Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materials increasing

On 31/01/2016 11:58, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-30 22:37:03 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not
sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual registration.
If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment. If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

Is this true then - that only 17% of California homeowners have
earthquake insurance?
http://www.latimes.com/la-homeauto-story1-story.html

In article 2016013016002698200-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:


If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...

Granted? Don't you mean repaid?

no. i mean granted.

a lender may want insurance on a property for which they're loaning
money, but after that, it's possible to cancel the insurance and not
cause problems.

BTW: Do you own a home clear, or are you making mortgage payments?
...or are you renting?

what does that have to do with anything? this isn't about me.

On 2016-01-31 00:02:22 +0000, Me said:

On 31/01/2016 11:58, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-30 22:37:03 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not
sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual registration.
If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment. If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

Is this true then - that only 17% of California homeowners have
earthquake insurance?
http://www.latimes.com/la-homeauto-story1-story.html

Earthquake insurance like flood insurance isn't mandatory in
California. One can certainly weigh the risks and forego that coverage.
However, I have experienced a magnitude 6.5 earthquake in my home and
consider myself fortunate that California building codes minimized
damage.
That said I have optional earthquake insurance which will provide me
the means to rebuild or repair damage. I do not have a punitive
deductable and my annual premium is reasonable and affordable. So I am
probably among that 17%.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 01/30/2016 06:46 PM, nospam wrote:
In article 2016013015345093904-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,

snip
If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...


When I had a mortgage, my mortgage holder required proof of insurance
annually. The insurer was required to notify the bank if I canceled my
insurance. At one time, I changed insurance companies, the new insurer
didn't notify the bank quickly enough, and the bank threatened foreclosure.

Now that I own my property free and clear, I still carry insurance in
case someone trips on the sidewalk, the place catches on fire and the
fire department can't find their way across the street (the fire station
is adjacent), or a tornado hits again (F-4, May 2006).

Ken Hart

Sandman wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

RichA:
Commodities, metals, everything that uses energy for production
has FALLEN in price thanks to dropping demand and much lower
fuel costs. Nikon is full of s--- and is simply trying to rape
existing customers because they aren't getting enough NEW
customers. In 2000, insurance companies in Canada tried raising
rates 100% b

hiccup. The insurers tried raising rates because they lost money
in the stock market so they tried to make it back using their near
monopolistic positions in the Canadian market to rip-off
insurances users. Same thing with Nikon.

You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what you
meant here.

Not sure what Rich means either, since he posted no link to something
concerning his claims



Why don't you just ignore him?

Mort Linder

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...


When I had a mortgage, my mortgage holder required proof of insurance
annually. The insurer was required to notify the bank if I canceled my
insurance. At one time, I changed insurance companies, the new insurer
didn't notify the bank quickly enough, and the bank threatened foreclosure.

so what? i didn't say every single lender.

the fact is that some check and some don't.

On 31/01/2016 13:16, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-31 00:02:22 +0000, Me said:

On 31/01/2016 11:58, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-30 22:37:03 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not
sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual
registration.
If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment. If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

Is this true then - that only 17% of California homeowners have
earthquake insurance?
http://www.latimes.com/la-homeauto-story1-story.html

Earthquake insurance like flood insurance isn't mandatory in California.
One can certainly weigh the risks and forego that coverage. However, I
have experienced a magnitude 6.5 earthquake in my home and consider
myself fortunate that California building codes minimized damage.
That said I have optional earthquake insurance which will provide me the
means to rebuild or repair damage. I do not have a punitive deductable
and my annual premium is reasonable and affordable. So I am probably
among that 17%.

In September 2010 I experienced a shallow magnitude 7.1 with an
epicentre about 25 miles from where I live, which produced peak ground
acceleration at the nearest strong-motion detector to my location (less
than a mile away) of about 0.8g / 1hz. Closer to the epicentre, ground
shaking was ~ 1.2g.
It was a very interesting way to start the day, main-shock duration
about 45 seconds during which the shaking was intense enough to prevent
you from moving about without falling over, very noisy, and the nasty
thought that while it's continuous severe rolling motion going on, there
are lots of very large jolts - and perhaps it's getting worse not better.
This resulted in only very minor damage to my house, a few hairline
interior drywall plaster cracks, a few things fell from shelves. Power
was off all day due to substation transformer oil-level sensors tripping
safety cut-offs, which needed to be checked and manually reset, then
tripping again as aftershocks rolled through.
Seismic building codes here are similar to California. For a period of
about 6 months, there was a period of hearty back-slapping and great joy
expressed by engineers and various authorities, reveling in the fact
that quite a major shallow earthquake could happen close to an urban
centre (pop 500,000 or so) with structural damage confined mainly to old
unreinforced masonry buildings, no loss of life.
In February 2011, I experienced a shallow magnitude 6.3, with epicentre
less than 3 miles from where I live. The nearby strong motion detector
recorded peak ground acceleration at 2.2g lateral and 1.8g vertical.
The duration of strong shaking was very brief, only 5 seconds or so. It
was surreal, every tall item of furniture overturned, most large
plate-glass windows exploded, more-or-less every item in every cupboard
or shelf ended up on the floor. Damage to my house was assessed at
around $250,000 - relatively minor. On a camera related matter, my D300
fell from a 2m high dresser, hit a wooden floor, bounced and came to
rest against the opposite wall. The lens was broken, but the camera
still works fine.
I live in a private lane with 7 houses accessing it. Three were "total
loss" and have been demolished, one rebuilt, the other four repaired,
about $3.5 million damage in a few seconds. Total damage bill to the
city was around $50 billion. About 180 lives were lost - and it could
have been much worse as many earthquake-prone buildings were vacant at
the time of the quake as those buildings had been damaged in the first
quake and were either condemned or in some cases under repair /
strengthening and not in normal use.
I only finished repairing my house mid last year - when there are
100,000 other houses needing repair, then things don't happen fast. I
also would not do a "good as new" repair, but considerable strengthening
etc - I don't want to go through that drama again.

Earthquake insurance isn't mandatory here, but it is relatively
affordable. I don't know the % who aren't insured, but expect it would
be one or two percent.

Apart from the catastrophic human toll, I shudder to think of the
financial ripple-effect of a major California quake if so many are
uninsured - and particularly if of those uninsured, then mortgage
lenders are exposed.

On 2016-01-31 01:29:05 +0000, Me said:

On 31/01/2016 13:16, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-31 00:02:22 +0000, Me said:

On 31/01/2016 11:58, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-30 22:37:03 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not
sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual
registration.
If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment. If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

Is this true then - that only 17% of California homeowners have
earthquake insurance?
http://www.latimes.com/la-homeauto-story1-story.html

Earthquake insurance like flood insurance isn't mandatory in California.
One can certainly weigh the risks and forego that coverage. However, I
have experienced a magnitude 6.5 earthquake in my home and consider
myself fortunate that California building codes minimized damage.
That said I have optional earthquake insurance which will provide me the
means to rebuild or repair damage. I do not have a punitive deductable
and my annual premium is reasonable and affordable. So I am probably
among that 17%.

In September 2010 I experienced a shallow magnitude 7.1 with an
epicentre about 25 miles from where I live, which produced peak ground
acceleration at the nearest strong-motion detector to my location (less
than a mile away) of about 0.8g / 1hz. Closer to the epicentre, ground
shaking was ~ 1.2g.

We were about 8 miles from the epicenter of the M 6.5 which we
experienced here in 2003. It felt like a truck had run into the house.
We had one crack in a non-load bearing interior wall, and some siding
was loosened. Thy advise you to get out of the house/building ASAP, but
I couldn't even stand up. My wife was in her wheelchair hanging onto
the diningroom table. It was a sobering moment.

I was also home for the M 6.9 Loma Prieta quake in 1989. I was home
trying to get some sleep after working 16 hours straight and was woken
to the shaking. When I opened my eyes I was looking up at a ceiling fan
swinging wildly above me.

