Average new car payment $554

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
odular/Prefab (ie. panelized) come in many varieties. There are a few manufacturers in the Northeast which build modular homes that look just like they were stick built but with higher quality* whereas a typical modular home found in the Southwest has, aesthetically, more in common with a large double-wide.

..I still don't get their economics....


Customers who are primarly interested in energy efficiency and/or contemporary designs seem to like them. Site built homes can't meet the same tolerances that factory built homes can meet. Factory built homes also go up much quicker which is a plus with the shorter/wet building season you guys have in NH.

https://www.seacoastmodulars.com/green-construction.html (NH)
http://www.preferredbuildings.com/
https://www.avalonbuildingsystems.com/index.html
http://www.newenglandhomes.net/index.cfm

Funny anecdote, SEARS used to sell kit homes up until the around the 1940's. Many of these homes still stand today and go for a ton of $$ once renovated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears_Catalog_Home
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by doitmyself
BITOG Boys One-Upping Each Other's Financial and Lifestyle Achievements
......................................It really is hilarious (and predictable)..........................................


No doubt! It's kinda been a thing here since the early days, but it get's funnier by the year.
lol.gif


I never tire of hearing how dumb I am.
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
There are a few manufacturers in the Northeast which build modular homes that look just like they were stick built but with higher quality* whereas a typical modular home found in the Southwest has, aesthetically, more in common with a large double-wide.


After looking at those production foto's it seems like a really efficient way to build. All the different teams (framers, insulators, drywallers, electrical etc) are in house, so I'm sure that allows for better coordination throughout all phases of the build. Never thought about it but I don't think I'd have a problem (buying) with one of those pre fabs v. site built.
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
odular/Prefab (ie. panelized) come in many varieties. There are a few manufacturers in the Northeast which build modular homes that look just like they were stick built but with higher quality* whereas a typical modular home found in the Southwest has, aesthetically, more in common with a large double-wide.

..I still don't get their economics....


Customers who are primarly interested in energy efficiency and/or contemporary designs seem to like them. Site built homes can't meet the same tolerances that factory built homes can meet. Factory built homes also go up much quicker which is a plus with the shorter/wet building season you guys have in NH.

https://www.seacoastmodulars.com/green-construction.html (NH)
http://www.preferredbuildings.com/
https://www.avalonbuildingsystems.com/index.html
http://www.newenglandhomes.net/index.cfm

Funny anecdote, SEARS used to sell kit homes up until the around the 1940's. Many of these homes still stand today and go for a ton of $$ once renovated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears_Catalog_Home

Oh I get that part (we've shopped them!), what I don't get is how they can run a large building, a building crew, then ship something heavy long distances and come out ahead. Economics of scale I guess, and good design (optimized to reduce waste, ease construction, etc).
 
Originally Posted by Wolf359
I wouldn't do a fixed 2.2% CD, I'd just stick it in the stock market and hope that it hits the averages of around 10%. Plus in some years when you get some good stock market gains, you take some out and pay cash for a car as a diversification method...


Where can I get that 10% average?
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by philipp10
average car payment of $554....lol. NOT IN MY WORLD. I refuse to join that sorry group. My goal is to become well off enough to retire and not have to worry about money and a car payment like that is just not going to happen. No wonder about 1/2 of Americans don't have 2 nickels to rub together.


From this it sounds like you are very judgmental to each is their own. At least you have a better grasp of finance then most.

Yes I agree. I was way to judgmental. I have surely blown money is other ways many here would not. My apologies.
 
You are right.... Those Sears home do go for good money now. Once fixed up.

In my area there are new homes that actually seem to be built similar to those Craftsman type homes.... And they are very nice. Kind of big money for them though.
 
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
Here's my math:
If you pay $30k cash and put what would have been the car payments into savings @ 2.2% for 5 years, $525/mth into savings, you end up with $33,300, a gain of $3,300.

If you take a $30k loan out @ 1.9% and leave your $30k in savings growing at 2.2% you
Pay an extra $1470 in interest and earn $3490 in interest. A net gain of $2,020.

That's how. Feel free to check my math if you'd like. I won't gurantee I didn't make an error somewhere with online calculators.


I don't know what errors you've made in your arithmetic or assumptions, but there's no way you can come out ahead in earnings, not savings, giving up 2.2% in interest to save 1.9%.
This is simple arbitrage to anyone with even a minor knowledge of finance and investment.


I laid my numbers out. Calculate it yourself. You're honestly going to say my numbers feel wrong but not prove it?


Already proved it.
Simple arbitrage, like I wrote.
You could google the term.
 
Originally Posted by Vaca
Originally Posted by Wolf359
I wouldn't do a fixed 2.2% CD, I'd just stick it in the stock market and hope that it hits the averages of around 10%. Plus in some years when you get some good stock market gains, you take some out and pay cash for a car as a diversification method...


Where can I get that 10% average?
smile.gif



FXAIX. Fidelity 500 index fund. 16.18% year to date return, 10 year is 13.93% (partly because at this point 2008 drops off the 10 year return), life of fund is 10.10%. Last year was a dog for the S&P 500 though, only 3.77%.
 
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by Vaca
Originally Posted by Wolf359
I wouldn't do a fixed 2.2% CD, I'd just stick it in the stock market and hope that it hits the averages of around 10%. Plus in some years when you get some good stock market gains, you take some out and pay cash for a car as a diversification method...


Where can I get that 10% average?
smile.gif



FXAIX. Fidelity 500 index fund. 16.18% year to date return, 10 year is 13.93% (partly because at this point 2008 drops off the 10 year return), life of fund is 10.10%. Last year was a dog for the S&P 500 though, only 3.77%.






Interesting on that ten year return.

https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/investment_help/investment_research/mutual_fund_research/mutual_funds.html?path=%2FProspect%2FResearch%2Fmutualfunds%2Ffees.asp%3Fsymbol%3DFXAIX
 
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by flinter
56 years old and NEVER had a car payment in my life....and NEVER will. I currently drive a MINT condition 2017 Hyundai Elantra Value Edition, paid cash. Remember, one NEVER gets rich with constant car payments!

Terrible decision, financially. Why not have a 2-3% 72mo loan with GAP? Too many [censored] drivers, deer, etc. Out there for me to be 100% all in on a newer vehicle.


Probably also a terrible decision financially. You have to pay extra for GAP insurance. It's like buying the warranty on an item. It's priced to make the issuer a profit. It's basically like buying a lottery ticket with slightly better odds than a lottery ticket, but still long odds that you will collect on it.

Some people like to play the arbitrage game, but let's just say that if the cash purchase price of a car is in the single digits of net worth, then you mind as well just pay cash and not bother playing the game.

Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
Here's my math:
If you pay $30k cash and put what would have been the car payments into savings @ 2.2% for 5 years, $525/mth into savings, you end up with $33,300, a gain of $3,300.

If you take a $30k loan out @ 1.9% and leave your $30k in savings growing at 2.2% you
Pay an extra $1470 in interest and earn $3490 in interest. A net gain of $2,020.

That's how. Feel free to check my math if you'd like. I won't gurantee I didn't make an error somewhere with online calculators.


I don't know what errors you've made in your arithmetic or assumptions, but there's no way you can come out ahead in earnings, not savings, giving up 2.2% in interest to save 1.9%.
This is simple arbitrage to anyone with even a minor knowledge of finance and investment.


I laid my numbers out. Calculate it yourself. You're honestly going to say my numbers feel wrong but not prove it?


It's basically simple math. Borrow at 1.9%, invest the money at 2.2%. The only difference is taxes. You also have to pay taxes on your 2.2% earnings, which erodes some of your savings.But I wouldn't do a fixed 2.2% CD, I'd just stick it in the stock market and hope that it hits the averages of around 10%. Plus in some years when you get some good stock market gains, you take some out and pay cash for a car as a diversification method...


Yes, I have a college degree in mathematics. What I'm saying, over and over, is that you come out ahead if you pay cash vs your arbitrage idea. If you look at net money in hand after 5 years in this specific example.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
Here's my math:
If you pay $30k cash and put what would have been the car payments into savings @ 2.2% for 5 years, $525/mth into savings, you end up with $33,300, a gain of $3,300.

If you take a $30k loan out @ 1.9% and leave your $30k in savings growing at 2.2% you
Pay an extra $1470 in interest and earn $3490 in interest. A net gain of $2,020.

That's how. Feel free to check my math if you'd like. I won't gurantee I didn't make an error somewhere with online calculators.


I don't know what errors you've made in your arithmetic or assumptions, but there's no way you can come out ahead in earnings, not savings, giving up 2.2% in interest to save 1.9%.
This is simple arbitrage to anyone with even a minor knowledge of finance and investment.


I laid my numbers out. Calculate it yourself. You're honestly going to say my numbers feel wrong but not prove it?


Already proved it.
Simple arbitrage, like I wrote.
You could google the term.


I know what arbitrage is. If you include taxes you'd need a wide spread. My point being, arbitrage is not always better than what I showed. Yet you just seem to like the word arbitrage. If you knew what I've done for occupations you might trust my view that cash comes out ahead sometimes, and sometimes not. Depends on the rate spread between what you're paying, your tax bracket, your investment vehicle, etc.

If you pay 1.9% and get 2.2% you'll always make money. I'm not dumb. I'm saying in the specific examplei calculated you'd end up further ahead by not doing that.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by Vaca
Originally Posted by Wolf359
I wouldn't do a fixed 2.2% CD, I'd just stick it in the stock market and hope that it hits the averages of around 10%. Plus in some years when you get some good stock market gains, you take some out and pay cash for a car as a diversification method...


Where can I get that 10% average?
smile.gif



FXAIX. Fidelity 500 index fund. 16.18% year to date return, 10 year is 13.93% (partly because at this point 2008 drops off the 10 year return), life of fund is 10.10%. Last year was a dog for the S&P 500 though, only 3.77%.


Interesting on that ten year return.

https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/investment_help/investment_research/mutual_fund_research/mutual_funds.html?path=%2FProspect%2FResearch%2Fmutualfunds%2Ffees.asp%3Fsymbol%3DFXAIX


Fund inception was 1988, share class inception was 2011 so it's murky whether that 10 year applies or not. But I was just using Fidelity's number which has a 10 year return number on it. Probably other S&P 500 funds that have been around a while are in the same range.

https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/performance-and-risk/315911750

I'd focus on the expense ratio. It's .015, Vanguard's regular index fund is .14 and even their Admiral shares is .04.
 
[911750

I'd focus on the expense ratio. It's .015, Vanguard's regular index fund is .14 and even their Admiral shares is .04.
[/quote]

A lot of funds that are low expense10+% return over the last 10 years. Since 2008 we've been in stock utopia. Those same funds lost about 30% in one quarter in 2008 so might not be a good place to park cash too back a car loan.
 
A Trowe fund I have has about a 0.68% ER and the similar Vanguard has about 0.2%. However, the Trowe beats it by a percent or two if you compare starting and ending points. The bigger deal is keeping your ER below at least 1. But smallest ER doesn't gurantee better return compared to similar funds. With that said, I'd typically go the route of smaller ER personally. Everything I personally do is researched a lot (whatever that means) and nothing over a 0.7 ER. Having seen some funds with ridiculous ERs I just laugh. People actually invest in them?!?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
A Trowe fund I have has about a 0.68% ER and the similar Vanguard has about 0.2%. However, the Trowe beats it by a percent or two if you compare starting and ending points. The bigger deal is keeping your ER below at least 1. But smallest ER doesn't gurantee better return compared to similar funds. With that said, I'd typically go the route of smaller ER personally. Everything I personally do is researched a lot (whatever that means) and nothing over a 0.7 ER. Having seen some funds with ridiculous ERs I just laugh. People actually invest in them?!?




It is up to the individual. I don't worry about others investment choices.
 
I just buy land in desirable areas. Last purchase was for $55k, and sold it for $70k 3 years later, while enjoying hiking shooting and camping on it. They dont make any more land. They keep making people. Land is "real" property/product. Not some ticker board or electronic value.
 
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
A Trowe fund I have has about a 0.68% ER and the similar Vanguard has about 0.2%. However, the Trowe beats it by a percent or two if you compare starting and ending points. The bigger deal is keeping your ER below at least 1. But smallest ER doesn't gurantee better return compared to similar funds. With that said, I'd typically go the route of smaller ER personally. Everything I personally do is researched a lot (whatever that means) and nothing over a 0.7 ER. Having seen some funds with ridiculous ERs I just laugh. People actually invest in them?!?


Well I'm also in Fidelity contrafund, FCNTX, they have a .82 expense ratio, but they've beaten the Fidelity 500 index fund for the 3, 5 and 10 year period and is up more than the index this year so far. They did do worse last year though. I don't mind paying a higher expense ratio if it can perform. If it starts to underperform for a couple years, I guess I'll kick it to the curb then. It's been decent for me for these last few years.
 
Originally Posted by Ws6
I just buy land in desirable areas. Last purchase was for $55k, and sold it for $70k 3 years later, while enjoying hiking shooting and camping on it. They dont make any more land. They keep making people. Land is "real" property/product. Not some ticker board or electronic value.


Was that 15k your net return or did you also have fees and other expenses associated with the purchase and the sale? For mutual funds, there's no fees for purchase or sale. Anyway, my basic math says that's about a 27% return or about 9% or thereabouts per year vs the 3 year on the Fidelity S&P at about 11.71.

People move away too, look at Detroit. In any event, real estate is also good, I'm also diversified in owning rental property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top