Thank You JEFF!!!
 

In article , DSK
wrote:

Which aggravates Bubbles, because he *can't* sail a dinghy.


Peter Wiley wrote:
The last 2 words were superfluous.


Of course, but they still convey signifigance. For example,
I'd be willing to pay $100 to see Bobsprit trying to sail a
Laser in, say, ten or twelve knots of breeze. It would be a
serious contender on Funniest Home Videos.

Bob's always claiming he's prepared to race anyone, any time. Someone
close to him should borrow a couple of dinghys and challenge him. No
way he can fake it when he's gotta s/h.

Preferably off a shoal lee shore in 10-15 knots, as you say. My place
would be perfect, shoal water and oyster covered rocks, but wrong
country and we don't want any more fat blowhards here.

PDW

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
The prevailing mortgage loans in San Francisco these days are the no-down,
interest-only loans. Some lenders even advertise "no credit checks." If
the real estate bubble bursts, there may be some lenders in a world of
hurt.
That said, I'd never want anything resembling a depreciating asset (Swan
44,
for example) on paper. I buy only what I can afford to pay cash for.

Well, that's not a terrible philosophy, but it isn't necessarily the
best one.

It is ALWAYS the best one, if you have the cash.

My next boat will probably be via some sort of loan. It's
not that I can't afford it to pay cash, but I can probably find other
uses for the cash, I won't be depleting my cash reserves, and I can
claim the boat as a vacation home and get some tax benefit from it.

I've heard these excuses for decades, and they didn't wash years ago, nor do
they now. If you add up the tax benefits you get from writing off the
interest on your boat loan, plus any interest you may earn from investments
made with the money instead of the boat purchase, you're still behind. The
only real excuse for not paying cash is, "I don't have it." Everything else
is just rationalization for allowing someone else the opportunity to make a
lot of money at your expense.

It
will still depreciate in value, but I should be able to partially make
up for that with this strategy.

Notice that I didn't even include depreciation in my statement above, Jon.
Add that in and you've got an even greater losing proposition. That said,
there is nothing wrong with financing a boat. It may be the only way one
can have a boat. It's a matter of priorities.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"DSK" wrote in message

....I read at the time that the top sailor in the Snipe Junior Nationals
was DSQ'd from two races in 1972 for roll tacking. He still won the
nationals that year, his other finishes were 1-1-1-1-2-1-1.

Sounds like a pretty good series for him.

The kid was awesome. He weighed in, dripping wet, at about 105 lbs. and
used his little brother (about 80 lbs.) as his crew. Not to mention that
his folks owned a sailmaking company which, at the time, were producing some
of the finest Snipe sails available. We also noticed that his sails didn't
look like the ones everyone else got from his parents' company.

But the scuttlebut thereafter was that roll tacking wasn't allowed in
Snipes. A few years later everyone was doing it. Things change.


Things definitely change.



If one were to roll-tack one's way up the windward leg, using each tack
simply for propulsion and not because of windshifts or competitors, that
would be illegal, then & now.


Interpretation changes with time.

And with location, and with present company.


... Kinetics become better-defined and written rules become more
specific. When I raced Snipes they were the second largest one-design
class in the world, with Sunfish #1. Now neither class is even viable
any longer.


What? The Snipe class may be staging a comeback you haven't noticed. I see
a fair amount of them around the Southeast. OTOH Fireballs and Y-Flyers
seem to have gone the way of the dodo.

Snipes have made a comeback of sorts, but they are a far cry from what they
were in the Seventies. There were nearly 20,000 registered Snipes by '75.



If you get DSQ'd you should honestly be able to say (and hopefully get
the backing of a few other skippers) "I was doing exactly what the other
boats were doing, so DSQ them also."

Maxprop wrote:
Depends upon how well politically aligned you are with the race
committee. My experience is that most race committees tend to have
selective vision and variable rules interpretation skills.

No, that should NEVER be a factor. A Race Committee, or a Protest
Committee, can NOT simply DSQ a competitor without a hearing on the same
rules of order as a protest by a competitor.

That's precisely what happened. Someone protests a competitor for using
kinetics--the word was "ooching" in the instance in question--and the race
committee convenes a post-race hearing to determine who was right. The
politically-aligned sailors always won, in my experience. No one really
knew the term "roll-tack" at the time, so such a maneuver was covered by the
next closest term--ooching. It's wasn't ooching at all, nor even close, but
that didn't matter to the race committee, who may as well have been demigods
with the power they possessed over such situations.

Protest committees occasionally hand out weird decisions... I can recall
being DSQ'd for being hit by a windward boat who felt that I was in his
way... it wasn't worth an appeal.

Why? Were you that far behind? g

Most Protest Committees these days err on the side of political
correctness, and shy away from doing anything as offensive as DSQ'ing
anybody.

As we've both said above, times change. Back then blatant political
decisions, or cronyism, was the norm. I gave up Laser racing because of
such crap.

Quick story: I was shoved against a mark during a rounding by a boat over
whom I clearly had rights. He knew it too, and smiled at me when I
protested him. I did my 720, lost six positions, regained three while he
won the race. Before the hearing, one of the old yacht club regulars asked
me, "Heh, heh, do you really think you can get a decision over Lew, heh,
heh?" I said, "Hell yes, he was clearly in violation of rule # such and
such . . . ." I lost.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Which aggravates Bubbles, because he *can't* sail a dinghy.


