Re: [Leica] Re: Leica value as an investment

["mdelman" <mdelman@rochester.rr.com>]

Larry:

Thanks for this well reasoned analysis. It reminds me of a guy I worked with
who was always bragging about the great investments he made in real estate.
He purchased a home for his family, sold it for more money than he purchased
it for, upgraded to a new home, sold it again etc.   This occurred a number
of times and he thought he was a genius.  What he didn't remember was that
all housing prices in the US were rising during the 1980's and 1990's and
that the price of the original house was also appreciating over the same
time period.  He also didn't bother to include closing costs and moving
expenses in the calculation so it may have been a better investment to stay
in the original house.  My guess is that he lost money.  That's OK if you
want to upgrade your living conditions but then the house isn't really an
investment it's a consumable.

- -Mark

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <LRZeitlin@aol.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 11:03 AM
Subject: [Leica] Re: Leica value as an investment


> I published this on the LUG several years ago and it is as appropriate
today.
> Leicas are fine cameras but marginal investment vehicles. Ted, you are
right.
>
> <<There has been a lot of loose talk on the LUG about the investment value
of
> Leica cameras. At today's prices there are only two reasons for buying a
new
> Leica camera primarily as an investment, both of them irrational. Those
> photographers who buy Leicas to actually take photographs need read no
> further.
>
> 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. An
unsold
> 1954 M3 and Summicron lens with its original carton and shipping documents
> which cost about $250 new 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 no better 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,
> compounded at 6% per year would have grown to about $3250, about the price
of
> a new Leica kit. Invested in the stock market at the average annual rate
of
> return for those 44 years, it would have grown to $36,604, enough to buy a
> new camera and a BMW to drive it around in. Buying Leicas only for value
> 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."
> Don't bother to take pictures with the camera. It is too expensive and
> valuable to risk. Besides you may be annoyed by the fact that the
resulting
> pictures are almost indistinguishable from those taken with lesser
cameras.
>
> So unless you are a camera speculator or a quality addict don't buy a
Leica
> for appreciation. Buy a mid-range Canon or Nikon SLR or even a (horrors!)
> Contax G1 or G2. You will get state of the art engineering and
manufacturing,
> fine lenses, autofocus and autoexposure at a third to half the cost of an
> equivalent Leica system. Invest the money you save to provide a real
legacy
> for your children. Remember that if the Indians who sold Niew Amsterdam to
> the Dutch had invested the difference in price between a lesser system and
a
> Leica, they could not only buy back Manhattan but every bit of developed
> property from Boston to Washington, DC.   -  LarryZ>>
>