spuds

Holy smokes Matty,Is BMW aiming for the floor????? I see McDoanlds and the new wave execs they hired who thought they would teach Ray Croc a thing or 2,and look how will thats ended up? Or the fools at Target or Macy's that have played politics and alienated half their shoppers.Says the former shoppers here that will never be back to any of the above listed brands.

Advertising doesnt make a brand,good cars do that.

geko29

Who said anything about the Dow Jones? Certainly not me. The entire concept of a price-weighted index is ridiculous, and it's not diverse enough anyway. The Dow wouldn't exist at all, if not for the fact that at a certain time in ancient history it was the only index we had. Better to be invested in the entire market, or at least a reasonable approximation thereof. Since the time frame being bandied about here is 22 years, and at least Vanguard's Total Stock Market fund has only been available since 2001, let's use the (cap-weighted) S&P 500, which tracks the overall market very closely:

If you started investing $1000/mo in SPY (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF) from January 1995 through December 2017, you would have wound up with $829,615 with dividends reinvested, roughly double what I suggested in my post. This despite hitting market crashes in years 5-7 and 12-14, the latter being the second worst in history. The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) over this period was 33.94%. Adjusted for inflation, the CAGR was 31.0%. IRR is 8.61%, not too far off from 10%, again considering the two crashes. Certainly well above 5%.

But few people have the intestinal fortitude to handle the volatility of 100% stocks, so what happens if you instead put 30% in VBMFX (Vanguard Total Bond Market)? Final dollar figure drops by about $90k, to $737,101. CAGR is 33.25%, or 30.39% adjusted for inflation. IRR is 7.75%. Go to 50/50 and you knock off another $70k and wind up at $737,101.

Agreed, which is why only short-term needs should be in cash (which includes CDs). They're not suitable for long-term investing because you ALWAYS lose to inflation. And inflation was the reason you used to see 15% CDs. When we had high inflation in the late 70s/early 80s, the federal funds rate peaked at 18% in January of 1980. Those high CD rates were necessary to at least somewhat defray the losses due to rampant inflation. Today inflation is quite low, and so are interest rates. If you have a substantial net worth invested primarily in savings accounts and CDs, you're doing it wrong.

But even ignoring inflation for a minute, putting $1000/mo into 1.5% CDs for 22 years would leave you with $312,545, a $48,545 return on your investment of $264,000. This vs. the $473,101 return of a simple 70/30 portfolio that went through the dot-com crash and the great recession.

And you're right, some people will pay taxes on those gains. The bottom two tax brackets have a long term CG rate of 0%, meaning they'll keep every penny. Most people will pay 15%, meaning that $473k becomes $402,136, and you have a total (including your investment) of $666k. But you pay regular income tax rates on the interest income, so the $48k drops to somewhere between $36,409 (25% rate) and $31,554 (35% rate). It's actually even less than this, because it's taxed each year so you miss out on compounding. Add back the original investment, and best case you're at $300k total.

But all this is assuming the funds are held in a taxable account. Investments held in a 529 and used for educational expenses (which is what we're talking about here) are not taxed at all. My Son's 529 is only a couple of years old, but already has over 20% gains, none of which will be taxable.

spuds

I didnt say YOU did on Dow,yet its always touted on the great 10% averages.Yeah,right.As the Dow is constantly being changed/manipulated.

As for ignoring 'quite low' inflation... if you believe its low....well whatever.Have you tried buying a house,or car,or beef in the last 5-10 years?Paid any medical expenses or policies out of pocket? That is NOT 'quite low' inflation. Read some Fred numbers on inflation,not the govs fantasy stats.

College inflation 1997-2017
https://www.usnews.com/education/bes...l-universities

geko29

The S&P has also averaged 10% return (7% accounting for inflation) over the 90 years it's been in existence.

You completely missed the point of that entire section. The reason I was ignoring inflation is to compare the returns of one method in nominal dollars, with the returns of another method in nominal dollars. Pick whatever rate of inflation you want, and then tell me which is more money: $49k adjusted for inflation, or $473k adjusted for the same rate of inflation. Or $300k vs. $666k, including the principal and accounting for taxes.

But to directly answer your questions:
Housing: in 2004 I bought a 3bed/1.5 bath, 1400sqft ranch for $270k. In 2014 I bought a 5 bed/3.5 bath 4100sqft house (2600 main floor, 1500 finished basement) in an adjacent neighborhood with a pool for $420k. Not seeing it. Yes I paid 50% more. But I also got a lot more.

Cars: In 1997 the average price of a car was $19,214, which is about $28k in today's dollars. In 2017 the average price of a car was $25,774, or $31,790 if you include light trucks. Not much difference here, and looking solely at price ignores how much better equipped even base models are today. I do know I bought a BMW 323i in 2000 for $34,500, and a 335d in 2011 for $38,500, both new/untitled (the d was a demo with 7k miles). We bought my wife's relatively loaded RX350 in 2007 for just under $50k as a demo (11k miles). 2018s at my local dealer are selling new for the low $50k range, with WAY more equipment. So no, not seeing it.

Beef: 10 years ago I paid $7/lb for Ribeye (my preferred cut) at Costco or Sam's. Today I pay $8. Ground beef is a bit different, but not a fair comparison. I do remember paying $1.59/lb 15 or so years ago, and I pay $4.49/lb today. That's a huge increase, but the products are very different. The 1.59/lb was USDA-approved (fit for human consumption) ground chuck, 30% fat. What I buy today is organic and mostly grass-fed, 5% fat.


This ignores the increase in financial aid, such that at many schools only the wealthy pay full sticker price. But let's take it at face value--yes, college costs have dramatically outpaced general inflation, which was about 53% over this same period. So how does one account for this? Your solution is apparently to invest for returns well below CPI, and hope that you still have enough. But there are other ways that take less work and investment. The S&P 500 had a total return of 426% over this same 20 year period (CAGR of 8.23%), 2-3 times the increase in sticker price of these universities. And again, this period includes two crashes.

Johnhav430

I have a younger colleague (he started young, in his teens), and his son went to PENN. Over drinks he said he was particularly proud and felt he had a lot to do with the outcome. I don't know his income but I consider it lower than mine, and he said that basically all they were responsible for was the cost of housing, nothing more. I thought dang I wish it was like that when I was that age, in my time, we just embraced debt...my dad did what he could, but looking at the numbers, it would not amount to $23k/yr. in 2017/18, like my boss.

I agree that $1k/mo. is a lot/too much, I don't know anybody who is doing it, but I punched in to an online calculator back in 2013, and the assumption was paying the full ride, with $65k/yr tuition, being adjusted for 2032, which is when my son graduates HS....my former colleague says he does $200/mo. per child, that's it, that's all he can do, they will have to do the rest. And he makes a boat load too, yet I believe him, he was shelling out $3k/mo. for daycare as his kids started at 3 mos. of age. It's tough out there....

But on the original topic, I do think that a car co. does need the younger generation to fund their future...

spuds

I just wrote a big reply about 401k's,mandatory redemptions,bear markets,on and on,but this is so far off topic I'll just let it go and say...

Good luck.Seriously.Back to car talk.
--------------------
John-But on the original topic, I do think that a car co. does need the younger generation to fund their future...

I think thats true.Lex might not be market leader,but they arent doing bad either,a little stagnant,but still making money world wide.

Toys4RJill

Johnhav430

I love the Lexus story, starting in the early 80's, and basically coming out of nowhere by 1989, and being accused by BMW of sellling their cars below cost. That is some serious flattery.

So, could it be done today again, only aimed at the crowd who can support their products? I'm not convinced that the LS500 is anything special, it's not revolutionary like the LS400 was in fall 1989. Of all the upscale car cos. that emerged, I do think Lexus is the best....is it a MB or BMW, maybe not....still after all these years never has the it factor when it comes to brand name.....but does have a stellar reputation for reliability...which seems to appeal most to the older and mature crowd...

spuds

The LS400 was such a World Beater it founded a pretty impressive car company.Cars like that dont come along very often.

Somewhat OT but related ...is the LS400 a future classic? NICE copies are getting some good money,relatively speaking.I was just looking at a 1999 creampuff for 9 grand with 64000 miles and an excellent carfax on dealer services.

And I suspect the crush rate on hoopty's must be pretty high.It has some cachet.Im not sure where Lexus is at now that they can ever bring out another car so revolutionary or as important to the company with their current focus.
--------------------
https://losangeles.craigslist.org/sg...484004344.html
Hello everyone
1998 Lexus LS400 in excellent condition for its age. Low mileage for the year: 64,000. The exterior is in great shape. Interior is very clean. Fully loaded for the year including factory GPS navigation.All options！parked in garage. just weekend car.-NEW：starter. spark plug and nozzle. all filter is new. need nothing. all services newport beach lexus.











Right down to the window sticker...

Infra

iTrader: (1)

Lexus has already alienated younger buyers (the ones that actually purchase luxury cars). We're approaching what, 13 or 14 years on the current 2GR-FSE powertrain with literally zero changes? When it came out, it was an industry leading engine. Now it's outperformed by Kia (and all other peers). Do you remember where Kia was 12 years ago? Take the new 2.0T Lexus has; it's already in last place in power and torque among Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Ford, GM, Honda, should I keep going?

Lexus's navigation system was an industry leader in 2005. Again, where are they now? Low resolution screens compared to peers. One of the worst user interfaces with the touch pad and mouse controller. Lack of adoption of industry-standard Apply Carplay and Android Auto. Did you know that if you don't pay Lexus $250+ a year for Enform, they disable the remote start on your key fob (that has *nothing* to do with Enform?!?)

Mmarshall, Lexus doesn't need to change everything into a sport-oriented thing. It only needs to do so for *specific trim levels* 3 cars; the IS, the GS, and the RC. We all know the problems with the RC; what about the IS? Why is there no IS-F? What Lexus does someone who wants power and handling purchase? As an example, the W205 C300 is not a sporty car. The B9 A4 is not a sporty car. The C43 is tied with the S4 for class-leading. Same model, totally different behavior.

Lexus reliability isn't the advantage it was, anymore. My 2013 QX60, 2015 QX60, 2012 S4, and 2016 C63S have all been just as reliable as my 2006 IS250 and 2007 IS350. This isn't something they can coast on anymore.

In short, as a former IS350 owner and Lexus fan, I've been disappointed with every decision they've made regarding their product offerings for 10 years, likely for the same reasons as most here. I don't want every Lexus to be a sports-car, I want Lexus to keep their direction as it was and make an actual sporty car like a new IS-F.

Toys4RJill

Thanks for posting this stuff. So cool and fun to look at.

Johnhav430

As we go back in time, it's amazing how the perception of $ has changed. I remember walking at the CNE in Toronto not sure what year, but a Lincoln was over $60k. I said what???? Then I realized at the time it was like 1.65 CAD to 1 USD. I know the car price has nothing to do with the exchange rate (as demonstrated by hardcover books that have both prices listed), but it made it more sensible that a Lincoln was over $60 thousand dollars (Canadian).

In 1998? $50k for a car was no joke. I believe leasing existed, but was not prevalent like today. So you spent that kind of money on a car, you had money. Often today it boils down to a monthly payment....

p.s. seems my family has spent over $40k on 2 cars, never $50k (still have them). Probably never will since I now seem to buy used lol

Toys4RJill

JDR76

Some valid points here, but I can't think of anything that uses the 2GR-FSE. Hasn't it been retired? I believe it's been updated to the 2GR-FKS in all current year applications.

arentz07

2017 was the last year it was used in the IS, and I think the RC as well. 2018 saw both models adopt the FKS. I am pretty sure that was the last time it was used - seems like it was reserved for the IS, RC, and GS lines.