sblitz Posted September 6, 2011 Share #21 Posted September 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) if the equity markets keep going in the direction that they are, and financial firms layoff as many as advertised, i suspect we will see quite a few more lenses for sale and prices dropping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 6, 2011 Posted September 6, 2011 Hi sblitz, Take a look here M lens price will decrease soon?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bbbonthemoon Posted September 6, 2011 Share #22 Posted September 6, 2011 if the equity markets keep going in the direction that they are, and financial firms layoff as many as advertised, i suspect we will see quite a few more lenses for sale and prices dropping. hehe, it can me quite opposite, when equity markets crash and everyone is looking for "real" assets, timeless Leica glass may look as very attractive investment Time for Leica to sell lenses futures Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 6, 2011 Share #23 Posted September 6, 2011 They are assets only if they are saleable for the same or higher prices. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 7, 2011 Share #24 Posted September 7, 2011 They are assets only if they are saleable for the same or higher prices. Umm, don't asset depreciate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 7, 2011 Share #25 Posted September 7, 2011 What is an asset? My take on that is something, anything that delivers something to you. That can be money, pleasure, cudos, etc. The delivery can be in the form of either a loss or a profit, which is also dependent on the scale you measure it with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 7, 2011 Share #26 Posted September 7, 2011 Umm, don't asset depreciate? The idea when you buy an asset as an investment is that it appreciates or preserve its value. No one makes investments in milk as an asset, for instance. Collectibles may be a good investment, like old cars, special cameras and lenses... but current reproducible commodities are not (specially if they expire). New Leica lenses' prices go up, but always there is a gap with second hand options. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 7, 2011 Share #27 Posted September 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) "In-vest v. 1. To commit (money or capital) in order to gain profit or interest, as by purchasing property, securities, or bonds. 2. To spend or utilize (time, money or effort) for future advantage or benefit...." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, William Morris, ed.; 1969 "As-set n. 1. A useful or valuable quality or thing. 2. A valuable item that is owned." (op. cit.) Note that there is no mention of the future or past value of an asset - it is an asset whether it appreciates, depreciates or maintains its value. Figuring your net worth, your 10-year-old car (or camera) that is worth 30% of what you paid for it, is still an asset. If you're poor enough, a container of milk may be a significant part of your net worth - but a cow will be a better asset (and investment) than a jug. Not all assets (and not all purchases) are investments - and not all investments must increase (or even maintain) their monetary value, so long as they provide some other benefit or advantage. Some economists (I think Ben Bernanke is among them) believe a moderate price inflation is healthier for a consumer economy than no inflation, or deflation. People will buy things today if they expect them to cost more in the future - they will NOT buy things today (except for pressing need) if they expect they can get them cheaper in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 7, 2011 Share #28 Posted September 7, 2011 The idea when you buy an asset as an investment is that it appreciates or preserve its value. That is a very static view of investment. As Andy comments above, increase in future saleable value is a very narrow view, and overlooks any value in ownership, either through generating income or pleasure (though I prefer the Oxford English Dictionary as an authority). In the context of your original statement: They are assets only if they are saleable for the same or higher prices. An asset is still an asset if it has falling value (hence my reference to depreciation - in business, assets ultimately get written down to zero, as their assessment is usually based on income generating life and cost of repair), provided it has value to the owner. I'm not sure why some posters get so bent up over people investing in camera equipment. For some people, they generate income. For others, they are collectibles. The rest of us simply take pleasure in owning and using equipment made with care and passion. They may be poor investments, or worthless assets, and surely most of the time they are indulgences; pure consumption. I don't have a problem with that. I don't see anyone here making a business case for Leica Equipment Investment (though it would be an interesting futures product at the moment). Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 7, 2011 Share #29 Posted September 7, 2011 ...Some economists (I think Ben Bernanke is among them) believe a moderate price inflation is healthier for a consumer economy than no inflation, or deflation. People will buy things today if they expect them to cost more in the future - they will NOT buy things today (except for pressing need) if they expect they can get them cheaper in the future. Besides all asset- or investment-philosophy I think that this simple concept will be true in the future for most of Leica products. They won't decrease prices, for this would signal that something with a Leica brand has a decreasing value. Modest prices don't guarantee big sales for Leica. The Summarit series for the M is much less successful than the Summiluxes just because Leica customers follow the pattern: if I spend so much for Leica, I want the very best and not something mediocre - even if the "lux" or "rit" price tags don't tell much about the quality. On the other hand there will be constant as ever but no big price increases. I am sure Leica is well aware that the present high demand is not safe for ever. Japan as a very important market for Leica is going through hard times, and nobody would place a bet that China will be stable tomorrow. Solms is a nothing more than a big village, Wetzlar a little town and Dr. Kaufmann doesn't seem to be a gambler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 8, 2011 Share #30 Posted September 8, 2011 "In-vest v. 1. To commit (money or capital) in order to gain profit or interest, as by purchasing property, securities, or bonds. 2. To spend or utilize (time, money or effort) for future advantage or benefit...." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, William Morris, ed.; 1969 "As-set n. 1. A useful or valuable quality or thing. 2. A valuable item that is owned." (op. cit.) Note that there is no mention of the future or past value of an asset - it is an asset whether it appreciates, depreciates or maintains its value. Figuring your net worth, your 10-year-old car (or camera) that is worth 30% of what you paid for it, is still an asset. If you're poor enough, a container of milk may be a significant part of your net worth - but a cow will be a better asset (and investment) than a jug. Not all assets (and not all purchases) are investments - and not all investments must increase (or even maintain) their monetary value, so long as they provide some other benefit or advantage. Some economists (I think Ben Bernanke is among them) believe a moderate price inflation is healthier for a consumer economy than no inflation, or deflation. People will buy things today if they expect them to cost more in the future - they will NOT buy things today (except for pressing need) if they expect they can get them cheaper in the future. You cannot learn Economics reading a dictionary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted September 8, 2011 Share #31 Posted September 8, 2011 You cannot learn Economics reading a dictionary. Ask the same question of a group of Economists and you get all different answers, each one claiming vehemently that his is the only correct one. So you have to wonder were does one learn Economics Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted September 8, 2011 Share #32 Posted September 8, 2011 Ask the same question of a group of Economists and you get all different answers, each one claiming vehemently that his is the only correct one. So you have to wonder were does one learn Economics Actually, the same is true of almost everything. Does that mean nothing can be learned, or is worth learning? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 8, 2011 Share #33 Posted September 8, 2011 We're not hear to learn economics (though I'm happy to learn anything anywhere any time) - we're just using language in a flexible way. English is like that. Put two economists together, and you get a minimum of 3 opinions. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbelyaev Posted September 9, 2011 Share #34 Posted September 9, 2011 The prices will not go down. Leica, like Patek Phillipe watches, Bentley cars, Steinway pianos is not for for everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 9, 2011 Share #35 Posted September 9, 2011 I have been l poking (lazily) for a 35 Summilux. Lazily, because I am hopeful that my Noctilux will turn up soon, and I don't want to pay for both at once. A forum member sent me a message yesterday to say that a local Leica dealer had two! but he thought they were sold. I checked the local prices, and they were consistent with what I would be charged if I imported the lens from overseas, so I contacted the dealer. He put me on his list - 2 to 3 months, he thought. He mentioned that he had sold one of the Luxes to Canada. I was somewhat intrigued to see a brand new in the box 35 Lux offered on this forum from Canada, listed in the last two days. What surprised me was that the lens was sold here for list price (around USD 5,000), but was offered on this forum for USD 7,000. I checked with the local dealer, and it's the same lens. I'd have to say, I somewhat disgusted. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 9, 2011 Share #36 Posted September 9, 2011 "What surprised me was that the lens was sold here for list price (around USD 5,000), but was offered on this forum for USD 7,000." Buy low, sell high? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 9, 2011 Share #37 Posted September 9, 2011 Quite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 9, 2011 Share #38 Posted September 9, 2011 "If you buy it, they will come." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.