McLaren Life banner

What's your net worth (denominated roughly in USD (k in 1000s, M in 1,000,000s and B in 3 commas!))?

  • less than < 0 (negative net worth)

  • 0-249k

  • 250k-499k

  • 500k-999k

  • 1M-1.999M

  • 2M-4.999M

  • 5M-9.999M

  • 10M-19.99M

  • 20M-29.99M

  • 30M-49.99M

  • 50M-99.99M

  • 100M-199M

  • 200M-499M

  • 500M-999M

  • 1B-1.999B (3 commas baby!)

  • 2B-4.999B

  • 5B-9.999B

  • 10B-19.99B

  • 20B-49.99B

  • 50B-99.99B

  • 100+B (so you're Elon Musk, Bezos, Gates, etc.)

21 - 40 of 59 Posts
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
And sometimes repairs are deferred when it's not covered by a warranty. Repairs are maintenance, you're talking about scheduled preventative maintenance.
Repairs are repairs, maintenance is items needed to maintain proper operation. If a wheel got bent from a pothole you wouldn't say it's "in for maintenance".

If you'd like I can start naming off all the times dealers told people they needed to replace things that didn't need replaced, warranty or not. Example, replacing a hydraulic reservoir and hose that was "leaking" which wasn't, they just overfilled it and it spilled. Double incompetence. $3,200 expense avoided. Is replacing parts that aren't bad and don't expire "maintenance"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,320 Posts
Repairs are repairs, maintenance is items needed to maintain proper operation. If a wheel got bent from a pothole you wouldn't say it's "in for maintenance".

If you'd like I can start naming off all the times dealers told people they needed to replace things that didn't need replaced, warranty or not. Example, replacing a hydraulic reservoir and hose that was "leaking" which wasn't, they just overfilled it and it spilled. Double incompetence. $3,200 expense avoided. Is replacing parts that aren't bad and don't expire "maintenance"?
I think once you start wordsmithing "maintenance", you've pretty much run out of arguments.....
 
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
I think once you start wordsmithing "maintenance", you've pretty much run out of arguments.....
Or I know the definition of maintenance and don't try to skew it to cover up being wrong. You aren't arguing my statement, just diverting, proving my point.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: invisiblewave

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
9,746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
I think one issue is if youre going to own a McLaren, particularly outside of warranty, you may need to factor in annual repairs in addition to maintenance. Some parts like accumulators and upper arms and gorilla glass cracks and headlight fogging come up regularly enough that you need to account for that in addition to more banal oil/filter maintenance. I would think @EMF Audio (McMedics) would have a good sense for how often that occurs on average.

If 'some kind' of repairs have to go on every year, vs, every 5 years, you kind of have to factor that in, in addition to insurance, monthly payments, etc.
 
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
I think one issue is if youre going to own a McLaren, particularly outside of warranty, you may need to factor in annual repairs in addition to maintenance. Some parts like accumulators and upper arms and gorilla glass cracks and headlight fogging come up regularly enough that you need to account for that in addition to more banal oil/filter maintenance. I would think @EMF Audio (McMedics) would have a good sense for how often that occurs on average.

If 'some kind' of repairs have to go on every year, vs, every 5 years, you kind of have to factor that in, in addition to insurance, monthly payments, etc.
Many of those items are never again, or 5 years, or otherwise not annual. That's with any car.
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
9,746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 · (Edited)
Many of those items are never again, or 5 years, or otherwise not annual. That's with any car.
I'll take your word for it that any one of them may be one time only or every 5 years, but in aggregate, I've had something repaired basically every year of the ~10 years I've owned the car. The front headlights. Rear headlights. HVAC controls (I think 3 times until they got a design that worked). Control arms. Some of it self inflicted with the tyre spoilers ripping the front floor apart when I scrubbed them over speed bumps, etc. etc.

To be fair, and complementary to McLaren, the vast majority was handled under warranty. But some years, it was several repairs. My car is pretty old so it's not surprising the 1.0 design had a bunch of things fixed over the years, and again, a compliment to McLaren that for the most part, they stood behind the car and continued to make it better.

Maybe the newer cars dont have the same repair rate. Maybe because my car was under warranty, the dealer repaired more frequently. Maybe because it was the 1.0 12C design. Maybe my car was an anomaly.

