Cash For Clunkers ends Mon. at 8pm

[DerangedPony]

The Ewalds are pulling out of the program tonight so we have time to send the gov. the paperwork.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090820/AUTO01/908200483/1148/rss25

[Goat Roper]

Amazing the amount of cars this has sold, now if everybody gets their money by the end of the year.......

[SSLEVO]

So how are car sales going to look for the rest of the year? I wouldn't be spooling production up quite yet.

[Rocket Power]

So how are car sales going to look for the rest of the year? I wouldn't be spooling production up quite yet.

I agree, just about everyone who was going to buy a car in the near future just did.

[subliminal1284]

Yup sales will go back to almost nothing again, not to mention all the repos that are going to happen from people taking advantage of it when they really couldnt afford car payments. I have a feeling this is gonna turn around and bite them in the ass big time.

[Waver]

Heiser is stopping after we close tomorrow.....so if you need or want a new gm, ford, or toyota contact mark or my self (me for fords)

And it will be good if it slows down because not too many places have inventory, I know we have some, but others, not so much

[Slow Joe]

Yup sales will go back to almost nothing again, not to mention all the repos that are going to happen from people taking advantage of it when they really couldnt afford car payments. I have a feeling this is gonna turn around and bite them in the ass big time.

Fortunately banks were still somewhat cautious during this process... I don't think there will be as many repos as there will be people that realize why they use to have that "clunker"... I mean when you go from an Explorer/Tahoe to a Kia Rio... Yeah there's a big difference... I think that'll boost some car sales. Plus now there's all the money from this going into dealers/manufactuers/suppliers pockets so that should open up some of the economy as well...

Short term, it killed the used car market (short term being the last... 3-4 weeks...) Long term personally I think it'll help the market...

By no means was I a fan of the program, just hoping that it actually does stimulate the economy...

Oh, and PS: I hope that all the dealers get their money... From what it sounds like it's a PITA!!!

[Red97GTP]

We at Boucher will but shutting the program down tommorow at close as well.

[Exitspeed]

John McElroy's take on it.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/21/autoline-on-autoblog-with-john-mcelroy/

Basically the opposite view of everyone on here. It sold cars to people that were not going to buy new cars, cleared inventory, and put people back to work ie stimulated the economy. More then anyone expected.

[subliminal1284]

Its still only a temporary fix, its like putting a band aid on a stab wound.

[Exitspeed]

Its still only a temporary fix, its like putting a band aid on a stab wound.

No one ever said it was a permanent solution.

[Prince Valiant]

It's not at all an economical stimulant. It's actual result is a net loss of wealth...so how in anyone's mind this works to stimulate is beyond me (actually, it's not...I understand how many people think the economy works).

I mean, is the wisest thing to do is to take people who otherwise didn't need new cars, and bribe them to buy a new one?

There is an old french parable...a boy playing in the street breaks a shopkeeper's window. Though angry at first, the shopkeeper turned out to be happy. Why? He concluded that since he had to purchase a new window, the young boy had helped the local economy.

The thing is, the parable deals in "That of which is seen....and that which is unseen". Though the shopkeeper reasoned that this would help the local economy, by helping the window maker make a buck, doesn't one see how silly it is to think that a great way to stimulate the economy is to go around breaking windows? And now, all this money going to fixing broken windows is money that won't be spent elsewhere, IE, the "unseen" part of the parable...and it's that money that won't be spent elsewhere that hurts others, even if it had admittedly helped the windowmaker.

And the loss of wealth? Well, of course because cars are assets, we're taking an asset that would normally be sold to another and simply destroying that asset. We the people bought it....actually, overpayed for it, and now are left with nothing to show for it.

Plus, maybe some auto journalist disagree, one of the best things that occur during down periods is the paying down of personal debt...whereas this measure only encourages more personal debt, while also increasing gov't debt, which in turn will devalue the the dollar, which then in turn causes a net decrease in wealth.

For something to be stimulative, it needs to focus on wealth creation, of which the cash-for-clunkers did not.

Instead, it took from people their hard earned tax dollars and distributed to people who didn't really need new cars to begin with; that's not wealth creation, but simply wealth redistribution.

