Mooring auctions reserve prices

[Dave_P]

I was just having a look through the CaRT auction website and 2 things struck me.

 

1. There seems to be more moorings than ever which get no bids. See here: https://www.crtmoorings.com/auctions/search.php?search_type=ended

 

2. The reserve and guide prices seem to have gone through the roof.

 

Am I imagining both these things? Have I become an old grump who goes on about how i used to be able to buy a bag of chip for half-a-sixpence? Or have CaRT got a bit greedy and shot themselves in the foot by leaving themselves with loads of unfilled moorings?

Edited June 20, 2013 by Dave_P

[Guest]

I think the general consensus is that the answer to your last question is - yes.

 

But there has been a suggestion elsewhere on the forum that moorings are now being taken up due to stricter enforcement measures being put in place and that this is leading to an increase in the price some people are prepared to pay.

Edited June 20, 2013 by The Dog House

[alan_fincher]

I was just having a look through the CaRT auction website and 2 things struck me.

 

1. There seems to be more moorings than ever which get no bids. See here: https://www.crtmoorings.com/auctions/search.php?search_type=ended

 

2. The reserve and guide prices seem to have gone through the roof.

 

Am I imagining both these things? Have I become an old grump who goes on about how i used to be able to buy a bag of chip for half-a-sixpence? Or have CaRT got a bit greedy and shot themselves in the foot by leaving themselves with loads of unfilled moorings?

BW/CRT in their wisdom have progressively increased the levels at which they set "reserve" based on "guide".

 

It was once 75%, then 80%, but after CRT came into being it got hiked right up to 90%

 

(Most examples - some "premium" type moorings have followed different "rules".)

 

I have a while back challenged CRT property director Stuart Mills about this, and it is the subject of an old thread here.

 

I suspect you are also an old grump who goes on about how i used to be able to buy a bag of chip for half-a-sixpence, ("thuppence" I would have called it!), but it is also true that BW have built a bit of a monster with the auctions system, and, despite claims about the market setting the rate, they refuse to let it set proper lower bounds, but are very happy for it to sell some moorings at (say) three times the guide price.

[PiRSqwared]

The reserve price has risen from 75% of guide (IIRC) to its current 90% of guide, which is quite a hike. At 75%, BW claimed that the reserve was the price below which it was not economic to rent the mooring. There is no such pretence now it is at 90% - CaRT just say the reserve is at their discretion.

Apparently 19 or 20 percent of CaRT moorings are vacant, which is fairly equivalent to the vacant percentage in private sector moorings

[Dave_P]

BW/CRT in their wisdom have progressively increased the levels at which they set "reserve" based on "guide".

 

It was once 75%, then 80%, but after CRT came into being it got hiked right up to 90%

 

(Most examples - some "premium" type moorings have followed different "rules".)

 

I have a while back challenged CRT property director Stuart Mills about this, and it is the subject of an old thread here.

 

I suspect you are also an old grump who goes on about how i used to be able to buy a bag of chip for half-a-sixpence, ("thuppence" I would have called it!), but it is also true that BW have built a bit of a monster with the auctions system, and, despite claims about the market setting the rate, they refuse to let it set proper lower bounds, but are very happy for it to sell some moorings at (say) three times the guide price.

Thanks Alan, I wasn't actually born when decimalisation came in. I remember Wham! bars and Wagon Wheels being twice the size they are now though.

The reserve price has risen from 75% of guide (IIRC) to its current 90% of guide, which is quite a hike. At 75%, BW claimed that the reserve was the price below which it was not economic to rent the mooring. There is no such pretence now it is at 90% - CaRT just say the reserve is at their discretion.

Apparently 19 or 20 percent of CaRT moorings are vacant, which is fairly equivalent to the vacant percentage in private sector moorings

 

It may be 19-20% now but on recent evidence it may be creeping up.

 

I don't really care what the private sector do, but CaRT have a remit to maintain the network. If their budgets are restricted due to empty moorings, then I care.

[Tuscan]

The whole process seems flawed to me, if CRT genuinely want market forces to decide then they should be honest about it and increase the LTM guide prices in popular areas and lower those in the areas where they are not attracting offers to make them more attractive. But first substantially more LTM's should be created in urban areas to at least go a little way to meet demand in areas where there are few marinas.

[FidoDido]

Around here C&RT online moorings are often much more expensive than marina moorings. How they come to their prices, I've no idea. How can the side of a canal not be financially viable to rent out at £1500/yr? Some of the mooring auctions I kept an eye on over the last year went for over £2500!! FFS... With a 70ft boat, there are few that come up, so I guess there may be more demand for longer moorings, but thats still nearly a grand more than some marinas around here charge. And many marinas are struggling to fill up too. No wonder many auctions go without any bids. They are pricing themselves out of people's reach.

[Dave_P]

I think the general consensus is that the answer to your last question is - yes.

 

But there has been a suggestion elsewhere on the forum that moorings are now being taken up due to stricter enforcement measures being put in place and that this is leading to an increase in the price some people are prepared to pay.

 

^{But how is that borne out by the numbers of moorings which nobody bids on?}

[Guest]

 

^{But how is that borne out by the numbers of moorings which nobody bids on?}

 

I don't know TBH - I'm not sure if it is correct, just that it was referred to in another thread.

[Dave_P]

The whole process seems flawed to me, if CRT genuinely want market forces to decide then they should be honest about it and increase the LTM guide prices in popular areas and lower those in the areas where they are not attracting offers to make them more attractive. But first substantially more LTM's should be created in urban areas to at least go a little way to meet demand in areas where there are few marinas.

 

Quite right. As we speak there are 5 visitor boats moored in Gas Street Basin. How? They're a friendly bunch who have all breasted up right at the end. People don't usually moor there but it would make a perfect spot for offering LTMs. Sometimes I think that CaRT are interested in nothing more than counting beans and don't have a jot of imagination.

[Naughty Cal]

Also how do they decide when a mooring is put into the "buy it now" category?

[Dave_P]

It's all bonkers isn't it!!!!!

[peterboat]

Hi all strange to me in the auction world if something doesnt sell they reduce the starting price (reserve) also vacant moorings cost money to look after dont they? I think it was time that they woke up and smelled the roses things are hard out here so a pound gained isnt a pound lost!!!

 

Peter

[Mick and Maggie]

In our marina one boater told me (out of contract) his annual mooring cost has gone up by 41% or £900 in a year. At the same time there are about five moorings that have been empty for many months and have never been put up for auction. Three others were put up for auction and then withdrawn a few days later. There are seized boats that have occupied moorings for six or seven years. Like the the bottom gets closer to the top in the canals. The CaRT bottom mooring price gets closer to the guide price. I have wondered if CaRT being as its in a monopoly situation should be tested again?

 

The British Waterways Board was referred for the second time to the monopolies and mergers commission in 1993

 

A copy of the report can be found here.

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm24/2431/2431.pdf

[PMB]

Evening all,

 

Do you think that maybe CaRT don't really want to rent moorings out? They seem to be pricing themselves out of the competition (against marinas) and reading their winter mooring website have completely changed how they manage winter moorings, this year its a fixed price for all outside London and you just find a space, BUT they will be outside visitor mooring spaces.

 

We were loosely planning to get a few months paid for in Birmingham but that doesn't look doable now.

 

Our only options are to CC or take a space in a marina - hmm is that their plan? Are they under pressure from marina operators?

 

From their winter mooring site - "Marinas and commercial moorings operators are an obvious place to start for continuous cruisers wanting to stay put during winter"

 

Now if I was running a business I don't think my opening paragraph would be 'look at my competitors first!'

[Doorman]

Thanks Alan, I wasn't actually born when decimalisation came in. I remember Wham! bars and Wagon Wheels being twice the size they are now though.

 

And there were more than 10 crisps in a packet. Why do we let companies get away with it?

[Tuscan]

I believe it's common knowledge that to encourage the investment into marinas BW agreed to reduce the number of LTM's. If I was looking to pay for a winter mooring I would be looking for it to be on a VM because of the closeness to facilities , firm bank etc.

 

At declared hotspots like Foxton and Marsworth even with Winter Moorngs there was plenty of room for passing visitors so I'm not sure of CRTs reasoning here. I have not read the new winter mooring rules to check this is actually the case but if true it seems a bit of a raw deal for those that CC if true.

 

Obviously as a large marina owner CRT would rather have full marinas perhaps

[MtB]

Evening all,

 

Do you think that maybe CaRT don't really want to rent moorings out?

 

This definitely seems to be the case to me. So many on line moorings with ludicrously high reserves these days listed repeatedly with no takers. It's as though they are trying to build a track record of evidence that (for example) 'boaters no longer want on-line moorings'.

 

There seems to me to be a policy of attempting to erase the differential between on-line and marina moorings. Not sure why, but no doubt it will become clear once they achieve it.

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

Around here C&RT online moorings are often much more expensive than marina moorings. How they come to their prices, I've no idea.

Until recently the BW/CRT "list" price for each mooring, was just that - a price that had been the price historically, per metre, for that site, and just incremented annually by whatever was this years percentage, (and which for a long while had exceeded inflationary increases). That price was used to calculate "guide" in auctions, and then "reserve" based on that.

 

Only recently has BW/CRT made any attempt to increase the price at each site differently based on demand, but although not hugely publicised they did such an exercise for the whole country a while back. part of their rationale was popularity at auction, so at sites that were not selling they froze prices, but at ones where people were bidding awy beyond guide, they gave them a "bigger than elsewhere" increase.

 

Of course this is then the price either for anyone who has held a mooring from "pre-auction" days, and indeed also the case for anyone taking out an extended contract once the three yeas at a price they won at auction are up.

 

This means that if BW/CRT were to suddenly double "list" price at a site where people had been prepared to pay double at auction, all existing moorers on "standard" contracts would be hit. There would righty be uproar.

 

This is why I suspect they have made some adjustments based on popularity at auction, but nothing like as dramatically as the auction prices could have influenced it.

 

What I don't think they did, (but I may be wrong) is lower "list" at any sites where moorings always fail to sell at auction, but at least they had the wit not to keep increasing them. If they keep doing that, I suppose over time those moorings might start to look more attractive, if prices of popular ones continue to increase away from them?

 

But there has been a suggestion elsewhere on the forum that moorings are now being taken up due to stricter enforcement measures being put in place and that this is leading to an increase in the price some people are prepared to pay.

 

 

 

^{But how is that borne out by the numbers of moorings which nobody bids on?}

 

 

 

I don't know TBH - I'm not sure if it is correct, just that it was referred to in another thread.

Highly regional. Some areas, (or some less popular sites), moorings consistently fail to let. Currently in the South East emand has rocketed at some sites, with people prepared to pay over twice "guide" at some, and even the less popular sites regularly making at least "guide".

 

Hi all strange to me in the auction world if something doesnt sell they reduce the starting price (reserve) also vacant moorings cost money to look after dont they? I think it was time that they woke up and smelled the roses things are hard out here so a pound gained isnt a pound lost!!!

I believe CRT start to get hit by other issues if they set "reserve" significantly lower than what other moorers at the same site currently pay.

 

Rather than trying to re-explain it all again here, I'll try and find a previous post where I have.......

[Starcoaster]

Also how do they decide when a mooring is put into the "buy it now" category?

 

I was given to understand by replies I got here when I asked this some time ago that the 'buy it now' ones are ones they have failed to sell in auctions enough times that they have given up hope and stopped bothering to repeatedly list them.

[alan_fincher]

Evening all,

 

Do you think that maybe CaRT don't really want to rent moorings out?

 

 

 

This definitely seems to be the case to me. So many on line moorings with ludicrously high reserves these days listed repeatedly with no takers. It's as though they are trying to build a track record of evidence that (for example) 'boaters no longer want on-line moorings'.

 

There seems to me to be a policy of attempting to erase the differential between on-line and marina moorings. Not sure why, but no doubt it will become clear once they achieve it.

 

I simply do not think that this is the orrect explanation.

 

Instead I firmly believe they are trying to avoid a situation where existing moorers at a site suddenly realise that newcomers are getting an equivalent mooring for far less than they are paying month on month.

 

When "reserve " was only 75% of guide, if you were already paying £2,000 a year for a mooring there, (and accepting it going up by above inflation each year), how would you have felt if you found a newcomer was not only getting an exactly equivalent mooring for £1,500, but also that the price they paid was guaranteed not to go up at all throughout their three year contract?

 

I suggest it would start you thinking that the next one to come up, you would see if you could get it for £1,500 ? However if the "reserve" is set at 90%, then that mooring can't let for less than £1,800, and the maths for bidding on it to save money become far less attractive, particularly as you will have to give notice on your current one, and probably pay for both for at least one month, maybe more.

 

I believe this is why they would rather let them go un-let, than keep reducing them until they do sell.

 

I was given to understand by replies I got here when I asked this some time ago that the 'buy it now' ones are ones they have failed to sell in auctions enough times that they have given up hope and stopped bothering to repeatedly list them.

Yes, but when they list a "buy it now" price, it is the full (100%) list price! If you had bid on it before they made it "buy it now", you could have had it at reserve.

 

Anyone who buys a "buy it now" mooring is in my view either dumb, or exceedingly desperate!

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to why the level at which reserve is set is so high - here is a much longer explanation of my theory from an older thread.....

 

I have never bought the answer that BW / CaRT need to set the "reserve" price on mooring auctions as high as they do, because it is "uneconomic" to let the mooring go for less.

 

That is clearly nonsense - there really are no incremental costs to CaRT at a typical unserviced towpath long-term mooring if it has a boat tied up on it, than if it does not!

 

Clearly, if nothing else came into play, even if they only let a mooring for 50% of "guide" price that has to make more economic sense for them than not letting it at all. Collecting say £1000 per annum, even if other boats at the site are contributing £2000 per annum must simply be better than collecting £0 per annum.

 

But I firmly believe something else does come into play!

 

If I had a boat at a site where I am currently paying £2000 per annum, under "old pre tender/auction" arrangements, and became aware that other people were now getting a similar mooring at the same site at half the price, all I need to do is bid on one, and hopefully also win it at the greatly reduced price. I would generally only need to give a month's notice on my existing mooring, so even allowing for paying for two moorings for one "overlap" month, I am quickly in profit. Not only that, my price is then locked down and guaranteed for 3 years - I don't have to fear above inflation increases.

 

I believe quite a few people have done this - terminated an existing agreement, after having acquired an auctioned mooring much more cheaply. I believe, but can't prove, that that is the reason that BW and now CaRT have pushed typical "reserve" prices up from 75% of "guide" to first 80%, and recently 90%. With the minimum price accepted now only 10% below the "standard" rate for the site, I believe it far less likely people will be bothered to terminate existing arrangements to save a few quid.

 

Of course, the end result of trying to discourage people getting moorings cheaply is that many now haven't a hope in hell of being let. If you couldn't let them with an 80% "reserve" it isn't very likely they will then be sold with the "reserve" set at 90%, unless a customer happens to come along, who wasn't looking before.

 

I firmly believe BW went for this "let the ,market set the rate" approach out of greed, thinking it would push average prices up, but now firmly find themselves in many areas where it has totally backfired on them. I'd be amazed if even after you rule out all the costs of setting it up, and presumably extra administration, if they are not anyway making far far less out of moorings letting as a result.

 

I doubt they will ever admit it though, as it seems to have been a bit of a flagship policy.

 

The crazy thing is that when your three year fixed price contract for a tendered or auctioned mooring completes, they simply offer to revert you to old arrangements, and you start paying "guide" - exactly the same figure as paid by anyone else at the site who's agreement predates all this nonsense. (I am currently going through this with one of our moorings, so I'm sure of the facts).

 

So much for letting the market set the rate!

 

As you can see, this is a hobby horse of mine - I genuinely believe it is one of the daftest ideas they ever had!

 

Edited June 21, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Dave_P]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highly regional. Some areas, (or some less popular sites), moorings consistently fail to let. Currently in the South East emand has rocketed at some sites, with people prepared to pay over twice "guide" at some, and even the less popular sites regularly making at least "guide".

 

 

If you look at recent completed auctions you'll find plenty in the south east with no bids. For example a couple of days ago in the Paddington Arm. But then look at the reserve price!! CaRT claim the reserve prices are at the minimum needed to maintain the moorings. What utter rubbish. How can it possibly be in their interest to have an empty mooring in Paddington Basin as a result of setting the reserve at over £5000??? And does it really cost 4 times more to maintain a mooring there than it does in Birmingham? It looks to me like opportunism practised by imbeciles.

[alan_fincher]

If you look at recent completed auctions you'll find plenty in the south east with no bids. For example a couple of days ago in the Paddington Arm. But then look at the reserve price!! CaRT claim the reserve prices are at the minimum needed to maintain the moorings. What utter rubbish. How can it possibly be in their interest to have an empty mooring in Paddington Basin as a result of setting the reserve at over £5000??? And does it really cost 4 times more to maintain a mooring there than it does in Birmingham? It looks to me like opportunism practised by imbeciles.

Do you mean Paddington basin?

 

I suspect you are talking about Engineers Wharf - if so not very close to Paddington! (If it were I think they might let far easier!).

 

I think my argument still applies, despite the huge numbers.

 

The "book" price at Engineers wharf seems to be £5,765, and presumably, despite the issues with trying to let all spaces there, there are existing moorers already paying £5,765 per year for a berth.

 

Even the quoted "reserve" of £5,189, would represent a £576 per saving to anyone paying the full price, or at least £1,728 on a three year fixed price contract. I don't know what notice an existing moorer there would need to give to terminate a full price mooring, but if it is one month, then that is £432 they would have to forfeit if they bid and got one more cheaply. Even so, they might be able to save about £1,300 over three years by successfully bidding at reserve.

 

So what happens if CRT set reserve at (say) £3,000 to try and ensure a berth lets? I would suggest each time this happens, they have the potential to see it taken by an existing moorer. Over time the recognised "list" price of a berth there might then be considered to be £3,000, not nearly £6,000.

 

CRT will make more money by having (say) only 75% occupancy at full price, rather than 100% occupancy at say £3,000. (Note I have no idea what the actual occupancy is at Engineers Wharf - I'm just giving an example - the reality might be nothing like!

 

I remain well convinced this is not about what is costs to provide and service a mooring at Enginners Wharf - it is about them not being able to keep existing moorers paying a very high price, if low reserves set a much lower figure at that site.

 

Nobody seems to accept what I'm saying, and most seem intent on other explanations. However, I'm pretty certain I'm right about why CRT's policy is as it is!

[madcat]

So time to set a sensible non rip off price and operate a waiting list system . They are a charity and should stop behaving like a bunch of spivs.

Iam utterly fed up of the way the canals appear to be going and I think that if it were not for the recession and the numbers of unsold historic boats I may have flogged the brute and gone off to keep chickens and grow my own veggies somewhere green and not cold

[alan_fincher]

So time to set a sensible non rip off price and operate a waiting list system . They are a charity and should stop behaving like a bunch of spivs.

Iam utterly fed up of the way the canals appear to be going and I think that if it were not for the recession and the numbers of unsold historic boats I may have flogged the brute and gone off to keep chickens and grow my own veggies somewhere green and not cold

I hate moorings auctions with a vengeance.

 

However it is my judgement, (and other who have attended meetings seem to agree with me), that this would be one of the hardest things to get CRT to change direction on.

 

They still seem singularly wed to the idea, despite all its flaws.

 

Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but I think we need to get some common sense on a few more easily won campaigns, before taking on that big one.

 

I would love to see something better/fairer/more appropriate to a charitable trust.