Insurance solution to RMS and IMS
02-20-2011, 08:20 PM
#31
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I guess I'm one who is risk averse so I'm going to opt for a warranty on my newly aquirred 997. Laying out a couple grand up front for peice of mind that if I'm hit with the cost of a new motor I'm covered..... I can easily see how several smaller items could easily cost more than the cost of the warranty. BTDT on a E55 Estate.
By some of the logic here and as someone has already stated, if you're into playing odds, you prolly don't care about having adequate homeowners insurance, an umbrella policy, health insurance and should only carry the minimum on your auto insurance afterall, the risk of something unexpected happening to YOU or YOUR stuff is low.
Specifically to the 997.... Not everyone here has as much knowledge or experience with the 997 and/or earlier 911s as some of you (including myself even after having owned 16 different Porsches over the years) so is it not understandable to those of you that do why some of us that don't would want to buy the warranty? The debate over reliability and cost of repair has come up many times and beaten to death on the 928 list b/c of the perception by most that the 928 breaks a lot and is expensive to work on. While I may never be able to convince many of you that is not true b/c of your lack of knowledge or frist hand experience with the 928 I can tell you that it is in fact not true..... Same thing here I guess. In my opinion, nobody here is right or wrong.....
By some of the logic here and as someone has already stated, if you're into playing odds, you prolly don't care about having adequate homeowners insurance, an umbrella policy, health insurance and should only carry the minimum on your auto insurance afterall, the risk of something unexpected happening to YOU or YOUR stuff is low.
Specifically to the 997.... Not everyone here has as much knowledge or experience with the 997 and/or earlier 911s as some of you (including myself even after having owned 16 different Porsches over the years) so is it not understandable to those of you that do why some of us that don't would want to buy the warranty? The debate over reliability and cost of repair has come up many times and beaten to death on the 928 list b/c of the perception by most that the 928 breaks a lot and is expensive to work on. While I may never be able to convince many of you that is not true b/c of your lack of knowledge or frist hand experience with the 928 I can tell you that it is in fact not true..... Same thing here I guess. In my opinion, nobody here is right or wrong.....
02-20-2011, 10:18 PM
#32
Three Wheelin'
I guess I'm one who is risk averse so I'm going to opt for a warranty on my newly aquirred 997. Laying out a couple grand up front for peice of mind that if I'm hit with the cost of a new motor I'm covered..... I can easily see how several smaller items could easily cost more than the cost of the warranty. BTDT on a E55 Estate.
By some of the logic here and as someone has already stated, if you're into playing odds, you prolly don't care about having adequate homeowners insurance, an umbrella policy, health insurance and should only carry the minimum on your auto insurance afterall, the risk of something unexpected happening to YOU or YOUR stuff is low.
Specifically to the 997.... Not everyone here has as much knowledge or experience with the 997 and/or earlier 911s as some of you (including myself even after having owned 16 different Porsches over the years) so is it not understandable to those of you that do why some of us that don't would want to buy the warranty? The debate over reliability and cost of repair has come up many times and beaten to death on the 928 list b/c of the perception by most that the 928 breaks a lot and is expensive to work on. While I may never be able to convince many of you that is not true b/c of your lack of knowledge or frist hand experience with the 928 I can tell you that it is in fact not true..... Same thing here I guess. In my opinion, nobody here is right or wrong.....
By some of the logic here and as someone has already stated, if you're into playing odds, you prolly don't care about having adequate homeowners insurance, an umbrella policy, health insurance and should only carry the minimum on your auto insurance afterall, the risk of something unexpected happening to YOU or YOUR stuff is low.
Specifically to the 997.... Not everyone here has as much knowledge or experience with the 997 and/or earlier 911s as some of you (including myself even after having owned 16 different Porsches over the years) so is it not understandable to those of you that do why some of us that don't would want to buy the warranty? The debate over reliability and cost of repair has come up many times and beaten to death on the 928 list b/c of the perception by most that the 928 breaks a lot and is expensive to work on. While I may never be able to convince many of you that is not true b/c of your lack of knowledge or frist hand experience with the 928 I can tell you that it is in fact not true..... Same thing here I guess. In my opinion, nobody here is right or wrong.....
02-20-2011, 10:32 PM
#33
Drifting
By some of the logic here and as someone has already stated, if you're into playing odds, you prolly don't care about having adequate homeowners insurance, an umbrella policy, health insurance and should only carry the minimum on your auto insurance afterall, the risk of something unexpected happening to YOU or YOUR stuff is low.
We carry homeowners insurance because a home catastrophe like a fire will destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars in property, and we don't have that sort of cash laying around.
For a car, we carry insurance because we cannot afford to replace the whole car if it gets totaled in a crash.
However, the specific mechanical failures being suggested are:
- Not a total lost of the car
- Cost a limited mount of money
- Are probably less likely (I think) than having a vehicular accident
- Probabilistically so low that the numbers mean most folks will pay more in insurance premiums than they will use (ie you would be better off taking the premium money and putting it in a CD or other safe interest bearing vehicle)
02-21-2011, 02:39 AM
#34
Agreed. I think the point that many are missing is that accident, health, homeowner's insurance does not equate to repair insurance. You can be wiped out financially with 1) one bad illness,2) a fire that destroys your house or 3) a bad car accident where someone is killed or seriously hurt.
Financial advisors generally don't recommend that you insure yourself against losses that you can easily "endure" financially. Even an engine replacement is only 10 - 15 K as a worse case senario. That's only 10 - 15% of the price of the car.
The observation made above that you don't hear people complain about repair insurance being a losing propostion merely proves my point about publication bias.
There are only 2 logical possibilities 1) either you believe that repair insurance consistently pays back more than they collect in premiums and that insurance companies are in the business of losing money (or their investements are so great that they offset their acturial loses) or 2) reporting of the actual benefit is subject to massive publication bias.
My bet is on #2.
Financial advisors generally don't recommend that you insure yourself against losses that you can easily "endure" financially. Even an engine replacement is only 10 - 15 K as a worse case senario. That's only 10 - 15% of the price of the car.
The observation made above that you don't hear people complain about repair insurance being a losing propostion merely proves my point about publication bias.
There are only 2 logical possibilities 1) either you believe that repair insurance consistently pays back more than they collect in premiums and that insurance companies are in the business of losing money (or their investements are so great that they offset their acturial loses) or 2) reporting of the actual benefit is subject to massive publication bias.
My bet is on #2.
02-21-2011, 08:43 AM
#35
Pro
I'm withdrawing from this thread as I don't like the way it is evolving.
A few closing comments:
(1) Nobody here is an "idiot". I think it's safe to say we are all reasonably smart as we have money and time to burn on frivolous hobbies, like cars.
(2) We all make considered choices based on our risk tolerance and financial situation. These factors are likely different for everyone here, so the outcomes will be different.
(3) My purpose in posting was to raise the financial factors for consideration to aid your decisionmaking, not to judge people for said decisions. I'm hoping that was clear.
(4) (aside) hell yes there is publication bias in the research field - how many articles in Nature have you read that said "we tried this and found nothing"? I'm not in your field but I did research for many years - I certainly reported what I discovered to my boss, but we didn't go to trade pubs unless it was actually worth reading.
Today was a fantastic day in the Bay - sunny and pleasant.
I hope we all will feel better once spring is in the air.
A few closing comments:
(1) Nobody here is an "idiot". I think it's safe to say we are all reasonably smart as we have money and time to burn on frivolous hobbies, like cars.
(2) We all make considered choices based on our risk tolerance and financial situation. These factors are likely different for everyone here, so the outcomes will be different.
(3) My purpose in posting was to raise the financial factors for consideration to aid your decisionmaking, not to judge people for said decisions. I'm hoping that was clear.
(4) (aside) hell yes there is publication bias in the research field - how many articles in Nature have you read that said "we tried this and found nothing"? I'm not in your field but I did research for many years - I certainly reported what I discovered to my boss, but we didn't go to trade pubs unless it was actually worth reading.
Today was a fantastic day in the Bay - sunny and pleasant.
I hope we all will feel better once spring is in the air.
02-21-2011, 10:40 AM
#36
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you "practice in the medical field?" Well whoop de doo. So have I for the last 30 years. Take your head out of your *** for a minute and do some investigation into the subject of publiucation bias which is a well known phenomenon in medicine. Here's a snippet from the recent Rosen's on this topic (you can look up the listed references for yourself):
The enthusiasm of most investigators and clinicians for the results of a clinical trial is partly determined by the direction of the results.[36] For example, a trial that shows a highly effective new therapy for a serious disease is interesting and exciting. On the contrary, a trial that shows that a previously unstudied therapy has no advantage over the currently accepted treatment may be less interesting. Because positive results are inherently more interesting, it is commonly believed that clinical trials yielding positive results are more likely to be published than those with negative results. This effect is termed publication bias.[37-39]
However, studies have shown that trials with negative results may be less likely to be submitted for publication but, once submitted, are as likely to be published as trials with positive results.[37,39] Thus, publication bias may be the result of a file drawer problem, meaning that study results that are negative sometimes end up in the file drawer instead of in manuscripts submitted for publication.[40]
Publication bias and the file drawer problem are serious threats to the validity of the medical literature taken as a whole. If negative trials are selectively excluded from the medical literature, an ineffective treatment may appear to be at least partially effective because those (possibly poorly designed) studies that show some positive treatment effect are selectively submitted for publication. Meta-analyses or systematic reviews often utilize only published research. It may be unethical to subject patients to the risks and discomforts of participation in a clinical study and not publish the results, especially if participation did not result in any direct benefit to the patient.
Publication bias and other sources of bias can be especially problematic in pharmaceutical or commercially sponsored clinical research. Commercial studies are less likely to report unfavorable conclusions.[41] Data from industry-sponsored research may go unpublished or may be difficult to obtain for subsequent review.[42] When reading a clinical trial, one should determine what agency or company funded the research and consider what biases, if any, might have been introduced."
Sorry but you've just demonstrated your complete ignorance.
The enthusiasm of most investigators and clinicians for the results of a clinical trial is partly determined by the direction of the results.[36] For example, a trial that shows a highly effective new therapy for a serious disease is interesting and exciting. On the contrary, a trial that shows that a previously unstudied therapy has no advantage over the currently accepted treatment may be less interesting. Because positive results are inherently more interesting, it is commonly believed that clinical trials yielding positive results are more likely to be published than those with negative results. This effect is termed publication bias.[37-39]
However, studies have shown that trials with negative results may be less likely to be submitted for publication but, once submitted, are as likely to be published as trials with positive results.[37,39] Thus, publication bias may be the result of a file drawer problem, meaning that study results that are negative sometimes end up in the file drawer instead of in manuscripts submitted for publication.[40]
Publication bias and the file drawer problem are serious threats to the validity of the medical literature taken as a whole. If negative trials are selectively excluded from the medical literature, an ineffective treatment may appear to be at least partially effective because those (possibly poorly designed) studies that show some positive treatment effect are selectively submitted for publication. Meta-analyses or systematic reviews often utilize only published research. It may be unethical to subject patients to the risks and discomforts of participation in a clinical study and not publish the results, especially if participation did not result in any direct benefit to the patient.
Publication bias and other sources of bias can be especially problematic in pharmaceutical or commercially sponsored clinical research. Commercial studies are less likely to report unfavorable conclusions.[41] Data from industry-sponsored research may go unpublished or may be difficult to obtain for subsequent review.[42] When reading a clinical trial, one should determine what agency or company funded the research and consider what biases, if any, might have been introduced."
Sorry but you've just demonstrated your complete ignorance.
"Clinical trials" are completely different from investigative research. Clinical trials are typically done in a commercial setting and/or commercially-funded; or are data compilations from private practice. They are purposed to demonstrate the efficacy of a particular treatment modality or drug, and if they turn out to prove otherwise they are not often published. That is true.
However, investigative research, typically done in an academic setting and funded with foundation grants, are purposed to investigate, and whatever results are "interesting" to the medical community...the real medical community, not the made-up one you belong to. Anyone who writes a grant and submits for funding agrees to publish, unless a) the data is found to be corrupt; or b) early results on human subjects show an alarming morbidity (or, heaven forbid, mortality) risk.
02-21-2011, 10:53 AM
#37
Advanced
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: washington dc
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a CPO to expire Nov 2013 on a 2008 targa 4s.
Does anyone know if the fidelity program can be used post-CPO
or other ways of post-CPO. I am thinking about it since I plan to
have car for long time. Do about 5k/year. thanks
Does anyone know if the fidelity program can be used post-CPO
or other ways of post-CPO. I am thinking about it since I plan to
have car for long time. Do about 5k/year. thanks
02-21-2011, 12:27 PM
#38
I think the answer as to whether or not to buy an extended warranty depends on circumstances. If I were buying a used car, I would definately demand an extended warranty. If the warranty on a car that I bought new was about to expire, and I had no significant problems after four years, I wouldn't buy the extended warranty. Of course if it were a problem car and I decided to not sell it, I would have no choice but to buy the warranty.
I enjoy getting information about the purchase price of extended warranties because it gives me a ball park idea as to what the average repair bills will be for the covered period. I would expect that the Insurer's average incurred cost is doubled to set their price, so if the warranty price is $3K, their average cost is probably around $1500. Of course we know what average means, and I certainly wouldn't take the risk of going without a warranty on a used car.
I enjoy getting information about the purchase price of extended warranties because it gives me a ball park idea as to what the average repair bills will be for the covered period. I would expect that the Insurer's average incurred cost is doubled to set their price, so if the warranty price is $3K, their average cost is probably around $1500. Of course we know what average means, and I certainly wouldn't take the risk of going without a warranty on a used car.