[Memphis]

This thing totally killed the auto repair shops, at least short term cause all the local s*** cars are off the road. :fire:flipoff2:

[Car Guy]

Once again Chris hit the nail on the head, this program will do more harm than good in the long run......:thumbsup

[88Nightmare]

from what i was hearing, some dealerships are having difficulty getting paid back by the government for all the deals they wrote...



but on a different note, I thought the ideal thing to do was spend money during a recession and save during an expansion.......

[wrath]

It's another band-aid fix for a broken leg. Our government is flush with band-aids and needs to use them somewhere.

The program mostly got financially capable people to buy a car who likely would not have bought a new car. The same could be said of the housing stimulus. It's a gentle poke as opposed to a cattle prod.

Our economy operates on debt and financial transactions. Why do you think there are eight million banks with forty million branches everywhere? Seems like the only thing being built right now are fscking local branches of banks. Someday there will be a consolidation of banks like the UK. Probably will happen about the same time as medical billing consolidation.

I suspect the only negative things to come out of this are residual values on shitboxes go way down and we have a wee bit more federal debt. Can't be any worse than the banks that are borrowing money for next to nothing, lending it to the people for 6%, then buying treasuries with it after they sell off the loans. Cash for Clunkers is a pretty small folly in a pretty large bucket.

[scaleracer]

Good they need to stop it! :goof

[Adam Brooks]

Instead, it took from people their hard earned tax dollars and distributed to people who didn't really need new cars to begin with; that's not wealth creation, but simply wealth redistribution.

yes. Another reason for wealth destruction is they are lending your own money (which was taxed, ie how they got it to begin with) back to you only to tax it again. It's taxed one more time if you buy a GM or Chrysler since they have been lovely recipients of the auto bailout, not to mention the legal fees associated with their bankruptcy hearings.

In addition, the program only encourages accumulating more debt to a consumer who desperately needs to continue to deleverage

on a side note i would challenge your (and banks) claim that cars are an asset. A collectors car is, sure. A regular vehicle is only a liability however it can at times receive tax treatment as if it were an asset.

[Prince Valiant]

on a side note i would challenge your (and banks) claim that cars are an asset. A collectors car is, sure. A regular vehicle is only a liability however it can at times receive tax treatment as if it were an asset.Really :confused

Sure it's an asset. When I either sell or buy a car, I receive cash for it therefore it has a value. In a broad sense, this certainly qualifies as an asset.

My bank wouldn't be the only one who considers it an asset either...the law does as well (on a side note, for good reason...it is! :D ), as well as virtually any debtor I should have. Should I declare bankruptcy, the entities that I owe would hardly have any animus to taking over this so-called liability.

I must admit to being a little stretched as to why you think of cars as liabilities (my guesses range from those who owe more than the car is worth, to the constant depreciation for most cars, along with the cost of maintenance, ends up a net loss over the term of ownership?), so perhaps you could expound? This might help me understand where our disagreement over the term is so I can better answer your challenge?

[Exitspeed]

It's not at all an economical stimulant.

I think the tens of thousands of auto workers that are back to work because of this would disagree. Again, it's not a permanent solution but I'm sure you won't hear them bitching.

This also begs me to ask, if everything about this is so wrong I'd like to hear everyone's solution to our economic problems.

According to accounting definitions, a car can only be classified as an asset if its current value is greater than what you owe on it (car loan).

Which means that to probably 80% of people that own cars it's a liability.

[Adam Brooks]

it's not really a challenge, just a difference in opinion. My viewpoint simply comes from the fact there there is essentially zero chance of a positive economic return on investment, there will only be a net loss. The only exception would be a collector car. And to echo your comment, vehicles are taxed as an asset as they are allowed to be depreciated over time, as they should be since you only take a loss on them, collector car aside.

mathematically speaking, its a trick to think of it as an asset regardless of banks or tax laws viewpoint.

[88Nightmare]

From this discussion between adam brooks and valiant, it sounds like you guys both see a car as an asset, but NOT an investment. Unless its a collector vehicle of some sort (say a 1970 chevelle), you will probably NEVER see your car worth more then the day you bought it, however if the car is worth more then you owe on it, or is completely paid off, then yes, I could see a car as an asset. You own it, its worth value.... sounds like an asset to me. Just because its a depreciating item doesn't stop it from being an asset.


Stocks/Mutual Funds/IRS's/401k's can be considered assets and their value can go up or down.... does that mean they AREN'T assets?

