Should I Renew my COE When it Expires?

[13177]

Celicar, on 02 Jun 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

It is precisely for this reason that second hand car prices are mad now. The dealers know many pple not willing to come up so much cash so will consider second hand, so they jack up price. Put your head down, they will not hesitate to chop carrot.

2nd hand car price really crazy! The price is as crazy as new car. Esp those popular model of 2nd hand car, the price even mad!

[Limwsv]

So you are saying do not renew or buy a new car. But how does this answer his question.? I do not think he needs our advice to not buy. But to renew or buy new.

 

? Isn't it obvious, Renew if you want to get a car, because the chances of bashing up the new car is 15%. Better to save money for medical bills coming down the way 10 years than to owe people money. Being fixate with depreciation does not make sense at all, because the total cost over the next ten years is high. It's not as if his dad is still planning to drive from 80 - 90 years old?

 

BTW, his original questions is not just whether to renew or buy new. His question is also have he missed out anything else in his post.

 

"Does it make sense to renew for me? Have I missed out anything in consideration?"

Edited June 2, 2015 by Limwsv

[Mkl22]

 

? Isn't it obvious, Renew if you want to get a car, because the chances of bashing up the new car is 15%. Better to save money for medical bills coming down the way 10 years than to owe people money. Being fixate with depreciation does not make sense at all, because the total cost over the next ten years is high. It's not as if his dad is still planning to drive from 80 - 90 years old?

 

BTW, his original questions is not just whether to renew or buy new. His question is also have he missed out anything else in his post.

 

"Does it make sense to renew for me? Have I missed out anything in consideration?"

I think you have misunderstood the poster. Maybe I shall let him clarify. Missed out anything else implies if his calculation of the renewal of correct or wrong or his failed to include further details. I don't understand how you can read it till it becomes a choice to not buy/renew.

[will80]

 

? Isn't it obvious, Renew if you want to get a car, because the chances of bashing up the new car is 15%. Better to save money for medical bills coming down the way 10 years than to owe people money. Being fixate with depreciation does not make sense at all, because the total cost over the next ten years is high. It's not as if his dad is still planning to drive from 80 - 90 years old?

 

BTW, his original questions is not just whether to renew or buy new. His question is also have he missed out anything else in his post.

 

"Does it make sense to renew for me? Have I missed out anything in consideration?"

 

Are you sure the chances of bashing up the new car is 15%? The total car population in 2011 & 2012 is about 600000 and your table only show at most 2000 accidents in a year. If you count the percentage which is 2000/6000000 x 100%, you only get 0.33%.

 

The statistic relating to accidents and age that you shown is unfair for that age group as all the other age group in that table is only a different of 5 years old when the 60 age group is 60 years olds and above. If I create a table with a age group of 10 years different (example 20 - 29, 30 - 39 and so on), you will notice that group is not the highest.

 

 

 

[BobbyTan_74287]

I have a dilemma. Car is my dad's retirement car, he's going 70y.o.

 

2006 CS3 Manual. 10K annual mileage. $45k new (i am ignoring my $6k parf and treat it as $4.5k dep for 1st 10 years.

 

After 10 yrs, annual mileage will drop to about 5k per year. Current FC is about 12.5km/l.

 

Additional road tax surcharge I feel is negligible. Also car is well maintained, regular oil changes and servicing done.

 

We have no issues coming up with $65k to renew. Why renew? Because 1) low mileage going forward, 2) old man, slow reflexes, new car if kena incident, heart pain. 3) maybe cannot get loan due to age? (can I be guarantor for the loan?)

 

If buy new, eg, Kia K3, $100k, down $40k, means save $25k in upfront cash. Remaining $60k loan 5years (2.5%?) additional cost of borrowing will become $67.5k. Total cost will be 40+67.5-6(parf of lancer)=101.5k for the next 10years before Kia's parf of $7k. therefore dep is 101.5-7/10=9.45k

(NB: kia k3 no cevs rebate, FC is stated 14.7km/l)

 

If buy new, eg. Mit Attrage ($90k, down $36k, save $29k in upfront cash. Remaining $54k loan 5years (2.5%?) additional cost of borrowing will become $60.75k. Total cost will be 36+60.75-6(parf of lancer)=90.75k for the next 10years before Mit's parf of $2.5k. therefore dep is 90.75-2.5/10=8.825k

(NB: mit attage after cevs rebate, remain parf is 5k only, FC is stated 20.8km/l)

 

Does it make sense to renew for me? Have I missed out anything in consideration?

