Actually, I think that you are in a really good position to go freelance/work independently, and you may get better deals starting out this way. It sounds like you have extensive experience, contacts in the field, etc.
So I would follow through with your goal (e.g. Get out of the city you are working in). Do as much as possible now, because projects can take between a few months to a year to start when you let pple know that you are available for this. Continue planning for contract with your company because it may still work out.
Here is what I would do (and actually did do):
1). Where are your colleagues who went to other companies? Send off an email/you are going contract/freelance/whatever. Do they know companies who could use your services
2) Go to linkedin. Update it with a title that makes it obvious you will take other projects (freelance/consultant/whatever they do in your industry). Fill in all the details on your cv, give descriptions of the project you have worked on (pple search me out on linkedin looking for experience in certain industrustries, assume it will work for you ,too). Do give a link to a webpage or something.
3) Decide on a rate. Figure out what you earn per hour right now and 2X to 3X it. You may want to put it on a webpage if you don’t want to bicker with pple, but that is up to you how you do it. Don’t want to travel or work in office? Charge a lot more to do those things.
4) Go find a list of other companies that do what you do. It may be the library, googling, linkedin…but I emailed many companies offering my services/only approached companies that did what I do/made it obvious in the title/and never contacted them again if there was no response. I got a lot of work this way, too.
You may be surprised re: current company. They will still need someone to do the work and may be desperate. If this happens, the reigns will go to your hands.
PS: If you do want a job, often times companies will respond and first ask will you work fulltime for us, and if not, then they will often times still do contract/freelance projects with you. So if that is what you want to do, you can get a job. In regards to linkedin, even if you state you are independent, recruiters/headhunters will come out of the woodwork -- so you once again have the option for a job if you want it.
You may not feel this way now, and YMMV, but I do think if you want to live where you want to live/etc, this will work better. You also may find that you get a wider variety of projects, etc.
posted by Wolfster at 9:48 AM on February 7 [1 favorite]
Obama want to reform Fannie and Freddie. There are a few options on the table, but Little Red Riding Hood does not think the porridge in any of the bowls is quite right.
Please consider White House wants less government in mortgage system
The Obama administration wants to shrink the government's role in the mortgage system -- a proposal that would remake decades of federal policy aimed at getting Americans to buy homes and would probably make home loans more expensive across the board.The correct option is to get rid of Fannie, Freddie, the FHA and HUD. The government should not provide any backstop or any guarantees at any time. Unfortunately that option was not on the table.
The Treasury Department rolled out a plan Friday to slowly dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored programs that bought up mortgages to encourage more lending and required bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis.
The first option proposed by the administration would give the government no role beyond helping poorer and middle-class borrowers through agencies like the Federal Housing Administration, which provides insurance on mortgage loans.
The second and third options would give the government a role as an insurer of mortgages, and each would prompt mortgage companies to pass along fees to borrowers.
Under one, the government would step in to guarantee private mortgages during a severe economic downturn, such as another housing slump, but would provide limited support during normal times.
The third option would be more complex. The government would insure a targeted range of mortgage investments that already are guaranteed by private insurers -- serving as a "reinsurance" broker to those financing companies. In the event the private insurers couldn't pay the owners of the mortgage investments, the government insurance would pay.
The third option would leave the government with the largest role and probably have the smallest impact on mortgage rates. While lenders would have to pay fees, which would ordinarily drive rates higher, the government guarantees would also make mortgages a safer investment. That would attract more private money and hold rates down.
Some are concerned that private lending may dry up. If it did, so what? The government has no business promoting housing or taking on risks best suited for private markets.
Here's the deal: If lenders knew there was no government guarantees, they would not make as many stupid loans. If they don't make stupid loans, there is far less risk that lending freezes up in the first place.
Moreover, if somehow the lenders do go broke as a consequence of making poor loans, bondholders and shareholders will pay the price, not taxpayers. Pray tell, what is wrong with that?
Cheering the Demise of 30-Year Mortgages
In a free market, we may very well not see many 30-year loans issued. Why would any lending institute want to lend for 30 years at an interest rate of 5% anyway?
We might even see new products like 8-year, 10-year, or 12-year loans. Such loans would help ensure equity paybacks quickly, reducing risk for everyone on both sides of the transaction. If that forces people to buy a smaller house, so be it.
A home should be an affordable place to live, not a debt-trap or method of leveraged financial speculation for 30 years.
Borrowing short and lending long for 30-years (while attempting to hedge in between) is a recipe for disaster. Fannie and Freddie have already gotten into serious trouble over it. If that practice stops, we will all be the better for it. Thus, we should all cheer the demise of 30-year loans.
If we would just get government totally out of the way, housing will recover a lot quicker, with home prices far more stable, than with government guarantees or half-assed measures. It's time we remove the government crutch completely. For more on this line of thinking, please see Mortgage Rates Hit 1-Year High; NAR Whines for Government (Taxpayer) Support of Fannie, Freddie; "*" the NAR
We have tried everything else, and everything else failed, so why not try the free market for a change.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List
<b>News</b> Corp. to Buy Shine Group for $663 Million - The Hollywood <b>...</b>
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is to acquire the entirety of Shine Group, owned by daughter Elisabeth Murdoch.
<b>News</b> Crew Attack: TV <b>News</b> Crew Attacked While Covering Shooting
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP); A group of about two dozen angry mourners attacked a news crew reporting on the killing of a 27-year-old man in California.
<b>News</b> Corp. Acquires Liz Murdoch's Shine & New Board Member For <b>...</b>
As the head of the UK's largest independent TV production company, Elisabeth Murdoch couldn't join her father Rupert or brothers James and Lachlan on the News Corp (NSDQ: NWS). board of directors. As the head of a News Corp. property, ...
free rental agreement forms