[Prince Valiant]

You are ignoring this member's post
Reason: His posts hurts your eyes and threatens the brain cells of everyone who reads it


it's not really a challenge, just a difference in opinion. My viewpoint simply comes from the fact there there is essentially zero chance of a positive economic return on investment, there will only be a net loss. The only exception would be a collector car. And to echo your comment, vehicles are taxed as an asset as they are allowed to be depreciated over time, as they should be since you only take a loss on them, collector car aside.

mathematically speaking, its a trick to think of it as an asset regardless of banks or tax laws viewpoint.I'd agree with you if we were to purchase a vehicle, and from that point on, it simply depreciated especially while obligating you to maintain it w/ nothing realized in return.

But here's why I disagree:

Cars have a value outside of it's simple market value that in most cases simply depreciates. It has a value due to it's ability to assist productivity...IE, though it depreciates as I use it, I gain something in return for that use, ergo, transportation, which in turn helps me realize productivity, of which I am paid cash for.

I think it'd be one thing to assume that if you didn't own a car, there would be no cost incurred in transportation...then a car would more closely fit a liability. However, be it a car, a bike, the bus, traveling by plane, there is always a cost involved...and of course, these cost are quite different.

So why does one so willfully disregard these cost in determining that which they want to pay for their transportation cost? Simple...in most cases, we value our time and our choices. Biking might be a terrifically inexpensive way to obtain transportation...however, for someone like me, I have to weigh the cost benefit against the time. Driving to and from work for me is roughly an hours worth of driving, versus rough a little over 3 hours biking...most would value the 2 hours they get more than the couple dollars they save biking.

The same is true for flying versus driving...the time they save flying to a destination versus driving there may be FAR more valuable than the simple cost difference.

Though more nebulous, I also value the freedom to go anywhere at anytime that a car affords me...so though there is a cost of the car depreciating, I willingly pay for the freedom it affords. I can run an errand on the way home, pick up groceries, stop at a resturaunt/kickball game/etc...should I choose to ride a train/bus, I'm pretty locked into what the routes and schedule demand.

Like a friend of mine who has a grinding company (the grind drill bits for oil/water wells, construction, etc), his grinder is an asset. For him, though it depreciates, it also helps him produce wealth that is far greater than the cost of the depreciation; it is, as they say, a "factor of production" and more accurately, a capital good. One of the largest asset in his company is a tool that helps him produce another capital valuable to him, cash. My car is a tool that produces things valuable to me that other tools cannot....transportation, time, freedom, etc.

[Adam Brooks]

nah, i understand the perspective/common rationale of a vehicle as an asset bc its tangible and can be converted into cash. that's the layman/irs/bank/public criteria and that's all fine and good and they will believe this has a positive (or some type) of contribution to their wealth.

the irony comes in when you look at the international accounting standards board definition of an asset "An asset is a resource controlled by the enterprise as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the enterprise." You then ask yourself what future economic benefit will i receive from a tangible item that not only losses its intrinsic value but consumes additional capital.


Stocks/Mutual Funds/IRA's/401k's can be considered assets and their value can go up or down.... does that mean they AREN'T assets?

no they are assets, they have the propensity to provide future economic benefit.

[88Nightmare]

true, but they also can lose money depending upon the current economic state.

[Prince Valiant]

From this discussion between adam brooks and valiant, it sounds like you guys both see a car as an asset, but NOT an investment. Unless its a collector vehicle of some sort (say a 1970 chevelle), you will probably NEVER see your car worth more then the day you bought it, however if the car is worth more then you owe on it, or is completely paid off, then yes, I could see a car as an asset. You own it, its worth value.... sounds like an asset to me. Just because its a depreciating item doesn't stop it from being an asset. You'll see above that I agree...and that the cost of depreciation is offset by what is produced by that depreciation thus making it a greater asset.



Stocks/Mutual Funds/IRS's/401k's can be considered assets and their value can go up or down.... does that mean they AREN'T assets?They're always assets imo.

I think where there might be disagreement is the weighing of worth vs debt for some (hint: not adam). In the case someone talking about, the car is the asset...the liability would be the debt incurred to purchase the car. The liability may at times be greater than the value of the asset, but that doesn't really keep it from being an asset...which is why the bank takes it if you don't pay them back. This thing's quibble might have something to do with the fact that if I owe more than a car is worth, or even exactly what the car is worth, I don't really own the asset...the lender does, so I can't claim any of the worth of the asset as my own. If I owe less than the car is worth, I can only claim that of the asset in which I own.