I am not young too and so I prefer driving auto car and more electronic car. Your current car is a manual car. Driving manual car for olden people is always quite challenging as the left hand is always on the move. Driving auto car is always better for senior. He only needs to use the right leg to step on brake or accelerator which is easy for him.

The Mit Attrage so far is the cheapest small car and has keyless start and smart key and so will be a pleasant for your dad.

It is good to make your dad happy and so buying a new car is a good present for him. Get him a reverse camera too to make parking easier. As MIT Attrage is only 1.2cc, road tax is low and FC also low. Anyway this is a not a fast car which is suitable for your dad.

Kia K3 as compared is much more expensive. (the model K3 1.6 SX (A)). Buy this car if money is not a concern to you. But this car is definitely faster than MIT.

 

[Kangadrool]

since it's a manual, renew it unless you're planning to buy him a manual SSS. (there's not much manual choice now).

 

Auto will be jialat and dangerous for old man especially those who have been accustomed to manual.

 

I have a dilemma. Car is my dad's retirement car, he's going 70y.o.

 

2006 CS3 Manual. 10K annual mileage. $45k new (i am ignoring my $6k parf and treat it as $4.5k dep for 1st 10 years.

 

After 10 yrs, annual mileage will drop to about 5k per year. Current FC is about 12.5km/l.

 

Additional road tax surcharge I feel is negligible. Also car is well maintained, regular oil changes and servicing done.

 

We have no issues coming up with $65k to renew. Why renew? Because 1) low mileage going forward, 2) old man, slow reflexes, new car if kena incident, heart pain. 3) maybe cannot get loan due to age? (can I be guarantor for the loan?)

 

If buy new, eg, Kia K3, $100k, down $40k, means save $25k in upfront cash. Remaining $60k loan 5years (2.5%?) additional cost of borrowing will become $67.5k. Total cost will be 40+67.5-6(parf of lancer)=101.5k for the next 10years before Kia's parf of $7k. therefore dep is 101.5-7/10=9.45k

(NB: kia k3 no cevs rebate, FC is stated 14.7km/l)

 

If buy new, eg. Mit Attrage ($90k, down $36k, save $29k in upfront cash. Remaining $54k loan 5years (2.5%?) additional cost of borrowing will become $60.75k. Total cost will be 36+60.75-6(parf of lancer)=90.75k for the next 10years before Mit's parf of $2.5k. therefore dep is 90.75-2.5/10=8.825k

(NB: mit attage after cevs rebate, remain parf is 5k only, FC is stated 20.8km/l)

 

Does it make sense to renew for me? Have I missed out anything in consideration?

 

[Mustank]

since it's a manual, renew it unless you're planning to buy him a manual SSS. (there's not much manual choice now).

 

Auto will be jialat and dangerous for old man especially those who have been accustomed to manual.

 

 

 

some years back, my friend had a stomach ache and i had to take over to park his auto car while he go pang sai

now, i never drove an auto car until that day

i had alot of problems doing so even though his auto car was smaller than my manual pickup

because i keep steppin on the brake thinking it was clutch

 

when my friend came back, he taught me the one leg trick,

keep the left leg, dont use at all

after that i no problem already

[Limwsv]

 

Are you sure the chances of bashing up the new car is 15%? The total car population in 2011 & 2012 is about 600000 and your table only show at most 2000 accidents in a year. If you count the percentage which is 2000/6000000 x 100%, you only get 0.33%.

 

The statistic relating to accidents and age that you shown is unfair for that age group as all the other age group in that table is only a different of 5 years old when the 60 age group is 60 years olds and above. If I create a table with a age group of 10 years different (example 20 - 29, 30 - 39 and so on), you will notice that group is not the highest.

 

 

 

 

Good... finally someone willing to talk in numbers... Yes, I played hard and fast with the numbers, you caught on that that's 1500 accidents amongst 600 000 cars. Since these are vehicular accidents and not accidents with pedestrians, there will be at least 2 cars or more involved, ie at minimum 3 000 cars bashed up and reported to SPF/LTA, and not privately settled. That means the accident rate is 0.5% per annum at minimum. So it's 15% of 0.5%. As to the 15%, nothing is wrong with the number, it's 15% of the total accidents, so your objection about the age group is moot, His father is in that age group, so when an accident happens, 1 out of 15 times, you will encounter an old man above 65 years old..

 

As to playing fast rules, why not? There seems to be a lot of people willing to do that. Example, why talk about depreciation at all when the owner of the car at 70 years old is unlikely to continue after another ten years at 80 years old. The numbers that should be under discussion should be total cost, ie 75K (10K PARF + 65 COE) versus 95K (Total cost of a new car - 10 K PARF). That's 20K less out of his savings for any medical bills coming his way. 20K gone is 20K gone from the pocket, no matter how you slice and dice it.

[will80]

 

Good... finally someone willing to talk in numbers... Yes, I played hard and fast with the numbers, you caught on that that's 1500 accidents amongst 600 000 cars. Since these are vehicular accidents and not accidents with pedestrians, there will be at least 2 cars or more involved, ie at minimum 3 000 cars bashed up and reported to SPF/LTA, and not privately settled. That means the accident rate is 0.5% per annum at minimum. So it's 15% of 0.5%. As to the 15%, nothing is wrong with the number, it's 15% of the total accidents, so your objection about the age group is moot, His father is in that age group, so when an accident happens, 1 out of 15 times, you will encounter an old man above 65 years old..

 

As to playing fast rules, why not? There seems to be a lot of people willing to do that. Example, why talk about depreciation at all when the owner of the car at 70 years old is unlikely to continue after another ten years at 80 years old. The numbers that should be under discussion should be total cost, ie 75K (10K PARF + 65 COE) versus 95K (Total cost of a new car - 10 K PARF). That's 20K less out of his savings for any medical bills coming his way. 20K gone is 20K gone from the pocket, no matter how you slice and dice it.

 

The 15% is very wrong from what you derive from your sentence earlier. It is like saying out of 100 person who are 60 and above, 15 of them will bash their car.

 

If I only categories 2 group which one is above 60 years old and the other is below 60 years old, can I say that those below 60 years old chances of bashing their car is 85% since it is 85% of the total accident.

[flashbang]

 

some years back, my friend had a stomach ache and i had to take over to park his auto car while he go pang sai

now, i never drove an auto car until that day

i had alot of problems doing so even though his auto car was smaller than my manual pickup

because i keep steppin on the brake thinking it was clutch

 

when my friend came back, he taught me the one leg trick,

keep the left leg, dont use at all

after that i no problem already

 

It's not a trick cos that's the way it's supposed to be. Right leg has always been for accelerator and brake. Left leg is for clutch. In the absence of a clutch, left leg doesn't move.

[Wildfaye29]

Dear everyone who replied! Thank you very much for the info and insights.

 

Lets not digress. Its whether its worthwhile to renew or to buy new.

 

As mentioned, I will not consider the $6k parf to add on the depreciation of the renewed car. It will just be $4.5k depreciation for the first 10 years. I do not understand why everyone adds the parf of the car to the renewed coe to increase the depreciation. Its lost after the 10 years anyway.

 

Renew

 

$65k - $6.5k per year. direct, straighforward.

 

Buy new

 

$90k - $6k(parf of old car) - $5k(parf of new car) =$79k. $7.9k per year (exclude interest).

 

In direct comparison, its only $1.4k extra per year (no considering the road tax difference).

 

I have not decided. But it does seem for now that buying new does seem to make sense after all.

 

 

[2BDriver]

2nd hand car price really crazy! The price is as crazy as new car. Esp those popular model of 2nd hand car, the price even mad!

The problem with many Singaporeans is they are willing to accept "unreasonable" price of a car, they doesn't believe "boycott" is the only way to preventing price hike.

[Ingenius]

There will always be x number of reasons to renew, and x number of reasons not to. It boils down to individual's choice. Either choice also has its merits and demerits. So why ask if you should or should not ?

[Optramagnum]

Dear everyone who replied! Thank you very much for the info and insights.

 

Lets not digress. Its whether its worthwhile to renew or to buy new.

 

As mentioned, I will not consider the $6k parf to add on the depreciation of the renewed car. It will just be $4.5k depreciation for the first 10 years. I do not understand why everyone adds the parf of the car to the renewed coe to increase the depreciation. Its lost after the 10 years anyway.

 

Renew

 

$65k - $6.5k per year. direct, straighforward.

 

Buy new

 

$90k - $6k(parf of old car) - $5k(parf of new car) =$79k. $7.9k per year (exclude interest).

 

In direct comparison, its only $1.4k extra per year (no considering the road tax difference).

 

I have not decided. But it does seem for now that buying new does seem to make sense after all.

 

 

Boss, in case you dun know, your 6k PARF value will become zero dollar upon renewal of COE. So it can still be a substantial consideration.. Typically, ppl will add the forgone PARF and PQP(new COE) and calculate the annual depreciation.

[Limwsv]

 

The 15% is very wrong from what you derive from your sentence earlier. It is like saying out of 100 person who are 60 and above, 15 of them will bash their car.

 

If I only categories 2 group which one is above 60 years old and the other is below 60 years old, can I say that those below 60 years old chances of bashing their car is 85% since it is 85% of the total accident.

 

Sure, why not? Base on cursory survey of the proponents/opponents of all these arguments, no one want to be factual. Both sides can play Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. They use emotive words like "smell of new car", "differences of a couple hundreds dollars in depreciation only". So, sling back with lousy data to frighten people too

 

Let me repeat, as long as the car owner has no intention of driving in the future, then all this concern about depreciation make no sense. The only thing that matter in the decision making process is the sum of money expend. It is 65K versus 85K, a difference of 20K which to some here is chump change, but to many, a long time in saving.

 

You can continue to try to bite me on the bad data, but it won't get you anywhere since we all know that it is bad data.

 

There, this will be my last post on the accident data, which if you want to be precise is also not calculate the way you think it is. The correct analysis requires the number of drivers of that age group and the incidents of accidents that they are involved in. So the percentage is much higher than you think. Which kinda of make sense since the 70 - 80 will have poorer vision and slower reaction while surrounded by speeding cars and heavy vehicles. That's is why the old and the very young are at the most risk on our road.

 

Edited June 2, 2015 by Limwsv

[Mkl22]

Dear everyone who replied! Thank you very much for the info and insights.

 

Lets not digress. Its whether its worthwhile to renew or to buy new.

 

As mentioned, I will not consider the $6k parf to add on the depreciation of the renewed car. It will just be $4.5k depreciation for the first 10 years. I do not understand why everyone adds the parf of the car to the renewed coe to increase the depreciation. Its lost after the 10 years anyway.

 

Renew

 

$65k - $6.5k per year. direct, straighforward.

 

Buy new

 

$90k - $6k(parf of old car) - $5k(parf of new car) =$79k. $7.9k per year (exclude interest).

 

In direct comparison, its only $1.4k extra per year (no considering the road tax difference).

 

I have not decided. But it does seem for now that buying new does seem to make sense after all.

 

 

 

You need to add the parf as you would get 6k if you had scrapped. Take for instance you don't have a now and want to get a car to renew Coe. For sure the seller will not sell you at lower than his parf. So your depreciation needs to include the parf Edited June 2, 2015 by Mkl22

[Showster]

Another suggestion to think about. The moment we scrap a 10 year old car and get a new one with similar OMV, we would have depreciated away the Parf foregone the next day anyway. That's probably the amount you can resell a one day old car.

 

The only two ways not to depreciate the Parf value is to scrap and give up driving, to keep money in bank and take public transport, or to scrap and buy a near new car after its immediate depreciation.

 

 

[Roh96]

$6K parf make up 10% of the PQP. Not a big deal really. So whether to include that into your sums or not, it is your choice.

When the parf make up 30% of the PQP, it will be a different story. That's why cars like Merc, BMW, etc, they rather scrap it then renewing bcos giving up $20-30K of parf is painful.

 

 

Dear everyone who replied! Thank you very much for the info and insights.

 

Lets not digress. Its whether its worthwhile to renew or to buy new.

 

As mentioned, I will not consider the $6k parf to add on the depreciation of the renewed car. It will just be $4.5k depreciation for the first 10 years. I do not understand why everyone adds the parf of the car to the renewed coe to increase the depreciation. Its lost after the 10 years anyway.

 

Renew

 

$65k - $6.5k per year. direct, straighforward.

 

Buy new

 

$90k - $6k(parf of old car) - $5k(parf of new car) =$79k. $7.9k per year (exclude interest).

 

In direct comparison, its only $1.4k extra per year (no considering the road tax difference).

 

I have not decided. But it does seem for now that buying new does seem to make sense after all.