3 ms·

> You're arguing that the price of the car going up or down makes a difference for the decision if you should use a loan or not to buy it. no i'm not. i said

> You're arguing that the price of the car going up or down makes a difference for the decision if you should use a loan or not to buy it. no i'm not. i said condition B is often present in condition A, and that given A, you'd be stupid not to do B. NOT that A necessitates B or vice versa. that's something you just made up out of thin air.

pedrocr 9y ago
>no i'm not. i said condition B is often present in condition A, and that given A, you'd be stupid not to do B. Are you or are you not saying that if the car appreciates you should use a loan to buy it? That's what I read from this sentence at least: >if you're expecting an asset like a 918 or 911RS or R to go up in price, you'd be stupid to not leverage your cash at a low interest rate and put the rest of it to work somewhere else What I'm saying that unless you can get that value appreciation to make the loan cheaper it doesn't matter. Say you have 200k$ in cash and are considering buying two different cars both costing that amount. One appreciates and after 5 years is worth 300k$, the other depreciates and after 5 years is worth 50k$. Say you also have a bunch of other assets (a house, a boat, etc) that you can use as collateral to borrow the 200k$ at 10% over 5 years. If you take the loan after 5 years you've paid 250k$ for the car, doesn't matter which one. If you don't take the loan you pay 200k$ up front for the car, doesn't matter which one. The decision to take the loan would only be more attractive in the appreciating in value car if you could convince the bank to also use the car as collateral, reducing the risk of the loan, and giving you a lower than 10% rate.