[Adam Brooks]

true, but they also can lose money depending upon the current economic state.

yep you bet, however along with the chance to lose there is always the chance to gain, ie realize a future economic benefit.

[Adam Brooks]

The liability may at times be greater than the value of the asset, but that doesn't really keep it from being an asset...which is why the bank takes it if you don't pay them back.

actually it does even on regular accounting standards. asset = equity + liabilities. if the bank is out 200,000 on a 150,000 house it cannot contribute to any type of net cash flow, only a net loss. they can't declare it as an asset but a liability. The bank will take it back because they have a lien on it which they can choose to exercise if they wish, and usually do.

case in point the currently little financial crisis with banks taking losses on housing, and "asset backed securities" blowing up as the result of what were thought to be "assets" (an incorrectly sold as such due to zero underwriting) were actually liabilities.

to again echo your previous statement, i agree cash for clunkers is a destroyer of wealth

[88Nightmare]

yep you bet, however along with the chance to lose there is always the chance to gain, ie realize a future economic benefit.

A car rarely has any economic benefit, however like I was sayin, if your vehicle is worth more then what you owe, or it is fully paid off, I would consider that an asset.

[Prince Valiant]

I'm sorry to be tedious adam...but bear with me a bit. I know we're on separate pages regarding assets and i'll just let that be, but I'd like to get your take on something...

let's look back at what you said about the international accounting standards:

the irony comes in when you look at the international accounting standards board definition of an asset "An asset is a resource controlled by the enterprise as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the enterprise." You then ask yourself what future economic benefit will i receive from a tangible item that not only losses its intrinsic value but consumes additional capital.What future economic benefit? Again, refer back to my earlier post, that I didn't see an answer regarding...but let's dispel the myth that there is no economic benefit to owning a car...or course there is, or few would have them:

In lieu of a car, what would the cost be otherwise to receive the type transportation you wish regarding the time advantage and the freedom that a car affords? These are the primary reason one purchases a car versus other modes of transportation.

So, to obtain the same advantages of transportation that the car affords, what then would this cost the individual? The fact that a car offers such a large cost advantage over receiving a service that offers the same time and freedom advantage is why people purchase cars....to receive a similar service, the cost must be prohibitive and completely uncompetitive, hence we don't see this service offered.

The economic benefit is, of course, what the cost would be with the car versus against something that offered the same outcome. To obtain the same outcome via other means would harm more economically than simply purchasing and maintaining a car, as well as the gas it consumes to perform the task to achieve the outcome.

This was earlier also compared to other less expensive modes of transportation (train, bus, bike) and even more expensive forms (plane or a ship) and comparative advantages and disadvantages and how people value each advantage/disadvantage.

Compared to virtually every form of transportation, cars are economically superior, which is why virtually everyone owns one. It helps them be productive by going to work, running errands, etc.

It's these comparisons that are most important to economist...and why one of the favorite jokes of an economist is when asked "How are you?" they reply "compared to what?"

[PB86MCSS]

the irony comes in when you look at the international accounting standards board definition of an asset "An asset is a resource controlled by the enterprise as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the enterprise." You then ask yourself what future economic benefit will i receive from a tangible item that not only losses its intrinsic value but consumes additional capital.

This is why I mostly why I agree any newer car a liability rather than an asset. Until a car hits x amount of years old and no longer depreciates, at which point I'd consider it an asset. And the point of having it paid for vs. still owing money on it is important, IMO.

Not a CPA but I am a bean counter, not that I am using proper accounting principles to justify how I look at it anyway :) .

[Adam Brooks]

I'm sorry to be tedious adam...but bear with me a bit. I know we're on separate pages regarding assets and i'll just let that be, but I'd like to get your take on something...

let's look back at what you said about the international accounting standards:
Quote:


What future economic benefit? Again, refer back to my earlier post, that I didn't see an answer regarding...but let's dispel the myth that there is no economic benefit to owning a car...or course there is, or few would have them:

In lieu of a car, what would the cost be otherwise to receive the type transportation you wish regarding the time advantage and the freedom that a car affords? These are the primary reason one purchases a car versus other modes of transportation.

So, to obtain the same advantages of transportation that the car affords, what then would this cost the individual? The fact that a car offers such a large cost advantage over receiving a service that offers the same time and freedom advantage is why people purchase cars....to receive a similar service, the cost must be prohibitive and completely uncompetitive, hence we don't see this service offered.