02-21-2011, 01:26 PM
#39
Don't be sorry, be embarrassed, because in fact you've just proved beyond a shadow of doubt that your "understanding" is limited to Google searches. Emptying bedpans or changing lightbulbs doesn't constitute medical practice, BTW.
"Clinical trials" are completely different from investigative research. Clinical trials are typically done in a commercial setting and/or commercially-funded; or are data compilations from private practice. They are purposed to demonstrate the efficacy of a particular treatment modality or drug, and if they turn out to prove otherwise they are not often published. That is true.
However, investigative research, typically done in an academic setting and funded with foundation grants, are purposed to investigate, and whatever results are "interesting" to the medical community...the real medical community, not the made-up one you belong to. Anyone who writes a grant and submits for funding agrees to publish, unless a) the data is found to be corrupt; or b) early results on human subjects show an alarming morbidity (or, heaven forbid, mortality) risk.
"Clinical trials" are completely different from investigative research. Clinical trials are typically done in a commercial setting and/or commercially-funded; or are data compilations from private practice. They are purposed to demonstrate the efficacy of a particular treatment modality or drug, and if they turn out to prove otherwise they are not often published. That is true.
However, investigative research, typically done in an academic setting and funded with foundation grants, are purposed to investigate, and whatever results are "interesting" to the medical community...the real medical community, not the made-up one you belong to. Anyone who writes a grant and submits for funding agrees to publish, unless a) the data is found to be corrupt; or b) early results on human subjects show an alarming morbidity (or, heaven forbid, mortality) risk.
You're a complete moron.
What I posted was based upon a google search?
You've just shown that you're a complete idiot. It was a passage from Rosen's Emergency Medicine 7th Ed a copy of which I have and clearly you do not understand.
I've been an emergency physician for 30 years. Tell us what your role in the "medical profession" has been, idiot.....
02-21-2011, 05:40 PM
#40
Burning Brakes
You're a complete moron.
What I posted was based upon a google search?
You've just shown that you're a complete idiot. It was a passage from Rosen's Emergency Medicine 7th Ed a copy of which I have and clearly you do not understand.
I've been an emergency physician for 30 years. Tell us what your role in the "medical profession" has been, idiot.....
What I posted was based upon a google search?
You've just shown that you're a complete idiot. It was a passage from Rosen's Emergency Medicine 7th Ed a copy of which I have and clearly you do not understand.
I've been an emergency physician for 30 years. Tell us what your role in the "medical profession" has been, idiot.....
02-21-2011, 06:48 PM
#41
Rennlist Member
This has been an interesting debate and while I am usually just a lurker here on RL, I'd like to chime in. Please note my 'numbers' are based solely on estimates.
The fact of the matter is that if 1 in 100 early 997's are affected by the IMS issue which costs $25k to fix (estimate), and the warranty costs $2000 for 3 years - then the warranty company is receiving $175k in profit for every 100 cars. If the failure rate went up to 1 in 25 cars, then the warranty company is still ahead $25k for every 25 cars. I'm sure everyone here understands the law of large numbers, but since we only own 1 (or 2, 3 etc) 997's - an IMS failure would set one back almost half the price of the car, and be potentially devastating. That said, I would opt out of the warranty if the failure rate was 1 in 100, but opt in if it were 1 in 10.
Someone referenced homeowners insurance and comprehensive insurance for your car, I for one only carry liability insurance on my cheaper cars. If the difference between full coverage and liability were 1000%, how many of you would still carry full coverage?
The fact of the matter is that if 1 in 100 early 997's are affected by the IMS issue which costs $25k to fix (estimate), and the warranty costs $2000 for 3 years - then the warranty company is receiving $175k in profit for every 100 cars. If the failure rate went up to 1 in 25 cars, then the warranty company is still ahead $25k for every 25 cars. I'm sure everyone here understands the law of large numbers, but since we only own 1 (or 2, 3 etc) 997's - an IMS failure would set one back almost half the price of the car, and be potentially devastating. That said, I would opt out of the warranty if the failure rate was 1 in 100, but opt in if it were 1 in 10
.Someone referenced homeowners insurance and comprehensive insurance for your car, I for one only carry liability insurance on my cheaper cars. If the difference between full coverage and liability were 1000%, how many of you would still carry full coverage?
02-21-2011, 07:41 PM
#42
Banning might be a little harsh. He knows he's acting like a tool and would never act like this face-to-face.
02-21-2011, 08:49 PM
#43
Anyone who cliams to be in the "medical field" (and in his case I guess that means that he does janitorial work at the hospital) and denies this is a fool.
02-22-2011, 07:43 AM
#45
Three Wheelin'