That said, it seems like a lot of McLaren owners might fall in the category of having at least 1 repair a year. But again, you would know better, so I defer to your far greater expertise and experience.

Do you think the average McLaren owner (particularly out of warranty) shouldn't budget in at least one non-major repair a year in addition to the annual maintenance, or would that be overly prudent?
 
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
I'll take your word for it that any one of them may be one time only or every 5 years, but in aggregate, I've had something repaired basically every year of the ~10 years I've owned the car. The front headlights. Rear headlights. HVAC controls (I think 3 times until they got a design that worked). Control arms. Some of it self inflicted with the tyre spoilers ripping the front floor apart when I scrubbed them over speed bumps, etc. etc.

To be fair, and complementary to McLaren, the vast majority was handled under warranty. But some years, it was several repairs. My car is pretty old so it's not surprising the 1.0 design had a bunch of things fixed over the years, and again, a compliment to McLaren that for the most part, they stood behind the car and continued to make it better.

Maybe the newer cars dont have the same repair rate. Maybe because my car was under warranty, the dealer repaired more frequently. Maybe because it was the 1.0 12C design. Maybe my car was an anomaly.

That said, it seems like a lot of McLaren owners might fall in the category of having at least 1 repair a year. But again, you would know better, so I defer to your far greater expertise and experience.

Do you think the average McLaren owner (particularly out of warranty) shouldn't budget in at least one non-major repair a year in addition to the annual maintenance, or would that be overly prudent?
You should put some money away for any car for unexpected repairs. In regards to early cars, I have #362 and I've openly put out my ownership costs every year. It's not crazy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
Repairs are repairs, maintenance is items needed to maintain proper operation. If a wheel got bent from a pothole you wouldn't say it's "in for maintenance".

If you'd like I can start naming off all the times dealers told people they needed to replace things that didn't need replaced, warranty or not. Example, replacing a hydraulic reservoir and hose that was "leaking" which wasn't, they just overfilled it and it spilled. Double incompetence. $3,200 expense avoided. Is replacing parts that aren't bad and don't expire "maintenance"?
some truth but very early on,mac had the wheel lug bolts,isg and some other items as part of the maintenance schedule so dealers replaced them every year at customer's expense. definition of maintenance and repair can get blurry if you follow mac's line of thinking.
 
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
some truth but very early on,mac had the wheel lug bolts,isg and some other items as part of the maintenance schedule so dealers replaced them every year at customer's expense. definition of maintenance and repair can get blurry if you follow mac's line of thinking.
Yeah, they justify the nickels and dimes by saying you need to replace things you don't need to. You don't need engine air and cabin filters every year, even the miles I do. You damn sure don't if you're doing a few hundred a year.
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
9,746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 · (Edited)
I wonder what most people think it takes to be “rich”?

To me it’s interesting, that Benny hill was worth about $7M (about $16m in todays money) after a life time of work and spending nearly no money (although apparently he travelled). I would have thought such a miser would be way wealthier. I’m often surprised by the fortunes or lack of fortunes of celebrities. My guess is they do not get the “scale” of money for the most part, and blow it not knowing how to invest.

The most interesting off the top of my head example is Mike Tyson who made near half a billion and is essentially broke. That is a LOT of money to blow through. If he had invested nearly half of that, he should be a multi billionaire.

Anyway, my theory is most people think that if you have say $2-3m you’re rich, but 2million is “lease a Honda Accord money” imo, if you’re being prudent. You’re not poor, but even a modest burn rate could wipe you out pretty quickly. I remember an interview on MTV I think with LL cool J and they ask what his ride was, and he was already famous, but he said a Honda Accord, and he leased it to boot.

I think people are bad with numbers and scale and think $3m is infinite money, and don’t get cash flow appreciation and burn rates well. I think many celebrities keep working a long time because they have to, because of this lack of intuition, and their burn rate is way to high a scale for their level of wealth.

Which goes back to the issue why US school systems do not teach basic fiscal literacy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,443 Posts
I wonder what most people think it takes to be “rich”.

To me it’s interesting, that Benny hill was worth about $7M (about $16m in todays money) after a life time of work and spending nearly no money (although apparently he travelled). I would have thought such a miser would be way wealthier. I’m often surprised by the fortunes or lack of fortunes of celebrities. My guess is they do not get the “scale” of money for the most part, and blow it not knowing how to invest.

The most interesting off the top of my head example is Mike Tyson who made near half a billion and is essentially broke. That is a LOT of money to blow through. If he had invested nearly half of that, he should be a multi billionaire.

Anyway, my theory is most people think that if you have say $2-3m you’re rich, but 2million is “lease a Honda Accord money” imo, if you’re being prudent. You’re not poor, but even a modest burn rate could wipe you out pretty quickly. I remember an interview on MTV I think with LL cool J and they ask what his ride was, and he was already famous, but he said a Honda Accord, and he leased it to boot.

I think people are bad with numbers and scale and think $3m is infinite money, and don’t get cash flow appreciation and burn rates well. I think many celebrities keep working a long time because they have to, because of this lack of intuition, and theor burn rate is way to high a scale for their level of wealth.

Which goes back to the issue why US school systems do not teach basic fiscal literacy?
A lot of rich people are just bad with money, they give a lot of it away and think/feel it wont end. A lot of the people that were gifted the money are also like that.
Some just have bad habits, they may "own" a lot of stuff but liquid cash is just spent. As I stated above a big group of the "rich" people I know Ive spent hours at a baccarat table with. So these talks about wealth are quite common.

1. family/expense are a lot larger than you think. Parents/kids/mistress/cousins
2. random Get more rich schemes that you are hounded with to be an investor
3. High net worth in asset but wont sell anything due to taxes. minimal liquidity. (they could always sell it all and quit. but they like the game too much)
4. divorce
5. bad financial advisors

money goes quick when your not careful
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
9,746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 · (Edited)
I have always said that if someone were to give $1m tax free I would still have to work. For me the magic number for me not to have to work would be $5m after taxes.
[/Q
It depends on the level you want to live at. A “comfy” level burn rate is relatively modest compared to my friends, but others might find it high. It’s probably about 120k-160k clean money a year. you wouldn’t want or deny yourself and assumes houses etc paid for so just taxes, maintenance, food, clothes, travel. For that level you need to roughly bring in 300k (pretax). Depending on how you want that stream to come in, in perhaps the most conservative way you put say $7m in a cd, maybe get 3% and you’re roughly there, but, then you have to worry about inflation etc. So it seems prudent to have say another $7m still floating in the market in some sound long term investments to keep growing. So say $15m, but that does not buy you an extravagant life style, just a maintained one where you wouldn’t have to work.

Anyway, you can scale that up or down based on what you think a reasonable burn rate, lifestyle is. To me what’s interesting is if you double that, you get to about $30m net worth and that doubling gets you out of the land of “modest” but “comfy” living into some sense of FU money, which goes back to the post on the different tiers of being rich. Still, Mike Tyson proves you still have to be prudent. You’d be pulling in say around 300-500k of clean money a year. That’s a lot, but you certainly can burn right through that rather quickly Without trying too hard, yet it affords you a decently lux lifestyle by the standards of many.

of course continuing to work and bringing in a bigger stream of cash affords higher still burn rate/life style.

As always, YMMV
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,295 Posts
It depends on the level you want to live at. A “comfy” level burn rate is relatively modest compared to my friends, but others might find it high. It’s probably about 120k-160k clean money a year. you wouldn’t want or deny yourself and assumes houses etc paid for so just taxes, maintenance, food, clothes, travel. For that level you need to roughly bring in 300k (pretax). Depending on how you want that stream to come in, in perhaps the most conservative way you put say $7m in a cd, maybe get 3% and you’re roughly there, but, then you have to worry about inflation etc. So it seems prudent to have say another $7m still floating in the market in some sound long term investments to keep growing. So say $15m, but that does not buy you an extravagant life style, just a maintained one where you wouldn’t have to work.

Anyway, you can scale that up or down based on what you think a reasonable burn rate, lifestyle is. To me what’s interesting is if you double that, you get to about $30m net worth and that doubling gets you out of the land of “modest” but “comfy” living into some sense of FU money, which goes back to the post on the different tiers of being rich. Still, Mike Tyson proves you still have to be prudent. You’d be pulling in say around 300-500k of clean money a year. That’s a lot, but you certainly can burn right through that rather quickly Without trying too hard, yet it affords you a decently lux lifestyle by the standards of many.

of course continuing to work and bringing in a bigger stream of cash affords higher still burn rate/life style.

As always, YMMV
Yeah, I’m not anywhere near that.
 
21 - 40 of 59 Posts
Top