The economic benefit is, of course, what the cost would be with the car versus against something that offered the same outcome. To obtain the same outcome via other means would harm more economically than simply purchasing and maintaining a car, as well as the gas it consumes to perform the task to achieve the outcome.

This was earlier also compared to other less expensive modes of transportation (train, bus, bike) and even more expensive forms (plane or a ship) and comparative advantages and disadvantages and how people value each advantage/disadvantage.

Compared to virtually every form of transportation, cars are economically superior, which is why virtually everyone owns one. It helps them be productive by going to work, running errands, etc.

It's these comparisons that are most important to economist...and why one of the favorite jokes of an economist is when asked "How are you?" they reply "compared to what?"

That rationale assumes that cars are used solely as a mode of transportation relative to another form of transportation to justify the "economic benefit" of its use. While the cost incurred relative to another means may certainly be less and therefore more cost effective, a capital outlay is required and still produces zero net profit (benefit), you wouldn't even break even, putting its use in the category of an expense/liability.

Cost efficiency is a poor reason to classify something an an asset as illustrated by the following example. Assume person A and person B both start with $1000. Person A throws $100 bills out a window 1 at a time, eventually how much money will he have left?
Assume person B throws $1 bills out a window 1 at a time, eventually how much money will he have left?
The answer is both will be left with zero dollars even though one B lasted longer than A. They both realized a 100% loss on their $1000

The other problem with the economic "benefits" you have outlined is that they all assume a car is actually used with the purpose of transportation. As you know, cars can also be used for pure enjoyment without respect for the need to getting from point A to B.

regardless of the purpose the vehicle provides, transportation or otherwise, there is literally zero way the initial capital required for the vehicle can be returned or improved upon aside from providing some type of for profit service (trucking/collecting w/ appreciation). Mathematically you are guaranteed to immediately take a loss on your initial investment and will eventually wind up paying far more in expenses (initial cost, maintenance,taxes, interest if you finance) than can never be recovered even if the vehicle is sold. it is literally impossible to realize any type of economic benefit from owning a car either outright or on credit let alone break even.

This is why in reality, a vehicle is a liability even though it enjoys potential tax benefits as an asset. The only other person who can actually say the vehicle is an asset is the dealer as they always (generally) sell at a profit. we can again look at assets = equity + liabilities

Johnny Benz @ uptown has a Porsche that cost them 50,000 and they decide to sell at 55,000.
Asset 5,000 = equity 55,000 + liability (-50,000)

PV buys a yaris for face value in cash no markup @ $20,000 and puts in $20 in gas, decides the yaris isn't for him and sells to someone else the same day at face value to get his money back. asset 19,980 = equity 20,000 + liabilities (-20)
As you can see from the above expression, you will lose 20.00 resulting in zero economic benefit only an expense/liability. Sure, in theory you can recover costs completely if you buy and sell immediately w/o gas. I would then ask you how often does that occur in reality?


This is why I mostly why I agree any newer car a liability rather than an asset. Until a car hits x amount of years old and no longer depreciates, at which point I'd consider it an asset.
One would think, however depreciation is not the only problem. The car continues to be taxed, use gas and require maintenance. The net return on initial investment is always negative because it's real cost is always increasing.

and i still agree, cash for clunkers has destroyed wealth

[Exitspeed]

...

Quoting my post, changing the text, and changing the font size just to point out you don't like me is HARDLY ignoring me.

You have a crush on me don't you? I remember dumb bitches acting like that back in middle school. Fuckin fag.

You should type some more so you can show people how smart you are.

Carry on. Fag.

[PB86MCSS]

One would think, however depreciation is not the only problem. The car continues to be taxed, use gas and require maintenance. The net return on initial investment is always negative because it's real cost is always increasing.

Why most older and classic/collector cars are still a poor "investment" as some like to consider them, not taking in account the costs to maintain that investment. Only few select cars can outgrow their value in what the fees/gas/insurance/etc cost.

I'm all for older vehicles just not for investment purposes, rather for fun.

And I also agree this CARS program is a big flippin' waste of money and energy.