Peter Wiley wrote:
The last 2 words were superfluous.


Of course, but they still convey signifigance. For example, I'd be willing
to pay $100 to see Bobsprit trying to sail a Laser in, say, ten or twelve
knots of breeze. It would be a serious contender on Funniest Home Videos.

You were referring to the Animal Planet version, right?

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message

Bob's always claiming he's prepared to race anyone, any time. Someone
close to him should borrow a couple of dinghys and challenge him. No
way he can fake it when he's gotta s/h.

Can you imagine the litany of excuses that would follow his drubbing?

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
for example) on paper. I buy only what I can afford to pay cash for.

Well, that's not a terrible philosophy, but it isn't necessarily the
best one.

It is ALWAYS the best one, if you have the cash.

Nope. Not always... for some of the reasons cited previously.

I've heard these excuses for decades, and they didn't wash years ago, nor do
they now. If you add up the tax benefits you get from writing off the
interest on your boat loan, plus any interest you may earn from investments
made with the money instead of the boat purchase, you're still behind. The
only real excuse for not paying cash is, "I don't have it." Everything else
is just rationalization for allowing someone else the opportunity to make a
lot of money at your expense.

No, that's just not true. Have you suddenly switched professions to an
economoist or CPA?

Notice that I didn't even include depreciation in my statement above, Jon.
Add that in and you've got an even greater losing proposition. That said,
there is nothing wrong with financing a boat. It may be the only way one
can have a boat. It's a matter of priorities.

See my last comment, and it's certainly a matter of priorities.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
for example) on paper. I buy only what I can afford to pay cash for.

Well, that's not a terrible philosophy, but it isn't necessarily the
best one.

It is ALWAYS the best one, if you have the cash.

Nope. Not always... for some of the reasons cited previously.

I've heard these excuses for decades, and they didn't wash years ago, nor
do
they now. If you add up the tax benefits you get from writing off the
interest on your boat loan, plus any interest you may earn from
investments
made with the money instead of the boat purchase, you're still behind.
The
only real excuse for not paying cash is, "I don't have it." Everything
else
is just rationalization for allowing someone else the opportunity to make
a
lot of money at your expense.

No, that's just not true. Have you suddenly switched professions to an
economoist or CPA?

I've done the math, Jon. You'll realize I speak with non-forked tongue if
you do the math yourself. There is NEVER a good reason to finance a
depreciating asset, especially one not used for making money, if you have
the cash to buy it outright.


Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
I've done the math, Jon. You'll realize I speak with non-forked tongue if
you do the math yourself. There is NEVER a good reason to finance a
depreciating asset, especially one not used for making money, if you have
the cash to buy it outright.

It's just not true. Besides, as soon as someone uses the word "never"
in an argument like this, it usually means that there is no such
absolute.

I'm purdy good with dem numbers also.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
I've done the math, Jon. You'll realize I speak with non-forked tongue if
you do the math yourself. There is NEVER a good reason to finance a
depreciating asset, especially one not used for making money, if you have
the cash to buy it outright.

It's just not true. Besides, as soon as someone uses the word "never"
in an argument like this, it usually means that there is no such
absolute.

I'm purdy good with dem numbers also.

Fine. Let's calculate an example. Let's say that a Beneteau 35s5 is going
for $64k and you have a down payment of 10%. Show me how you are going to
save money, or at least not lose any, by financing the boat. We'll assume
you have sufficient money in relatively liquid assets to purchase the boat
outright.

I'm waiting.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:
Fine. Let's calculate an example. Let's say that a Beneteau 35s5 is going
for $64k and you have a down payment of 10%. Show me how you are going to
save money, or at least not lose any, by financing the boat. We'll assume
you have sufficient money in relatively liquid assets to purchase the boat
outright.

I'm waiting.

Changing numbers to something more realistic....

$20K buy + $5K fix-it money from an equity loan of ~5%.

Slip fee: $400/mo (probably a bit high)

Misc/Insurance: $200/mo (way high in my opinion)

Payment on loan about $200/mo.

Tax benefit ... well, that's proprietary, but basically, it's a
percentage of the slip fee, misc, loan paymnet, and the right-off from
the depreciating asset over time. Also, I don't have to rent or borrow
a boat to get my sea time and keep my license active, and I can make
money (although not a lot) per month, say $300 - average over 12 mos.)

Cost to rent a condo, so I can be near clients: $1200/mo (low estimate)
Cost to buy a condo, 10% down on $450K, since I don't have $450K
sitting around (and that's way low) plus monthly mortgage of $1500
(guestimate) plus boat rental so I can really lose money $300/outing.

Perhaps you see where this is going.

Sure, I could just pay cash, but then, since I don't have a bottomless
pit of cash, I might be a bit short if something interesting, like
another house, comes up for sale. For that, I would put down 20%,
finance the rest, and have break-even or (like now) slightly positive
cash flow.

Bottom line... the cash flow is much better. Thus, it's a better deal
to finance the boat.

Well, I've left out a lot. I'm sure you can pick it apart if you try.






--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com