It was a very interesting way to start the day, main-shock duration
about 45 seconds during which the shaking was intense enough to prevent
you from moving about without falling over, very noisy, and the nasty
thought that while it's continuous severe rolling motion going on,
there are lots of very large jolts - and perhaps it's getting worse not
better.
This resulted in only very minor damage to my house, a few hairline
interior drywall plaster cracks, a few things fell from shelves. Power
was off all day due to substation transformer oil-level sensors
tripping safety cut-offs, which needed to be checked and manually
reset, then tripping again as aftershocks rolled through.
Seismic building codes here are similar to California. For a period of
about 6 months, there was a period of hearty back-slapping and great
joy expressed by engineers and various authorities, reveling in the
fact that quite a major shallow earthquake could happen close to an
urban centre (pop 500,000 or so) with structural damage confined mainly
to old unreinforced masonry buildings, no loss of life.
In February 2011, I experienced a shallow magnitude 6.3, with epicentre
less than 3 miles from where I live. The nearby strong motion detector
recorded peak ground acceleration at 2.2g lateral and 1.8g vertical.
The duration of strong shaking was very brief, only 5 seconds or so. It
was surreal, every tall item of furniture overturned, most large
plate-glass windows exploded, more-or-less every item in every cupboard
or shelf ended up on the floor. Damage to my house was assessed at
around $250,000 - relatively minor. On a camera related matter, my
D300 fell from a 2m high dresser, hit a wooden floor, bounced and came
to rest against the opposite wall. The lens was broken, but the camera
still works fine.
I live in a private lane with 7 houses accessing it. Three were "total
loss" and have been demolished, one rebuilt, the other four repaired,
about $3.5 million damage in a few seconds. Total damage bill to the
city was around $50 billion. About 180 lives were lost - and it could
have been much worse as many earthquake-prone buildings were vacant at
the time of the quake as those buildings had been damaged in the first
quake and were either condemned or in some cases under repair /
strengthening and not in normal use.
I only finished repairing my house mid last year - when there are
100,000 other houses needing repair, then things don't happen fast. I
also would not do a "good as new" repair, but considerable
strengthening etc - I don't want to go through that drama again.

Earthquake insurance isn't mandatory here, but it is relatively
affordable. I don't know the % who aren't insured, but expect it would
be one or two percent.

Having that added insurance provides some peace of mind.

Apart from the catastrophic human toll, I shudder to think of the
financial ripple-effect of a major California quake if so many are
uninsured - and particularly if of those uninsured, then mortgage
lenders are exposed.

They live under the illusion that the Feds will bail them out.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Me
wrote:

Apart from the catastrophic human toll, I shudder to think of the
financial ripple-effect of a major California quake if so many are
uninsured - and particularly if of those uninsured, then mortgage
lenders are exposed.

california will be fine because buildings and other structures are
built to withstand quakes.

the big problem is when (not if) a quake hits the midwest or east coast
usa. many of the buildings are unreinforced brick that were built
hundreds of years ago which will turn to rubble. it will be a *huge*
catastrophe.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...

Granted? Don't you mean repaid?

no. i mean granted.

a lender may want insurance on a property for which they're loaning
money, but after that, it's possible to cancel the insurance and not
cause problems.

That is absolutely incorrect for any bank or mortgage firm that I've
ever heard of. The mortgage holder will require that the homeowner
insurance carrier notify them if there is a change. If your coverage
lapses, the carrier will notify the mortgage holder. If you change
carriers, the new carrier will notify the mortgage holder.

then you haven't heard of all of them.

no surprise there. this isn't the first time you've pretended to know
everything.

The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner
insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment.

i've seen taxes included in the monthly payments but not insurance
premiums.

If you allow the homeowner's insurance to lapse, the mortgage contract
will usually contain a clause that allows them to demand full payment
of the remaining balance owed.

usually = not always.

you're confirming what i said, yet you argue anyway. that's ****ed up.

BTW: Do you own a home clear, or are you making mortgage payments?
...or are you renting?

what does that have to do with anything? this isn't about me.

Because it's suspected that you live in Mommy's basement and don't
know about such things.

more of your insults.

it's all you can do when you know you're on weak ground.

You want to weasel out of this as you usually do when wrong? Tell us
you were thinking a private financing by an individual as in
"rent-to-own" or "owner financing". It'll be a lie, but it's a weasel
you can use.

i'm not wrong and i have the documents to prove it.

i own a house and a rental property, the latter of which did not have
property insurance for a period of time for reasons that are not
important and the bank did not say a thing. nothing at all.

all they cared about was that the mortgage payments were made on time,
which they were.

so yes, insurance *can* be cancelled without causing problems.

i'm sure you'll keep on arguing anyway.