Thank You JEFF!!!
 

Maxprop wrote:
I can't imagine what sort of trim would heel a close-hauled boat to windward
in normal (non-drifter) winds,WITHOUT the addition of hiking railmeat. But
I'm open to learn.


It doesn't take much "rail meat," but it does take hiking.


Fully-battened mains will obviously stay in shape, even when heeled to
windward.

They will, kinda sort-of. Not well wnough to sail as efficiently as with
a little heel, though.


... But I wasn't aware that the same thing could be achieved with
some of the new sheet laminate headsails.


I wasn't eaither but would like to see it.



Yep. The boat accelerates much better and if it's one of those gawd-awful
days with chop & light air, it can go thru the lumpy parts better.


I agree that it does, but what is your explanation for this effect?


???

Why do I have to explain it?


You don't have to do anything you don't want to do, but there must be some
reason for it. I was just curious, not interogative.


I don't really know, although I have some possibilities in mind.
More power, for starters.



Depends upon your definition of "moderate air," and whether you're sailing a
dinghy or a more substantial keel boat.

Nope.

Only a boat that will be affected by crew weight.



Roll-tacking was not allowed in Snipe events when I raced them.

???

Roll tacking has always been allowed. Now, there have always been rules
against various forms of propulsion, some of which are suspiciously
close to sailing but are deemed inappropriate... or ungentlemanly, or
something.

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.



... Later I used it routinely when racing Lasers, but
finally was DSQ'd in one race in a regatta in Michigan for using "disallowed
kinetics." Forced to stop, it ****ed me off so thoroughly that I sold the
Laser and quit dingy racing altogether. It was a bitter pill to discover
that years later it was considered okay.

Seems to be the prevalent mode of light-air sailing in college, which is
a shame.

My rule of thumb- don't use kinetics any more than the top few boats
are. And practice, so that if they are busy sawing loas across the race
course, you can do it better & faster. In fact, I have occasionally
complained to other skippers that they were getting a bit heavy handed
on the rocking & pumping, got ignored, and rock/pumped my way past,
whereupon I stopped & grinned back at them. Point made.


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."

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

Capt. Rob wrote:
... When someone nicks at their
fragile bubbles of fakery, they let out the famous cry....

"I can sail one of my dinghies when I really want to sail!!!!"


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

DSK

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote
... You
mean a Swan is more comfortable than a big PDQ? Holy crap.


Yep. Costs more, too.


Maxprop wrote:
My wife and I spent a weekend on a new 44' Nautor Swan in '99, soon after
the owner took possession. Nothing--absolutely nothing-- could even
remotely be termed "uncomfortable" on that boat, below or topside. It was
diligently designed, beautifully executed, and sailed like a dream. Sad
part was its price: around $800K. I can't afford one.


You could if you really really wanted one bad. They'll finance anybody
these days.

DSK

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"DSK" wrote in message

Roll tacking has always been allowed. Now, there have always been rules
against various forms of propulsion, some of which are suspiciously close
to sailing but are deemed inappropriate... or ungentlemanly, or something.

Roll tacking wasn't specifically outlawed in the SCIRA rule book, but most
regatta committees ruled it illegal as an interpretation of the
anti-kinetics rules. 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.
But the scuttlebut thereafter was that roll tacking wasn't allowed in
Snipes. A few years later everyone was doing it. Things 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. 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.


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."

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.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"Capt. Rob" wrote
... You
mean a Swan is more comfortable than a big PDQ? Holy crap.


Yep. Costs more, too.


Maxprop wrote:
My wife and I spent a weekend on a new 44' Nautor Swan in '99, soon after
the owner took possession. Nothing--absolutely nothing-- could even
remotely be termed "uncomfortable" on that boat, below or topside. It
was diligently designed, beautifully executed, and sailed like a dream.
Sad part was its price: around $800K. I can't afford one.


You could if you really really wanted one bad. They'll finance anybody
these days.

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.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

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




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

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

....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.


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.




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.

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

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

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.

DSK

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

Peter Wiley wrote:
Bob's always claiming he's prepared to race anyone, any time.

He's also always claiming to be rich.

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.


If you all are below your quota, then you *have* to take him!

But you make your place sound like such a fun place to sail,
Peter, are you trying to drum up some visitors??

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

In article , DSK
wrote:

Capt. Rob wrote:
... When someone nicks at their
fragile bubbles of fakery, they let out the famous cry....

"I can sail one of my dinghies when I really want to sail!!!!"


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

The last 2 words were superfluous.

PDW

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

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:
Bob's always claiming he's prepared to race anyone, any time.

He's also always claiming to be rich.

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.


If you all are below your quota, then you *have* to take him!

Umm, while we don't have fat blowhards on the scale of the USA, nor the
barrel scrapings like Michael Moore, we have enough for our simple
needs. Thanks for the thought.

But you make your place sound like such a fun place to sail,
Peter, are you trying to drum up some visitors??

Depends on who it is. We actually don't get a lot of visiting yachts,
Sydney-Hobart excepted. If you're doing the run across the Indian Ocean
going east, or heading for South America and then the Atlantic, this is
the logical place to stop. Otherwise, no. OTOH the local sailing is
great provided you can sail in strong winds. I can't recall seeing a
Beneteau for sale here, for example, because they aren't suited to real
weather. Plenty for sale in Sydney and Queensland tho.

PDW

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

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.

Wow. Max, you don't know much about money do you? Many people can make
more money with a 64K cash investment spent elsewhere that would easily
outrun the losses for financing the boat. Unless you plan to keep her
forever, you're only "leasing" her in effect anway. Why hand over the
entire amount if you plan to trade up anyway in 5 years? In our case we
bought the boat outright, but there were serious financial profile
factors to consider as well for us.

RB
35s5...OUR boat!
NY

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

Boats are only depreciating assets if you don't enjoy them.

That's true, but we can't really use that formula. It would make
Scotty's boat worth millions.

RB
35s5...a valuable boat!
NY

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
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.

I hope you don't get audited, Jon. Federal law allows you to write-off the
interest on such a loan. But the slip fee? Total loan payment?
Depreciation? Unless you're using the boat as a business, you're in deep.

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.)

Doing what? Floating bordello? I suppose that might work.


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.

Once again, the IRS might like to have a chat with you. You must show a
profit within five years or the write-offs become retroactively taxable.

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.

Fergeddit. No one can afford Bay Area real estate any longer. g


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.

If you'd simply bought the boat, your cash flow would have been positive.
With your calculations, it couldn't possibly be. Fact: the interest you
pay on a boat loan will always exceed the tax savings possible by writing
off the interest expense.

But to cut to the chase, we were talking about boats used for recreation,
not for business. If you can legitimately use yours for business, more
power to ya. Most of us either can't or wish to risk an audit every other
year. The IRS just loves it when folks write-off boats as a business
expense. The old rule was generally thus: the very rich can write-off very
expensive boats, at least in part, as business expenses, but the rest of us
cannot write off our small craft unless we are in the charter business. If
you do what you claim above, you'll doubtlessly be audited sometime down the
road. Hope your documentation is in order.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Captain Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:40:20 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"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


That's easy. You take take the value out of the boat by using and enjoying
it.
Boats are only depreciating assets if you don't enjoy them. The more value
you
take out in enjoyment, the better the investment.

I just love it when someone subscribes to the concept of touchy-feely
accounting. So does the bank.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Wow. Max, you don't know much about money do you? Many people can make
more money with a 64K cash investment spent elsewhere that would easily
outrun the losses for financing the boat.

Really? Show me--and I won't take your opinion for fact. I'd like to see
some hard evidence. Most boat loans are going to be in the 6-9% category
(probably at the high end for Jon), and I doubt if you can do better than
that investing the same amount of money in low-risk paper. My tax-deferred
municipal bonds are producing less than 5% currently, and they never exceed
the going consumer loan rates. I cite munis because they are the most
secure investments I have. CDs are generally doing about 4% or less, and
relatively low-risk mutuals aren't doing a whole lot better, but these are
probably going to come closer to the banks' consumer loan rates than any
other investment. And they are far from risk-free. 2001-2003.

Unless you plan to keep her
forever, you're only "leasing" her in effect anway. Why hand over the
entire amount if you plan to trade up anyway in 5 years? In our case we
bought the boat outright, but there were serious financial profile
factors to consider as well for us.

Whatever.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

Really? Show me--and I won't take your opinion for fact. I'd like to
see
some hard evidence.


You must be joking. We bought in on a 4 way for a 6 unit building in
Brooklyn 6 years ago. Our investment on that was only 50K cash. The
property was sold last year for 20 times what we paid, plus a nice tax
benefit for restoring a 90 year old building. So in 6 years we did far
better than if we'd used that same money to buy a boat outright,
assuming we could have only done one. There are many deals like that in
real estate. It makes little sense to pay in full for something you
won't keep for a long long time...such as a boat.

RB
35s5
NY

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
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.

I hope you don't get audited, Jon. Federal law allows you to write-off
the interest on such a loan. But the slip fee? Total loan payment?
Depreciation? Unless you're using the boat as a business, you're in deep.

Well, duhh... if you read just a little bit further, you would see that I
will be...

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.)

Doing what? Floating bordello? I suppose that might work.


I would say that would be your experience, but you aren't up for it.

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.

Once again, the IRS might like to have a chat with you. You must show a
profit within five years or the write-offs become retroactively taxable.

NO. Totally incorrect. There is no law nor IRS ruling that says I have to
make a profit. If I can show that I've made a good faith effort to make a
profit, that's all that's required. Suggestion: keep your day job.

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.

Fergeddit. No one can afford Bay Area real estate any longer. g

I can, have, and will.


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.

If you'd simply bought the boat, your cash flow would have been positive.
With your calculations, it couldn't possibly be. Fact: the interest you
pay on a boat loan will always exceed the tax savings possible by writing
off the interest expense.

Huh? That's a negative cash flow of $25K all at once!

But to cut to the chase, we were talking about boats used for recreation,
not for business. If you can legitimately use yours for business, more
power to ya. Most of us either can't or wish to risk an audit every other
year. The IRS just loves it when folks write-off boats as a business
expense. The old rule was generally thus: the very rich can write-off
very expensive boats, at least in part, as business expenses, but the rest
of us cannot write off our small craft unless we are in the charter
business. If you do what you claim above, you'll doubtlessly be audited
sometime down the road. Hope your documentation is in order.

You said NEVER buddy. The answer is not never. In addition, there is nothing
wrong with having a deduction as a second home on a boat. You're required to
have sleeping accomodations, a working head, and cooking facilities. And,
that has nothing to do with a commercial venture.

Sheesh. I'm sure glad you aren't my accountant!

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

Bzzt. Slightly more than 5%, and it's not a boat loan! My IRA return is
nearly double that. Real Estate (so far) is triple or better.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Wow. Max, you don't know much about money do you? Many people can make
more money with a 64K cash investment spent elsewhere that would easily
outrun the losses for financing the boat.

Really? Show me--and I won't take your opinion for fact. I'd like to see
some hard evidence. Most boat loans are going to be in the 6-9% category
(probably at the high end for Jon), and I doubt if you can do better than
that investing the same amount of money in low-risk paper. My
tax-deferred municipal bonds are producing less than 5% currently, and
they never exceed the going consumer loan rates. I cite munis because
they are the most secure investments I have. CDs are generally doing
about 4% or less, and relatively low-risk mutuals aren't doing a whole lot
better, but these are probably going to come closer to the banks' consumer
loan rates than any other investment. And they are far from risk-free.
2001-2003.

Unless you plan to keep her
forever, you're only "leasing" her in effect anway. Why hand over the
entire amount if you plan to trade up anyway in 5 years? In our case we
bought the boat outright, but there were serious financial profile
factors to consider as well for us.

Whatever.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

Max is location impaired.

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

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Really? Show me--and I won't take your opinion for fact. I'd like to
see
some hard evidence.


You must be joking. We bought in on a 4 way for a 6 unit building in
Brooklyn 6 years ago. Our investment on that was only 50K cash. The
property was sold last year for 20 times what we paid, plus a nice tax
benefit for restoring a 90 year old building. So in 6 years we did far
better than if we'd used that same money to buy a boat outright,
assuming we could have only done one. There are many deals like that in
real estate. It makes little sense to pay in full for something you
won't keep for a long long time...such as a boat.

RB
35s5
NY

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

Your life is the only depreciating asset you have if you are living
right.


wish I wrote that. Wait a sec...according to Doug and Sloco...I did!

RB
35s5
NY

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

Maxprop wrote:
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.


Sure, back in the "good old days" they were the biggest
class in the world. Lot of good sailors keep a Snipe handy
for the big regattas. I know of a couple of people that race
Snipes along with two or three other classes.


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.

To some extent, that's always true isn't it? Life is a
popularity contest.



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

No, I was racing in a different class (beach cats) and had
not done well enough for contention of 1st, and I already
had a big enouogh pile of 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc trophies that
I'd begun throwing them away (in fact I've moved twice since
then and tossed out quite a few more). I didn't really care,
just made a few sarcastic remarks later to the individuals
concerned who should have known better. The guy who
protested me was a former champ in this class who was
failing miserably at a comeback and was PO'd.




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.


Well, that's bull**** and it shows the minute "good ol' Lew,
heh heh" sails somewhere outside his little frog pond.

What frosts me is when such shenanigans go on at the big
events. In a major Lightning championship I was in (for the
record, we did not bring home any silver from this one), Mr
X forced his way into a mark rounding, at a gate no less,
not only hit the mark but it literally went under his boat's
hull, also ramming two other boats in the process and
fouling one's rig... Mr X was DSQ'd by a protest committee
and then had his finish mysteriously reinstated the last day
of the series.

A few years later, this guy won a big championship, and at
the dinner I asked a few people who were at this foul-up if
they remembered when Mr X sailed over the bouy and they said
hell yes, and re-told the story loudly. Mr X got very red
faced but did not say a word. I've been told his kids refer
to that big trophy as "the one Daddy got by sailing over a
mark." Personally I think that's good enough revenge.

DSK

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Captain Joe Redcloud" wrote in message

When was the last time you took a vacation?

This past June and July.

Could you live in a smaller, cheaper
house?

Yes, but we're building a bigger, more expensive one.

Do you eat only the cheapest food that you can find?

No, but we do eat peanut butter on occasion.

Do you ever have any
fun?

Constantly. And we pay cash for it.

I just love it when someone is so obsessed with their finances, and making
every
penny count, that they forget to live a little.

If one has the means it's not an issue.

Guess what, Jeffy?

Max.

Many people accumulate money just so they can enjoy life
more. Your life is the only depreciating asset you have if you are living
right.

Life is not an asset--it's a necessity for everything else. Without it you
have no need for anything beyond a grave and some sort of container.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

How about if I put my company name on my saild, can I count that as a
deduction?
The cost of a new sail?

SV

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message

Really? Show me--and I won't take your opinion for fact. I'd like to
see
some hard evidence.


You must be joking. We bought in on a 4 way for a 6 unit building in
Brooklyn 6 years ago.

A disaster in the making.

Our investment on that was only 50K cash. The
property was sold last year for 20 times what we paid, plus a nice tax
benefit for restoring a 90 year old building.

Uh huh. We're supposed to accept your claim that your gross yield was
$1million? Whatever.

So in 6 years we did far
better than if we'd used that same money to buy a boat outright,
assuming we could have only done one. There are many deals like that in
real estate. It makes little sense to pay in full for something you
won't keep for a long long time...such as a boat.

Two years ago I bought some land along Lake Michigan for $200K and sold it
this summer for well over two million dollars.

Oh wait, I just made that up. Like you.

Real estate speculation of the nature you describe is highly risky and
seldom pays off the way you claim it did. Being in the right place at the
right time is great, if you have a crystal ball or a clairvoyant aunt. More
often the costs involved with such speculation eat the investor alive and
mitigate any possibility of a decent return. For the average person, such a
lofty return on investment is simply not in the stars. For the average
person, the investment opportunities available, whether real estate or
paper, won't return anything near the interest rate paid on a boat loan.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Bzzt. Slightly more than 5%, and it's not a boat loan! My IRA return is
nearly double that. Real Estate (so far) is triple or better.

Please give me the name of the investment firm doing your IRA--according to
MONEY magazine, the best in the country are just barely doing better than 6%
yield. As for real estate, big money can be made in your area, but only if
you invested some time ago. I'm betting that you don't have the means to
invest in anything of substance today, considering that just about anything
bigger than a postage stamp in the Bay Area goes for megabucks. If you have
the means to make those sorts of RE investments, you have the means to buy
your boats for cash. And that's my point--unless you can get a high rate of
return on investments you can afford--better than the interest on your boat
loan (or your home equity loan, if that makes you feel better)--you're
better off paying cash for the boat. From a strictly financial basis,
you're better off not buying a boat at all.

Let me ask you this, Jon: if your home equity loans are so cheap and your
investments so damn productive, why haven't you maxed out your home equity
and invested it?????

Max

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

Please give me the name of the investment firm doing your
IRA--according to
MONEY magazine, the best in the country are just barely doing better
than 6%
yield.


BWAHAHHAHAHAA! Money magazine is some source! We do a lot better than
6% yield. I'm sure Jon does too and he's be nuts to hook you up with
his firm. Getting a good rate is an art. Of course Money Magazine
reports real world stats for real world shmos. When we considered
getting yacht financing we were all set for a rate of 4.99 % over 15
years with 10% down. Now look around and see what the "best" rates are.
That's better than a NEW boat term. You have to know people and make
some friends, but the better rates are out there.

RB
35s5
NY

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

Once again, the IRS might like to have a chat with you. You must show a
profit within five years or the write-offs become retroactively taxable.


NO. Totally incorrect. There is no law nor IRS ruling that says I have to
make a profit. If I can show that I've made a good faith effort to make a
profit, that's all that's required. Suggestion: keep your day job.

You'd be well advised to check that out, John. According to the Uniform Tax
Code of the IRS, you have five years to make a profit, after which your
business is no longer considered a business. Got a good lawyer?

Fergeddit. No one can afford Bay Area real estate any longer. g

I can, have, and will.

Did you miss the smiley face, Jon? There are always investments in real
estate everywhere and in all price ranges, but I'm betting you can't afford
the ones that will give your the rate of return you need to offset the
interest on a boat loan.

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.

If you'd simply bought the boat, your cash flow would have been positive.
With your calculations, it couldn't possibly be. Fact: the interest you
pay on a boat loan will always exceed the tax savings possible by writing
off the interest expense.

Huh? That's a negative cash flow of $25K all at once!

Get a job in the real world, Jon. Of course it is. Every time a business
buys something, it's a negative cash flow. Are you claiming that you only
have a positive cash flow? Constantly? Just a few paragraphs ago you claim
that an indefinite net loss is fine with the IRS, but now you're decrying a
negative cash flow. Which is it?


But to cut to the chase, we were talking about boats used for recreation,
not for business. If you can legitimately use yours for business, more
power to ya. Most of us either can't or wish to risk an audit every
other year. The IRS just loves it when folks write-off boats as a
business expense. The old rule was generally thus: the very rich can
write-off very expensive boats, at least in part, as business expenses,
but the rest of us cannot write off our small craft unless we are in the
charter business. If you do what you claim above, you'll doubtlessly be
audited sometime down the road. Hope your documentation is in order.

You said NEVER buddy. The answer is not never. In addition, there is
nothing wrong with having a deduction as a second home on a boat. You're
required to have sleeping accomodations, a working head, and cooking
facilities. And, that has nothing to do with a commercial venture.

But only the interest on the loan can be written off, not the entire
payment, the dock fee, and the other things you claim to write off.

Sheesh. I'm sure glad you aren't my accountant!

I'll bet yours will be Bubba's roommate at Leavenworth, if its he who's been
advising you.

Max

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

I'll bet yours will be Bubba's roommate at Leavenworth, if its he who's
been
advising you.

Bubba did quite well and now owns this Tayana 48 I sail on!

http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/atayb.jpg

RB
35s5
NY

Thank You JEFF!!!
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
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.


Sure, back in the "good old days" they were the biggest class in the
world.

Second biggest, actually. Sunfish numbered more, but probably more Snipes
were actually raced.

Lot of good sailors keep a Snipe handy for the big regattas. I know of a
couple of people that race Snipes along with two or three other classes.

I raced Snipes, Lightnings, and Lasers during the same period. It's not
uncommon.

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.

To some extent, that's always true isn't it? Life is a popularity contest.

Of course. It's not what you know, it's whom.


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

No, I was racing in a different class (beach cats) and had not done well
enough for contention of 1st, and I already had a big enouogh pile of 2nd,
3rd, 4th etc trophies that I'd begun throwing them away (in fact I've
moved twice since then and tossed out quite a few more). I didn't really
care, just made a few sarcastic remarks later to the individuals concerned
who should have known better. The guy who protested me was a former champ
in this class who was failing miserably at a comeback and was PO'd.




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.


Well, that's bull**** and it shows the minute "good ol' Lew, heh heh"
sails somewhere outside his little frog pond.

Lew knew better than to ever race elsewhere. He was a bully and a mediocre
sailor. Even his strongarm tactics couldn't land him in better than 5th or
6th place.


What frosts me is when such shenanigans go on at the big events. In a
major Lightning championship I was in (for the record, we did not bring
home any silver from this one), Mr X forced his way into a mark rounding,
at a gate no less, not only hit the mark but it literally went under his
boat's hull, also ramming two other boats in the process and fouling one's
rig... Mr X was DSQ'd by a protest committee and then had his finish
mysteriously reinstated the last day of the series.

Fortunately I was the fleet scorer for both our Snipe and Laser fleets. I
was approached by a parent on one occasion in an effort to get a kid's
finishing position changed in one race in the junior regionals. It would
have made the difference between second and third overall for his kid. When
I rejected his attempt to "reason" with me, I was offered cash. When I
rejected that, I was threatened. A predictable pattern.

..
A few years later, this guy won a big championship, and at the dinner I
asked a few people who were at this foul-up if they remembered when Mr X
sailed over the bouy and they said hell yes, and re-told the story loudly.
Mr X got very red faced but did not say a word. I've been told his kids
refer to that big trophy as "the one Daddy got by sailing over a mark."
Personally I think that's good enough revenge.

I suspect similar stories are played and replayed at yacht clubs throughout
the world. I gave up showing horses many years ago when I discovered that
the politics of that particular activity were no different or worse than
those in most other hobbies or sports. I still race, but I've mellowed
enough to find comfort in the knowledge that sailboat racing just ain't
important enough to get upset about. Larry Ellison might disagree.

Max