[Leica] Leica investment economics - was Financial people in Lug

[jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj)]

Larry,
How much did a car cost in 1954? My guess is that the ratio of camera/car
would hold good even today - you can get a small car for the cost of a M9,
and a smaller one for the cost of a M7 (at least here in India), and a
pretty good one for the cost of an S2. I agree with your analysis -
considering a purchase price of US$250 in 1954, and a sale price of even
US$5000 today, your return would be 5.5% compounded over 56 years - my guess
is you would have barely kept up with inflation, making it a pretty lousy
investment - of course it all depends on the sale value today, I have just
taken a nice round number off the top of my head! If you do not use these
cameras, do not buy them!
Cheers
Jayanand

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Lawrence Zeitlin <lrzeitlin at 
gmail.com>wrote:

> Considering the "end of the world" social and or economic collapse
> predicted
> in 2012, just how good is the investment value of Leica cameras. At today's
> Leica prices there are only two reasons for buying a new Leica camera
> primarily as an investment, both of them irrational.
>
> First, if you are a camera collector and/or a camera speculator you will
> buy
> the camera and keep it unused in its original box, expecting that its price
> will increase at some future date. This is a distinct possibility. A new
> unsold 1954 M3 with its original carton and shipping documents which sold
> for about $250 new in a tax free airport shop would probably sell at a
> collector's auction for the price of a small car, an unused urLeica would
> go
> for the price of a new house.
>
> The price appreciation of most Leicas, however, is a bit less than the
> equivalent amount of money deposited in bank CDs and considerably less than
> funds invested in the stock market. That $250 cost of the Leica in 1954,
> invested in CDs at the average rate of return would have grown to about
> $3250, about the price of a late model used Leica kit. If the Leica
> purchase
> funds were invested in the stock market at the average annual rate of
> return
> since 1954, it would have grown to almost $40,000, enough to buy a new
> camera and a BMW to drive it around in. Buying Leicas soley for
> appreciation
> is simply a variation of the "Greater Fool" theory beloved of stock
> speculators. You may be a fool for paying so much but you hope there is
> always a greater fool who will buy it from you for more.
>
> Second, if you are one of those who have a "best quality" addiction you
> will
> buy the camera to fondle and possess, secure in the feeling that no one has
> or appreciates quality equipment better than you. For a definition of
> "quality" see Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."
> Take plenty of pictures with the camera. But don't get annoyed by the fact
> that the resulting pictures are almost indistinguishable from those taken
> with lesser cameras like Nikons or Canons. If digital cameras, all will be
> obsolete in a few years anyway and their value will decline precipitously.
>
> So unless you are a camera speculator or a quality addict don't buy a Leica
> for appreciation. Buy a Canon or Nikon. You will get state of the art
> engineering and manufacturing, fine lenses, autofocus and autoexposure at a
> considerable saving over the cost of an equivalent Leica system. Invest the
> money you save to provide a real legacy for your children. Or in a
> collection of fine Scotch potables. Remember that if the Indians who sold
> Niew Amsterdam to the Dutch had invested their $24 properly they could not
> only buy back Manhattan but every bit of developed property from Boston to
> Washington, DC.
>
> Larry Z
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>