The purpose of this post is to show you that you cannot trust information on new car prices that is out there. Not even information from a paid service by Consumer Reports, a non-profit that is supposedly on my side.
I bought this car on November 22nd, 2008: http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsMain&vehicleCode=MZ5
It is a 2009 Mazda 5 Sport, a six-passenger "micro-minivan". Note: a 2009, not a 2008. I paid $14,650 for it. If that seems like a low price, read on. The sticker price, with delivery to the dealer, is $18,665. Kelly Blue Book (KBB) says that people are actually paying $18,105 for this car...."based on actual new-vehicle transactions received from auto dealers across the U.S.". I don't believe that, but you can see what they say for yourself at http://www.kbb.com/KBB/NewCars/PricingReport/2009_Mazda_MAZDA5_236886.aspx
OK, so instead of trusting KBB, I bought a paid service with Consumer Report (CR), which told me that the dealer had paid $17,175 for this car, after dealer holdback. They generally suggest you pay 3-4% over that. CR claims that they knows about all incentive programs: special discounts, incentives to the dealers, rebates, etc. etc. CR is a non-profit, I can trust them right? Well, on my own I discovered a $1,000 Mazda loyalty program (we already had a Mazda) and a $1,000 Mazda-to-dealer discount. Thanks for nothing, CR. I will ask for a refund on my paid service with them ($39).So take $2,000 off the $17,175 cost that CR told me about and you are at $15,175 cost to the dealer. I should pay let's say 3% more than that, so $15,630.......all according to CR. I offered $14,200, an insult I was sure the dealer would refuse. After some haggling and getting in my car to leave, we agreed on $14,650 (plus sales tax of 7%).
I think I could have beaten them down a couple of hundred more, but I was feeling sorry for them. If you believe the data that I just showed you, the dealer just sold me a 2009 car at a $525 hard cash loss to them. I don't believe that, not on a model car that is only in its third year and is top-rated by Consumer Reports in it's category
---------
Conclusions:
1. The information that is out there on what you should pay for a new car, even info that you pay for, is just flat wrong.
2. In these tough times, manufacturers like Mazda probably have all kinds of discounts to their dealers just to move cars. I have no idea what those behind-the-scenes agreements are, nor does anyone else. I don't need to know what those deals are, I just needing to make a low offer and see if it sticks.
3. At least on this car, you can pay somewhere around 78-79% of sticker price on a 2009 model.
4. I have also found used car pricing published on the Internet to be much higher than reality.
5. So I would urge you to insult your local car dealer - they might just take your offer.Whether the car is new or used.
---------
Had I not dug a bit deeper, I might have paid $3,000 more (20% more) and thought I actually got a good deal. I hope this information is of some help to someone.
By the way, I really like my new car. It is my kind of car.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Al Gore - a survivor
I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I think both parties stink at this point in time. I like to think that I look at facts in arriving at a conclusion. And when it comes to anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, I just don't see any evidence. Specifically with Al Gore, the way he argues is intellectually dishonest. Let me explain.
My wife and I watched the 60 minutes interview with Al Gore in the of 2008spring. His wife Tipper said in that interview that "Al's survival after his defeat in 2000 depended on his immersing himself in the climate cause". So it seems that Al's global warming crusade was about finding something for Al to do. His wife says it was about his survival.
In the same interview, Gore says "are we destined to destroy this place that we call home, planet earth? I can't believe that that's our destiny. It is not our destiny. But we have to awaken to the moral duty that we have to do the right thing and get out of this silly political game-playing about it. This is about survival". Mr. and Mrs. Gore seem a pretty anxious couple, constantly concerned about survival ....
But this is what really got my attention: towards the end of the interview, Lesley Stahl asked about skeptics. Those who say about global warming / climate change that "we don't know what causes it and why spend all this money till we really know" (Stahl's words). Before Gore answered, I said to my wife: he will not address their scientific arguments, he will attack them. My wife said "of course he will, he is a politician". Here is what Gore had to say about those who question the assertion of anthropogenic climate change: "I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off".
So Al Gore's strategy is to squelch legitimate scientific discourse with insults. He is also saying that if enough people believe something (as opposed to proving it out), then they are right.
However, we can take comfort in this exchange from the interview:
"You have said, and I'm going to quote you, 'If I do my job right, all the candidates will be talking about the climate crisis,'" Stahl said. "I can't think of a time I've heard the candidates talk about it."
"Right. Well, I'm not finished yet," Gore said.
Right. Well, the campaign is well over, so you must not have done your job right, Al.
----------
To those who believe that we need "stop global warming", or have similar beliefs: when discussing this issue, or any other issue, we must discuss facts. Otherwise, we will get nowhere. If we try to shout down the other side, or badger them, you are not likely to convince anybody of anything.
Look up "climate change" on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change). Look at the first graph, the ones that shows temperature variation over the last 500,000 years. Can you at least see why people like me are not getting all that excited about a supposed 0.5 C increase in temperature over the past 100 years? Can you see how this is insignificant this 0.5 C is in comparison to the 8-10 C decrease we soon be facing if we indeed are the end of an interglacial period?
Also read what Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, has had to say on this issue. He is hardly a shill for big oil.
If you can at least entertain the possibility that the issue climate change is not settled, then I will admit to you the possibility that I might be wrong. Yes, you heard it right: the other side might be right, and I might be wrong. I would just need a whole lot more evidence before I am going to join the camp of those who believe that global warming in caused by humans and that this warming is a problem.
My wife and I watched the 60 minutes interview with Al Gore in the of 2008spring. His wife Tipper said in that interview that "Al's survival after his defeat in 2000 depended on his immersing himself in the climate cause". So it seems that Al's global warming crusade was about finding something for Al to do. His wife says it was about his survival.
In the same interview, Gore says "are we destined to destroy this place that we call home, planet earth? I can't believe that that's our destiny. It is not our destiny. But we have to awaken to the moral duty that we have to do the right thing and get out of this silly political game-playing about it. This is about survival". Mr. and Mrs. Gore seem a pretty anxious couple, constantly concerned about survival ....
But this is what really got my attention: towards the end of the interview, Lesley Stahl asked about skeptics. Those who say about global warming / climate change that "we don't know what causes it and why spend all this money till we really know" (Stahl's words). Before Gore answered, I said to my wife: he will not address their scientific arguments, he will attack them. My wife said "of course he will, he is a politician". Here is what Gore had to say about those who question the assertion of anthropogenic climate change: "I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off".
So Al Gore's strategy is to squelch legitimate scientific discourse with insults. He is also saying that if enough people believe something (as opposed to proving it out), then they are right.
However, we can take comfort in this exchange from the interview:
"You have said, and I'm going to quote you, 'If I do my job right, all the candidates will be talking about the climate crisis,'" Stahl said. "I can't think of a time I've heard the candidates talk about it."
"Right. Well, I'm not finished yet," Gore said.
Right. Well, the campaign is well over, so you must not have done your job right, Al.
----------
To those who believe that we need "stop global warming", or have similar beliefs: when discussing this issue, or any other issue, we must discuss facts. Otherwise, we will get nowhere. If we try to shout down the other side, or badger them, you are not likely to convince anybody of anything.
Look up "climate change" on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change). Look at the first graph, the ones that shows temperature variation over the last 500,000 years. Can you at least see why people like me are not getting all that excited about a supposed 0.5 C increase in temperature over the past 100 years? Can you see how this is insignificant this 0.5 C is in comparison to the 8-10 C decrease we soon be facing if we indeed are the end of an interglacial period?
Also read what Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, has had to say on this issue. He is hardly a shill for big oil.
If you can at least entertain the possibility that the issue climate change is not settled, then I will admit to you the possibility that I might be wrong. Yes, you heard it right: the other side might be right, and I might be wrong. I would just need a whole lot more evidence before I am going to join the camp of those who believe that global warming in caused by humans and that this warming is a problem.
2009 - a year for "solutions"
In 2008, I made 10.15% in the stock market. Not by shorting, but by buying and selling at the right time. My best deal involved buying shares of Citigroup before the weekend where they got their second and huge bailout. My entire bet was that the government would not wipe out the common shareholders. Those shareholders should be wiped out as part of any bailout, but with the prevailing lack of common sense and gutlessness, my bet was that this would not happen.
I was correct in my bet. I bought shares on 11/24 and 11/26, and sold them on 11/28. I made 12.8% in 4 days (after all fees) betting that the government would not let people pay for their mistakes. Isn't that a sad commentary on America today?
So I started thinking: why is it that the common shareholders in companies like Citigroup, Ford, GM, AIG etc. etc. are not wiped out as part of any bailout? It is pretty clear to me that they must be wiped out, the management fired and the boards replaced. Otherwise, we get exactly what we have now: corporations working the system.
One of Milton Friedman's arguments against big government was that they tend to ally themselves with big business against the interests of the broad population. We now have big, overbearing government, and therefore the chances of a recovery in 2009 are slim. The politicians, and the interest groups that they report to, appear to be hellbent on trying all the things that won't work. All the things that we have data to show won't work.
Your bank needs a bail-out? Fine, we the government will take it over to prevent a panic, but the shareholders, management and board are gone. And if you don't come to us once your bank starts circling the drain, we will prosecute you under some theory of law. If I in charge, my message to all banks, especially large banks, would be this: be afraid to ask for a bailout. Also be afarid to not ask for one if your bank is failing.
Apart from preventing a run on the banks, losses needs to be realized. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can move on. Leave it be, and it will all take care of itself. If anything, remove obstacles for small business (1-19 employees) - they are the sole source of net new job creation in the US. The data proves it out.
I was correct in my bet. I bought shares on 11/24 and 11/26, and sold them on 11/28. I made 12.8% in 4 days (after all fees) betting that the government would not let people pay for their mistakes. Isn't that a sad commentary on America today?
So I started thinking: why is it that the common shareholders in companies like Citigroup, Ford, GM, AIG etc. etc. are not wiped out as part of any bailout? It is pretty clear to me that they must be wiped out, the management fired and the boards replaced. Otherwise, we get exactly what we have now: corporations working the system.
One of Milton Friedman's arguments against big government was that they tend to ally themselves with big business against the interests of the broad population. We now have big, overbearing government, and therefore the chances of a recovery in 2009 are slim. The politicians, and the interest groups that they report to, appear to be hellbent on trying all the things that won't work. All the things that we have data to show won't work.
Your bank needs a bail-out? Fine, we the government will take it over to prevent a panic, but the shareholders, management and board are gone. And if you don't come to us once your bank starts circling the drain, we will prosecute you under some theory of law. If I in charge, my message to all banks, especially large banks, would be this: be afraid to ask for a bailout. Also be afarid to not ask for one if your bank is failing.
Apart from preventing a run on the banks, losses needs to be realized. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can move on. Leave it be, and it will all take care of itself. If anything, remove obstacles for small business (1-19 employees) - they are the sole source of net new job creation in the US. The data proves it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)