn't make it worth 20 million.
All that happens then is that everyone else with Chippendale
chairs will put them on the market and the price will return
to its former level.

That's a stupid example, people don't invest 20 million like that.
Anyway we were talking about a rational business decision.

....and you were saying that there is no advantage in knowing what the
rival firm has bid. LOL

Real Estate profits derive from rental income.

Sometimes true, but they are relatively small compared to the overall
price of a house. Therefore if a company doesn't buy the house at the
proper price (determined by supply and demand) then they will be in
trouble.

Note: I made a mistake in my previous message. Real Estate doesn't
(always) generate a lot of profit through sales. What I meant is that
the resale value in Real Estate is important if you want to make an
overall profit, so you must be careful not to buy too high.

A guy even invented a game in the 1930's based on that idea.

Ever heard of er, "Monopoly"?..................No ?

I love it. Martin defends his case by saying he has 35 years experience
in evaluating multimillion pound contracts and I defend mine by trying
to explain the rules of economics and you defend yours with ebay and
monopoly. What age are you?

What is the goal in Monopoly? To build a house? No. The goal is to
build a hotel. Why do you think that is? Why don't players just stop
after having built a house? Because the (rental) return of a house is
low. A hotel is a much better investment if your revenue is going to be
generated through customers staying at your property.

.

Loading