Keep in mind that the OP wasn't asking if a Leica was worth the money, he was asking if the possible appreciation of the camera would offset credit card interest. I think most of us would agree that it won't.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
I certainly agree with all the comments here about debt, and credit card debt in particular. I would never suggest someone buy a camera on credit except in the unlikely situation where it was necessary for work that would lead to paying off the debt.
Originally Posted by JBrunner
Still, I don't know the OP's situation, and you have to figure in the cost of selling something and repurchasing it later. If I had a camera outfit that worked as I expected and suited my needs, I wouldn't be in a hurry to let it go. I would be inclined to find a way to pay it off promptly. Some creative thinking might even lead to a way to do that with photography, and promote yourself and your work at the same time. Maybe host a Leica payoff show with prints at reasonable prices. Or maybe your photography services as a Leica payoff promotion. I'm sure someone more creative than me could come up with other ideas.
If that ain't gonna work, then yeah, get out of debt however you can.
Very few objects will outperform cost + interest in the short or medium term. Maybe house flippers in the boom and precious metal specialists came good but the safest way to collect is to buy something very few possess, and pay the going rate. If you see 'collectible', 'classic' or 'vintage' next to a sale, run a mile.
Sorry to continue the OT.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
I think the house market you live in is deeply distorted by some economic factors, which is probably law. It's not a normal market.
You say that it is somehow natural that rent costs more than mortgage (we assume no down payment) because the rented house is usually bought on a mortgage and the owner uses the rent to pay the mortgage. This is, again, the result of a deeply distorted market.
In a normal market, "rent" is the interest you pay on the capital you borrow (the house), while "mortgage" is the interest you pay on the capital you borrow (which you use to pay the house) PLUS restitution of the capital. In economic terms rent cannot be higher than mortgage unless there are factors which distort the normal behaviour of rational capital allocators.
If you take your mortgage "plan" you see that for each instalment there are two parts: the quota capitale and the quota interessi, they correspond to the share of borrowed capital you are giving back with that instalment, and the interest on the residual capital you borrowed (initial capital minus the capital you gave back with previous mortgage instalment).
If it were possible to buy a house with a mortgage and rent it for a sum equal to the mortgage instalment I would have no hesitation in doing it several times as this means that somebody (either the person renting or the bank lending) is giving me a house for free. Again in a normal market there is no free lunch and no free house.
I know this was possible in the US before the crisis but this was the result of distorting factors which were unique to the US market (maybe something similar happened in the Spanish market).
The idea that houses inevitably rise in value in the long run is at the origin of the last US house bubble and, like any idea behind any bubble, it is more based on wishful thinking and greed than sound economic theory and inevitably bursts leaving somebody with a hard lesson (and somebody else rich, naturally).
Amen brother, its not only the house market in US, its Leica that is distorted, completely and irreversibly
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The simple fact is, as originally stated, if one can afford a reasonable down payment and can qualify for a market rate 30 year fixed rate mortgage, then the mortgage payments on a single family detached house will be lower than what one would expect to pay to rent the exact same home. Case in point: my own home, a modest three bedroom, two baths 1500 square feet. Monthly mortgage payment is around $1500 (principal, interest property taxes). Were I to rent this house, I could easily rent it for $3000 per month...maybe more. The market here is such that I could also sell the house for more than double what I paid fifteen years ago.
If that's the situation I don't understand what prevents you from renting your house for $3000/month and buy on mortgage another house for $1500/month.
Originally Posted by BradS
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
1) all of this is conditional upon having a reasonably large down payment
2) although 10% is an entirely reasonable down payment for one's primary residence, 35% is more likely considered the minimum required for the down payment on a rental property
3) I do not have a reasonable down payment for a rental property that I would consider living in (there is a subtlety here which is attributable to the California property tax code - the details of which I will spare you at this time).
You have observed that the housing market is distorted. It is true. There are significant tax advantages pertaining to interest paid on the mortgage for the home you live in...However, that is not generally the case for the house you rent to another.
Last edited by BradS; 01-07-2013 at 04:42 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: make thoughts a little more concise.
800 ISO CN film is still manufactured and available rebranded in types 135 and 127. (I know there once was even much faster film...)
Originally Posted by blockend
E-6 films are still made by two manufacturers. All available to consumers.
Is the Leica an "Investment?"
Question 1, who sells the 127
Originally Posted by AgX
Question 2, who sells E-6 besides Fuji?
Links to shops with good pricing would be ideal if you don't mind sharing.
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk