sagwanamu said:
For example, if you purchase 200 points SSR with 20% down, you are talking about 200 per month payment plus 60 dollar maintenance. In order to break even, you need to rent all of your points at $15.6 per point (current rate is $10 (+/-)), and I bet it will be very hard to even break even.
I see what sagwanamu is saying here, but accountants will do backflips reading that kind of financial analysis. I won't beat it to death, but that is a flawed analysis.
Your initial cost is the purchase of an asset. At some future date, you may decide to resell that asset with a resulting gain or loss, but the amortized purchase price is not what you consider in analyzing the cost of renting points.
The only cost associated with the
points you are renting is your annual dues (+/-$4), plus any cost associated with the rental itself (advertising, PayPal, etc) Those are the only costs which really tell you whether renting 2005 points, for example, is a sound financial decision or an unsound decision.
If you think I'm crazy, and are determined to consider the purchase price as a cost of rental, then you still need to look at it much more accurately. If you finance, for example, you are financing 49 years worth of points for only 10 years. So, to figure that correctly, you would need to multiply the $200 per month payment in the above example times 12 months, times 10 years, giving you $24,000. Now divide the $24,000 by the 49 years worth of points and you will get an annual cost of the amortization of $489.80. That's per year, not $200 per month. Divide that $489.80 by the number of points and that is your per point amortization cost. In the example above, that would be about $2.45 per point per year. Add that to $4 dues, and you get a total cost of about $6.45 pp.
Again, that is flawed logic, but if you're going to use flawed logic, those would be roughly the correct computations for the above example. The
real number is $4+.