car notes bout to be da new housing bubble VOL. NTers paying BMWs off in 73 months

Oh YoU MaD said:
Off topic but since when did GT-Rs go up in price to $100k, I could've sworn they were in the mid to high 70s a couple of years ago.

Nissan be hiking their prices word to Jordan Brand :smh:
Click to expand...

i think they started at 85 but due to slow sales they had to cover their costs and increases the price gradually.
 
Jking0821 said:
Paid for my corolla in cash. Cars are a terrible investment in theory they all do the same thing...get you from point A to point B. Never understood why some one pays 100k for their car with leather interior and "would grain" and then drives 100mph on I-95....i figured you would drive in the slow lane so you could stay in your luxury car as long as you can and enjoy what you paid for.

Side bar: Girl i know bought a 2003 3-series for 9k it had 70k miles. She put like $500 down....she has refinanced the car 2 times already and still owes $7500...she has had the car for 1.5 years now....but her long time bf is a BMW mechanic....and she LOVES BMWs and its her baby and its on IG every day...so its ok.....idiots
Click to expand...


Would tho..


View media item 371752
 
Last edited:
StillIn729 said:
The problem isn't 97 month car loans, it's little down payment and high interest rates
Click to expand...

THIS!

A long term contract is not that bad if you have a great interest rate and invest the cash that you would pay for the car.

Think about it like this. Person A purchases a car for $40,000 cash and does not pay any interest. However, person B finances the same car at 1.9% interest for 60 months. Person B will pay slightly more for the car. HOWEVER, person B also does not tie up thier cash in a car that is depreciating. If person B invests the cash and receives an annual return greater than 1.8 percent (not hard at all) then person B will come out far better than person A.

Really what you have to look at is the total it is going to cost you in the end. There is nothing wrong with paying cash but you can come out better finiancing if you have a great rate and make the cash that you would be spending work for you.
 
SMH folks kill me living beyond their means. I got a home girl who is $35,000 in debt when she graduated college. Then had the nerve to finance a Nissan Altima with payments of $480 a month, for 48 months right after graduation with no job claiming with her degree she is guaranteed $60,000 a year job.

It's been a year since then , this chick is a casher at Target and working part time at Philips Arena . Her *** always trying to play catch up with her bills.

As for me I am still whipping my 95 Honda accord I had since high school and throughout college. My honda has been very loyaI to me, and help me save A LOT of money these past 7 years but I am planning on purchase a BMW 328i coup after basic and AIT.
 
CParkFresh said:
StillIn729 said:
The problem isn't 97 month car loans, it's little down payment and high interest rates
Click to expand...
THIS!

A long term contract is not that bad if you have a great interest rate and invest the cash that you would pay for the car.

Think about it like this. Person A purchases a car for $40,000 cash and does not pay any interest. However, person B finances the same car at 1.9% interest for 60 months. Person B will pay slightly more for the car. HOWEVER, person B also does not tie up thier cash in a car that is depreciating. If person B invests the cash and receives an annual return greater than 1.8 percent (not hard at all) then person B will come out far better than person A.

Really what you have to look at is the total it is going to cost you in the end. There is nothing wrong with paying cash but you can come out better finiancing if you have a great rate and make the cash that you would be spending work for you.
Click to expand...
What happens if the two people in your example did that in 2007 though? Equations like this only deal with the numbers and fail to account for variables like risk. Not to mention that people buy more when they finance it than when paying with cash. When a person pays for a purchase over time, they don't feel the full impact of the purchase
 
crcballer55 said:
What happens if the two people in your example did that in 2007 though? Equations like this only deal with the numbers and fail to account for variables like risk. Not to mention that people buy more when they finance it than when paying with cash. When a person pays for a purchase over time, they don't feel the full impact of the purchase
Click to expand...

What does 2007 have to do with it? What is the risk involved? I guess your talking about if the market crashed. Who said anything about investing it the stock market? My point was simply there can be a benifit to long term financig if the interest rate is low. All that really matter is what the numbers look like in the end. It all depends on your strategy. And while your talking about risk. There is risk assiciated with everything that you do including paying cash for something that is going to depreciate when you drive it off the lot.

Now there is a problem with people going with longer terms with high interest rates. In these cases somebody can easily end up paying twice the cost of the car. Now this is living beyond your means.
 
thadocta said:
i think they started at 85 but due to slow sales they had to cover their costs and increases the price gradually.
Click to expand...

Nope. Yen gained value on the dollar. Dollar bought less. Nothing changed in the GT-R to justify a $20k increase.
 
A 97 month loan is probably beneficial for a young car buyer--think high school or early college. Clearly, the lower payment would be beneficial/a necessity because they have student income. However, in 4-6 years they will presumably be making (at least a little) more money. At that time, they would be able to make larger payments and pay it off faster--Or not, just keep it and pay the thing off. The end benefit to the user/consumer is that they had a new, reliable means of transportation through the years when, without 97 month loans, they wouldn't have been able to. Of course, this would mean they would have to buy a reasonably dependable and affordable car with low maintenance costs. Therefore, a young person with a 97 month loan on a Civic or Camry could be a wise decision, but a 20-something with a 97 month loan on an M3 not so much.
 
