- 3,949
- 1,197
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
Yes, I know that you can short stocks to hedge your bet. But how many people actually try doing that to finance a purchase? Not to mention you're trying to time those stocks and increasing your risk level if you're wrong. If it were such a good deal, most of the people working on Wall Street who were the smartest kids in their class working for the smartest companies wouldn't have been in the dire situation they found themselves in when their companies went under during the financial crash. Just something to think about.There are plenty of ways to make money in a declining market. You just change your investment strategies.2007 is when everything started going downhill and caught those with debt payments red handed. Even many of those with so called, "manageable levels" of debt found out otherwise when job losses began to mount, jobs began to vanish, and home and stock values plummeted. Those with paid for assets didn't have to worry, whereas those who had to make payments needed to worry about where the money to pay for basics was going to come from.
Will it happen again? I doubt it, but I'm not taking my chances again. It was bad enough not having a job once without a car payment. I can't imagine the stress of having a car payment to go with it. You're going to have depreciation with any car you buy. The only difference is the total cost of the vehicle over time.
What other kinds of investments were you talking about other than the stock market? I'm drawing a blank right now on anything that has that kind of yield and relative security other than Real Estate. But in that case, you're double exposed by your example.
One thing you are not considering is the fact that the person B still has the cash in your 2007 scenario. We can go back and forth on this with all types of nuances and what ifs (how much total cash savings do they have are they homeowners). I was pointing out the fact that it really comes down to interest rate and how much it costs you to finance the vehicle. A few years ago banks where financing 0% for 60 months so essentially that was the exact same thing as cash. In this scenario person A and person B both spend the exact same amount. The only difference is person A ties up a larger amount of cash in the car while person B has more options. With all of that being said person B can always pay off the car whenever they want because they have the cash!
Bottom line: Person A has 40,000 less in debt but they also have 40,000 less cash. Person B has 40,000 more in debt but also 40,000 more cash. So whats the variable? Cost of the debt (interest rate) vs return on cash (yield)
Which banks were financing at 0%? Banks make their money off the spread of borrowed money. Unless they were the finance arms of the car companies, their incentive was to get you into a new car. But 80% of people that buy a car with the intention of getting a 0% loan drive off the lot with some form of an interest rate, so it's a bait & switch tactic.
Stingy? no. Living below my means? absolutely!man you are always trying to tell people what to do with their money; you must be cheap as hell manWhat happens if the two people in your example did that in 2007 though? Equations like this only deal with the numbers and fail to account for variables like risk. Not to mention that people buy more when they finance it than when paying with cash. When a person pays for a purchase over time, they don't feel the full impact of the purchase
washing plastic baggies and crap
How do you get being stingy from this? I've just learned a lot about the psychology of finance over my lifetime and tried to apply them while helping others. There's a reason why dealerships only advertise the finance/lease price and it's not because it benefits the consumer.