[Prince Valiant]

That rationale assumes that cars are used solely as a mode of transportation relative to another form of transportation to justify the "economic benefit" of its use. While the cost incurred relative to another means may certainly be less and therefore more cost effective, a capital outlay is required and still produces zero net profit (benefit), you wouldn't even break even, putting its use in the category of an expense/liability. Oh absolutely...but the point is, most cars are purchased for transportation.

And if given that to obtain the transportation I require, the car cost less for my wants and needs, then there is a benefit to owning a car versus another mode. You concede the "cost efficiency" as you term it....

Cost efficiency is a poor reason to classify something an an asset as illustrated ...Which is why for the example I was using above, I didn't discuss whether or not a car was a "asset", instead trying to refute the notion that there is "no economic benefit" to owning a car....

If I found a manufacturing process that cut cost in half, there would be a "benefit" to my bottom line to move to that process. By outlaying less to get my desired output (IE, transportation as I deem I need and want), I benefit by using the car versus another more costly mode.

Assume person A and person B both start with $1000. Person A throws $100 bills out a window 1 at a time, eventually how much money will he have left?
Assume person B throws $1 bills out a window 1 at a time, eventually how much money will he have left?
The answer is both will be left with zero dollars even though one B lasted longer than A. They both realized a 100% loss on their $1000But your example is not analogous to automobiles....because of course, throwing dollar bills out a window doesn't get me what I desire, IE, going to work, running errands, flexibility of transportation that leads to productivity/obtaining my needs and wants.

This begs the question, if purchasing a car is analogous to throwing money out a window, then why would you...and the vast majority of americans own one (or two)?

The other problem with the economic "benefits" you have outlined is that they all assume a car is actually used with the purpose of transportation. Of course it assumes this, and of course, this is true for perhaps 99+% of the automobiles in use today. There are people who buy vehicles for the purpose of entertainment, and I don't even try to make a case that there is an economic benefit for that; likewise, certain aspects of car choices may fall into this category as well with automotive choices when people freely choose to apply their discretionary income toward more luxurious/larger/faster/etc auto choices, in which case there is still an economic benefit to car ownership, however smaller due to free choices individual made.


regardless of the purpose the vehicle provides, transportation or otherwise, there is literally zero way the initial capital required for the vehicle can be returned or improved upon aside from providing some type of for profit service (trucking/collecting w/ appreciation). Mathematically you are guaranteed to immediately take a loss on your initial investment and will eventually wind up paying far more in expenses (initial cost, maintenance,taxes, interest if you finance) than can never be recovered even if the vehicle is sold. it is literally impossible to realize any type of economic benefit from owning a car either outright or on credit let alone break even.This seems to assume that car ownership is zero sum though, as if there would be no transportation cost involved if you didn't own a car. Of course, this is possible if you walked everywhere, but the cost you pay is in time and freedom of movement, which has a varying value based on the individual. It also assumes that there is no return for the cost of car ownership unless there is a fee collected for a service in it's use.


Johnny Benz @ uptown has a Porsche that cost them 50,000 and they decide to sell at 55,000.
Asset 5,000 = equity 55,000 + liability (-50,000)Okay, so we probably won't agree on either the economic benefits to car ownership nor whether a car is an asset. But, using your example above, I explain why I see a car as an asset:

Say I bought that porsche at 55,000....they have a great zero down, zero percent financing deal, limited time only, so I finance the whole 55,000 purchase.

IF, for some reason, I wasn't able to make payments, at least the car could be taken back by the creditor, to which they'd see this as likely a wash. My asset roughly equaled my liability.

But, say I didn't insure the car, first day I wrecked the car...there goes my asset. Oh, and I'm on the hook for 55,000...and should something happen and I can't pay, I don't have a car to offset the liability, even if the car would happen to depreciate faster than I can pay down the loan.

So, whether the car and any liabilities I incurred purchasing contributes to a net increase in wealth, it doesn't change that the possession of the car against my liabilities is more helpful (hence "asset") than hurtful.

My guess is that what is important to you is asset pricing, and whether it has a net value in fairly straightforward terms. Whereas in straight economics, assets are simply durable goods and certainly allowed to be called assets even with depreciation and or costs, especially given that it produces a greater benefit than the cost of depreciation and maintenance.



This user is STILL on your ignore list but can't take a hint
Reason: you tired of his incessant pm's crying and talking about your "private parts". It also weirded you out that he dedicates signatures to you.

[Exitspeed]

...

Yet you can't help but keep nagging like a women.

Dude I sent pm's once. Don't act like it's an on going thing you keep doing.

Just keep typing more so people can see how smart you are.

Ohz noez Princess Valliant is smarters then me's. What ever shall I do.

Get over yourself.

[Adam Brooks]

PV, no offense but I'm not even reading what you're writing anymore because the issue isn't that complicated.

In real, not nominal, terms use the formula Asset = equity + liabilities and figure out a way to not to take a loss on your initial capital outlay of a hypothetical $20,000 for a vehicle.

[Prince Valiant]

PV, no offense but I'm not even reading what you're writing anymore....Actually, it was quite obvious from before you weren't reading what I wrote, so if I didn't take offense then, why would I now?

because the issue isn't that complicated.

Yes I know:

Asset: Anything of material value or usefulness that is owned by a person or company (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=asset&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00)

but of course, cars are useless, good only for entertainment, that we get nothing of value for in return, that for some reason, Americans can't function without. :confused

[Adam Brooks]

None of those responses solve the expression, try again.

[Prince Valiant]

None of those responses solve the expression, try again.You assume that the only correct answer solves the expression, which I disagree with (not the formula, but the belief that only the formula determines what an asset is...which may certainly be true for accountants and people in finance/determining net worth per arbitrary and changeable rules). But I figured you'd only want to play by your rules several post ago:

I know we're on separate pages regarding assets and i'll just let that be...

Okay, so we probably won't agree on either the economic benefits to car ownership nor whether a car is an asset.
You didn't read? Yah really? So why continue?

[Adam Brooks]

(not the formula, but the belief that only the formula determines what an asset is...which may certainly be true for accountants and people in finance/determining net worth per arbitrary and changeable rules). But I figured you'd only want to play by your rules several post ago:

International accounting standards are hardly arbitrary or subject to change, hence their being "standards". Nevertheless, I recognize your need to have the last word on the internet so I will leave the ball in your court. I do hope you choose to stop avoiding mathematics and solve the expression for the third time:

In real, not nominal, terms use the formula Asset = equity + liabilities and figure out a way to not to take a loss on your initial capital outlay of a hypothetical $20,000 for a vehicle.

If not, I presume our educated readers will throw your comments into the lunacy pile joined by this gem:

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant http://brewcitymuscle.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://brewcitymuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?p=571210#post571210)
The liability may at times be greater than the value of the asset, but that doesn't really keep it from being an asset...which is why the bank takes it if you don't pay them back.

The correct answer has nothing to do with valuation, but lien rights. Good effort.

Enjoy.

-Adam Brooks

[Prince Valiant]

I guess I find it amusing that you don't think standards or rules change. I'm fairly certain every once in a while they amend, add, or tweak even the international standards and more importantly, how those standards are interpreted; even the international accounting standards....if you disagree that accounting standards have a measure of changeability and and a degree of arbitrariness, then why do differing accounting boards have differing standards? If not for the differing opinions of the respective boards, the standards should then be the same...however, the establishment of standards by varying boards isn't exactly a precise science or akin to mathematics where everyone should reach the exact same answer/standards.

But I digress; the arbitrariness comes from which rules you choose to follow. If you chose to follow the princeton dictionary, you'd agree with my interpretation. Chose to follow the normal economic definition of an asset, again, you'd agree with my definition. Choose to follow how the law views it, well, then you'd kind of...agree with my definition.

But, no, you've decided to follow a different set of rules that seems to figure more for net worth than anything. Well, I'd say fair enough...but it's not.

Your disagreement is something I absolutely accept, hence I begged the question "why continue?"


In which the correct answer has nothing to do with valuation, but lien rights.
Yes, they'll place a lien on an asset as collateral to provide security against a default on a loan they provided. On car loans, the collarteral (IE, the asset) is generally a car, but not always. Oftentimes smaller loans (title loans), may be secured against a car, IE, the owner's asset. Maybe next time I try for a loan, I should try and see what they think about placing a lien on some apple cores? You know, because it's only about lien rights.

The security provided by the collateral is that it can be sold for cash to recover the amount owed to the lender.

Though I can see how having an upside down loan on a car can be a liability for both the lender and borrower, the presence of the car prevents it from being a bigger liability.

[Goat Roper]

15 more minutes to go trade that piece of shit whatever you have in!

[nismodave]

Alot of BS in this one here.

Im not going to close it, but stop with the personal attack BS and keep it on topic.