Crazy.

Luckily I have the slips to all my cars. Granted they are pretty old. But run very well and I maintain them very well. However, I do want a mustang gt. 06-up. Waiting till I can get roughly 30% down and get a 3 year loan on it. Barring any set backs, I am hoping by my birthday in December.
 
RubirosaGGatsby said:
A 97 month loan is probably beneficial for a young car buyer--think high school or early college. Clearly, the lower payment would be beneficial/a necessity because they have student income. However, in 4-6 years they will presumably be making (at least a little) more money. At that time, they would be able to make larger payments and pay it off faster--Or not, just keep it and pay the thing off. The end benefit to the user/consumer is that they had a new, reliable means of transportation through the years when, without 97 month loans, they wouldn't have been able to. Of course, this would mean they would have to buy a reasonably dependable and affordable car with low maintenance costs. Therefore, a young person with a 97 month loan on a Civic or Camry could be a wise decision, but a 20-something with a 97 month loan on an M3 not so much.
Click to expand...

Indeed. ~100 or so a month back in the day on a fuel efficient workhorse would've been clutch.
 
CParkFresh said:
crcballer55 said:
What happens if the two people in your example did that in 2007 though? Equations like this only deal with the numbers and fail to account for variables like risk. Not to mention that people buy more when they finance it than when paying with cash. When a person pays for a purchase over time, they don't feel the full impact of the purchase
Click to expand...
What does 2007 have to do with it? What is the risk involved? I guess your talking about if the market crashed. Who said anything about investing it the stock market? My point was simply there can be a benifit to long term financig if the interest rate is low. All that really matter is what the numbers look like in the end. It all depends on your strategy. And while your talking about risk. There is risk assiciated with everything that you do including paying cash for something that is going to depreciate when you drive it off the lot.

Now there is a problem with people going with longer terms with high interest rates. In these cases somebody can easily end up paying twice the cost of the car. Now this is living beyond your means.
Click to expand...
2007 is when everything started going downhill and caught those with debt payments red handed. Even many of those with so called, "manageable levels" of debt found out otherwise when job losses began to mount, jobs began to vanish, and home and stock values plummeted. Those with paid for assets didn't have to worry, whereas those who had to make payments needed to worry about where the money to pay for basics was going to come from.

Will it happen again? I doubt it, but I'm not taking my chances again. It was bad enough not having a job once without a car payment. I can't imagine the stress of having a car payment to go with it. You're going to have depreciation with any car you buy. The only difference is the total cost of the vehicle over time.

What other kinds of investments were you talking about other than the stock market? I'm drawing a blank right now on anything that has that kind of yield and relative security other than Real Estate. But in that case, you're double exposed by your example.
 
crcballer55 said:
What happens if the two people in your example did that in 2007 though? Equations like this only deal with the numbers and fail to account for variables like risk. Not to mention that people buy more when they finance it than when paying with cash. When a person pays for a purchase over time, they don't feel the full impact of the purchase
Click to expand...

man you are always trying to tell people what to do with their money; you must be cheap as hell man

washing plastic baggies and crap :lol:
 
Last edited:
crcballer55 said:
2007 is when everything started going downhill and caught those with debt payments red handed. Even many of those with so called, "manageable levels" of debt found out otherwise when job losses began to mount, jobs began to vanish, and home and stock values plummeted. Those with paid for assets didn't have to worry, whereas those who had to make payments needed to worry about where the money to pay for basics was going to come from.

Will it happen again? I doubt it, but I'm not taking my chances again. It was bad enough not having a job once without a car payment. I can't imagine the stress of having a car payment to go with it. You're going to have depreciation with any car you buy. The only difference is the total cost of the vehicle over time.

What other kinds of investments were you talking about other than the stock market? I'm drawing a blank right now on anything that has that kind of yield and relative security other than Real Estate. But in that case, you're double exposed by your example.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of ways to make money in a declining market. You just change your investment strategies.

One thing you are not considering is the fact that the person B still has the cash in your 2007 scenario. We can go back and forth on this with all types of nuances and what ifs (how much total cash savings do they have are they homeowners). I was pointing out the fact that it really comes down to interest rate and how much it costs you to finance the vehicle. A few years ago banks where financing 0% for 60 months so essentially that was the exact same thing as cash. In this scenario person A and person B both spend the exact same amount. The only difference is person A ties up a larger amount of cash in the car while person B has more options. With all of that being said person B can always pay off the car whenever they want because they have the cash!

Bottom line: Person A has 40,000 less in debt but they also have 40,000 less cash. Person B has 40,000 more in debt but also 40,000 more cash. So whats the variable? Cost of the debt (interest rate) vs return on cash (yield)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom