Gordon wrote:


d) Why does the value of boats fall off so fast? Some new boats seem
to loose half their value in five years.

Because people are stupid enough to buy a new boat which costs a lot
of money. Same as with cars.

Not all boats lose that much. In 1989, an Island Packet 31 listed at
under $78,000. Today there is a 1989 on Yacht World for $74,000 and this
is typical for IPs. Of course if you count inflation--
Still not bad for an 18 year old boat.
Gordon

That has a lot to do with inflation. How much would 1989$$s be worth
in current buying power? In the ten years between 1989 and 1999, the
buying power of the dollar went down. What you could buy for $78K in
1989 would take about $104 in 1999. That's not just a $4K loss - it
is a $30K loss

A more cogent analysis would be - how much was that boat selling for
in 1994? How much would you have had to pay for that $78K boat when
it was five years old?

Some of the older boats hold their value (discounting the cost of
inflation) pretty well, but that's an argument FOR buying an old boat.

Another argument FOR buying and old boat is that the new boats don't
come equipped - you have spend mucho additional money to fit her out
with things like lines, fenders and the like.

AGAINST an old boat is that the equipment may be worn and outdated.

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
news
Gordon wrote:


d) Why does the value of boats fall off so fast? Some new boats
seem
to loose half their value in five years.

Because people are stupid enough to buy a new boat which costs a lot
of money. Same as with cars.

Not all boats lose that much. In 1989, an Island Packet 31 listed
at
under $78,000. Today there is a 1989 on Yacht World for $74,000 and
this
is typical for IPs. Of course if you count inflation--
Still not bad for an 18 year old boat.
Gordon

That has a lot to do with inflation. How much would 1989$$s be worth
in current buying power? In the ten years between 1989 and 1999, the
buying power of the dollar went down. What you could buy for $78K in
1989 would take about $104 in 1999. That's not just a $4K loss - it
is a $30K loss

A more cogent analysis would be - how much was that boat selling for
in 1994? How much would you have had to pay for that $78K boat when
it was five years old?

Some of the older boats hold their value (discounting the cost of
inflation) pretty well, but that's an argument FOR buying an old boat.

Another argument FOR buying and old boat is that the new boats don't
come equipped - you have spend mucho additional money to fit her out
with things like lines, fenders and the like.

AGAINST an old boat is that the equipment may be worn and outdated.


When it comes to things holding their value or increasing in value
people see what they want to see. Boats usually visibly go down in
value quite rapidly in the first couple of years. Same with cars. But
houses people claim make them money. But, people are wrong. They buy a
house for 100K and five years later they have it appraised and the value
is now 150K so they say, "Wow I've made 50% on my investment. WRONG! Add
in the 1) taxes 2) insurance 3) upkeep 4) utilities 5) inflation 6)
furnishings 7) mortgage interest, etc. and you've LOST money on it.
Simplistic bought for and sold for dollar values are totally misleading.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
news
Gordon wrote:


d) Why does the value of boats fall off so fast? Some new boats
seem
to loose half their value in five years.

Because people are stupid enough to buy a new boat which costs a lot
of money. Same as with cars.

Not all boats lose that much. In 1989, an Island Packet 31 listed
at
under $78,000. Today there is a 1989 on Yacht World for $74,000 and
this
is typical for IPs. Of course if you count inflation--
Still not bad for an 18 year old boat.
Gordon

That has a lot to do with inflation. How much would 1989$$s be worth
in current buying power? In the ten years between 1989 and 1999, the
buying power of the dollar went down. What you could buy for $78K in
1989 would take about $104 in 1999. That's not just a $4K loss - it
is a $30K loss

A more cogent analysis would be - how much was that boat selling for
in 1994? How much would you have had to pay for that $78K boat when
it was five years old?

Some of the older boats hold their value (discounting the cost of
inflation) pretty well, but that's an argument FOR buying an old boat.

Another argument FOR buying and old boat is that the new boats don't
come equipped - you have spend mucho additional money to fit her out
with things like lines, fenders and the like.

AGAINST an old boat is that the equipment may be worn and outdated.


When it comes to things holding their value or increasing in value
people see what they want to see. Boats usually visibly go down in
value quite rapidly in the first couple of years. Same with cars. But
houses people claim make them money. But, people are wrong. They buy a
house for 100K and five years later they have it appraised and the value
is now 150K so they say, "Wow I've made 50% on my investment. WRONG! Add
in the 1) taxes 2) insurance 3) upkeep 4) utilities 5) inflation 6)
furnishings 7) mortgage interest, etc. and you've LOST money on it.
Simplistic bought for and sold for dollar values are totally misleading.

Yes it is wrong to say that you've made 50%, but not necessarily for
all the reasons you say. Inflation actually helps you. You get to
invest your money and then inflation makes your investment worth more
- that is where the making 50% comes in.

You have to live somewhere, and you will have a cost for it regardless
of where it is. On land, furnishings and utilities are going to be a
cost regardless of whether you rent or buy a house. So you can't
count that AGAINST house ownership.

In the US, the taxes and mortgage interest can be used to reduce your
income tax, so that's kind of a wash. You have to pay one way or the
other - either more income tax or interest/real estate tax.

So generally speaking houses DO make money for people, which cars and
boats do not.

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
news
Gordon wrote:


d) Why does the value of boats fall off so fast? Some new boats
seem
to loose half their value in five years.

Because people are stupid enough to buy a new boat which costs a
lot
of money. Same as with cars.

Not all boats lose that much. In 1989, an Island Packet 31
listed
at
under $78,000. Today there is a 1989 on Yacht World for $74,000 and
this
is typical for IPs. Of course if you count inflation--
Still not bad for an 18 year old boat.
Gordon

That has a lot to do with inflation. How much would 1989$$s be
worth
in current buying power? In the ten years between 1989 and 1999,
the
buying power of the dollar went down. What you could buy for $78K
in
1989 would take about $104 in 1999. That's not just a $4K loss - it
is a $30K loss

A more cogent analysis would be - how much was that boat selling for
in 1994? How much would you have had to pay for that $78K boat when
it was five years old?

Some of the older boats hold their value (discounting the cost of
inflation) pretty well, but that's an argument FOR buying an old
boat.

Another argument FOR buying and old boat is that the new boats don't
come equipped - you have spend mucho additional money to fit her out
with things like lines, fenders and the like.

AGAINST an old boat is that the equipment may be worn and outdated.


When it comes to things holding their value or increasing in value
people see what they want to see. Boats usually visibly go down in
value quite rapidly in the first couple of years. Same with cars. But
houses people claim make them money. But, people are wrong. They buy a
house for 100K and five years later they have it appraised and the
value
is now 150K so they say, "Wow I've made 50% on my investment. WRONG!
Add
in the 1) taxes 2) insurance 3) upkeep 4) utilities 5) inflation 6)
furnishings 7) mortgage interest, etc. and you've LOST money on it.
Simplistic bought for and sold for dollar values are totally
misleading.

Yes it is wrong to say that you've made 50%, but not necessarily for
all the reasons you say. Inflation actually helps you. You get to
invest your money and then inflation makes your investment worth more
- that is where the making 50% comes in.

But, as I just explained, the 50% is an illusion. . .

You have to live somewhere, and you will have a cost for it regardless
of where it is. On land, furnishings and utilities are going to be a
cost regardless of whether you rent or buy a house. So you can't
count that AGAINST house ownership.

That's where lubbers are caught in a trap of their own making. You MUST
count all expenses associated with living in a house if you are going to
claim exhorbitant profits. If you're honest with yourself, that is.

In the US, the taxes and mortgage interest can be used to reduce your
income tax, so that's kind of a wash. You have to pay one way or the
other - either more income tax or interest/real estate tax.

Another myth that about writing off taxes. You write off only a
percentage of taxes. Not the whole thing. It is NEVER a wash. It is
always to the government's advantage.

So generally speaking houses DO make money for people, which cars and
boats do not.

I disagree. It depends upon your vantage point. What if you said "screw
the landlubber lifestyle" and you saved your money and bought a nice
used sailboat in which you lived. You pay 50K for it. You pay no loan
interest, you pay no insurance, you pay no utilities, you pay no slip
fees, etc. etc. You have upkeep and registration fees which are modest.
You don't keep your boat in a marina. You sail around and anchor out.
You refuse to use fuel unless becalmed or in an emergency. Given this
scenario, you are truly making money. Like you said you have to live
somewhere. So live in your paid-for boat, take care of it so the re-sale
value stays high. All the money you save is money in the bank. Invest it
in stocks and bonds. Ten years and your double your money from people
paying YOU interest instead of the other way around.

My point is a boat is a great money-making investment. Much better than
a house on land by far, provided you use the sailboat as a home, too and
provided you use the sailboat for travel too. Don't let those lubbers
brag about their house being such a great investment because it isn't a
great investment at all. It doesn't pay it costs. A sailboat lived
aboard and sailed pays. It will make you a rich man. It's made me a
millionaire.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Peter Hendra" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:13:36 -0400, "Leanne" wrote:
Here is a sister ship in the PNW http://fog-northamerica.org/puffin.html

Leanne

Compared to Australian and New Zealand prices (from memory) that is
one cheap little boat. I have met a couple of boats of about that size
that have crossed oceans. Nice yacht.

Peter,

I love my little English ship as she handles like a much larger boat. I
heard about one or two that did a circumnavigation back in the 70's. Of
course I would like the larger sister, the F-34 and the best sailing of the
Fishers, as that is the largest that will clear the fixed bridge on the way
up the creek to my house.

Leanne

"Leanne" wrote in message
...

"Peter Hendra" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:13:36 -0400, "Leanne" wrote:
Here is a sister ship in the PNW
http://fog-northamerica.org/puffin.html

Leanne

Compared to Australian and New Zealand prices (from memory) that is
one cheap little boat. I have met a couple of boats of about that
size
that have crossed oceans. Nice yacht.

Peter,

I love my little English ship as she handles like a much larger boat.
I heard about one or two that did a circumnavigation back in the 70's.
Of course I would like the larger sister, the F-34 and the best
sailing of the Fishers, as that is the largest that will clear the
fixed bridge on the way up the creek to my house.

Leanne


Fisher's are about the ugliest motor sailers made. That picture link
above tells the whole tale. You can't even get a respectable press of
sail on the damned thing because the pilot house gets in the way. That's
not even a sailboat in my opinion. A survival storm wave would knock
that stupid, huge, ugly, pilot house clean off the deck.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Leanne" wrote in message
...

"Peter Hendra" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:13:36 -0400, "Leanne" wrote:
Here is a sister ship in the PNW http://fog-northamerica.org/puffin.html

Leanne

Compared to Australian and New Zealand prices (from memory) that is
one cheap little boat. I have met a couple of boats of about that size
that have crossed oceans. Nice yacht.

Peter,

I love my little English ship as she handles like a much larger boat. I
heard about one or two that did a circumnavigation back in the 70's. Of
course I would like the larger sister, the F-34 and the best sailing of
the Fishers, as that is the largest that will clear the fixed bridge on
the way up the creek to my house.

Leanne


That boat "Puffin" is pretty as they come. Well, besides my Rawson, of
course (w). How can anyone look at that proud bow and not love her? She's
saying in no uncertain terms, "Hey! Let's go sailing!"

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Leanne" wrote in message
...

"Peter Hendra" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:13:36 -0400, "Leanne"
wrote:
Here is a sister ship in the PNW
http://fog-northamerica.org/puffin.html

Leanne

Compared to Australian and New Zealand prices (from memory) that is
one cheap little boat. I have met a couple of boats of about that
size
that have crossed oceans. Nice yacht.

Peter,

I love my little English ship as she handles like a much larger boat.
I heard about one or two that did a circumnavigation back in the
70's. Of course I would like the larger sister, the F-34 and the best
sailing of the Fishers, as that is the largest that will clear the
fixed bridge on the way up the creek to my house.

Leanne


That boat "Puffin" is pretty as they come. Well, besides my Rawson, of
course (w). How can anyone look at that proud bow and not love her?
She's saying in no uncertain terms, "Hey! Let's go sailing!"


I agree. A Rawson is twice the boat and easily three times as seaworthy.
Do you have a Rawson 30? I think that is one of the more unknown and
most underrated boats of all times. Seems to have sorta slipped through
the cracks but it hasn't gone unnoticed by this sailor.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Two meter troll" wrote in
ups.com:

are sail boats really that much more work than an old
30'-50' salmon troller or a 100' king crabber?



I'd like to answer that they don't HAVE to be....but most sailors will
not tolerate a sailboat that LOOKS like a salmon troller or crabber,
either. They don't HAVE to constantly sand and varnish and primp and
clean a perfectly clean boat, but they do. I believe the term is
obsessive-compulsive. I don't think they love doing this all the time,
but they do it anyway, probably from peer pressure.

Luckily, Cap'n likes it to look nice and spends a considerable amount to
make it look nice, but isn't so compulsive he stays up washing the deck
all night when we come in at midnight. Others I've sailed with are just
terrified someone is going to spill bourbon on a teak deck...to the point
where it's just too much to bear. I guess that's why Lionheart is
usually the center of the party, not the fringe. Booze and wine clean
off quite easily...(c;....after one has sobered up so one can SEE the
deck while STANDING, not laying on it....(c;

Larry
--
Message for Comcrap Internet Customers:
http://tinyurl.com/3ayl9c
Unlimited Service my ass.....(d^

By the way "Two metre troll"
Please enlighten my confusion.
As I am not a native speaker of American English, are the fish your
boats have been used for really 30 to 50 foot long salmon and 100 foot
in span king crabs. Ours don't grow nearly that large.
\

Point taken, thanks.
LOL..... 2MT