Too many dealers - Page 6

This is a different situation.
The white level is too high, blinding many oncoming drivers.

They are unnecessary for our driving conditions, but nice to have at the
gas consuming high speeds on the AB in Germany.

I didnt have a choice in it, one way or the other.  My responsibility is to
dim my
lights when there is oncoming traffic, and I do my best to be mindful of
this.

I've not found it to be a problem, even on a two lane that is my regular
route from work in the dark of winter.  Idiots with high beams or poorly
aimed driving lights are a bigger problem.

I never complained about others with HID headlights either, Ed.   Nor with
DSLs.  They just dont bother me like they apparently upset some people

GlassVial wrote:

The vast majority of the time, the dealer and insurance company make out
on the insurance. Otherwise, they wouldn't be selling it if they didn't
make money.

jeff

the mark up on servioce contracts is about 50 % if you sell enough of them in
a 30 day period if not it's less like 35%

Jeff wrote:

philthy wrote:

So that means that if you sell a $900 policy for $1200, you make a fast
$300.

That means, assuming zero overhead and profit for the insurance company,
a loss of $300, on average.

Jeff

Insurance is always a loss, unless you need it.  Sometimes even then it is a
loss.

Life insurance never helped a single insuree.

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:

That's wrong in two counts: With life insurance, you can get an annuity
with it. That's not a good idea. Plus, if death is imminent, the
insurance companies may be willing to provide a payout while one is
still living (at less than what the payout would have been).

However, the insuree is not the person who is insured. Rather, what is
insured the financial well-being of the beneficiary of the insuree. And
that has made a lot of lives easier after the passing of a loved (or
hated one).

Jeff

I know all that, but the fact stands, simple life insurance doesnt help the
insured.

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:

It's no designed to help the insured.

So what is your point?

I did see you went from "life insurance" to "simple life insurance."

Jeff

Yes, I did.  I wanted to separate all the gobbledegook insurance tullprat
from the simple insurance situation.

An annuity MAY pay you back your capital and more, and may not.
In the latest AARP, it warns retirees against variable annuities.

The insurance companies WILL make money.  We have both already
accepted that.

thats the markup the dealer gets from the contract cost to them

Jeff wrote:

philthy wrote:

Right, which means that the insurance company expects to spend less than
75% of the insurance contract cost in payments. Which means that, on
average, right off the bat, the purchaser of the insurance contract is
out 25%. Of course, the insurance company expects to make money on the
deal, so the expected payout is less, which indicates that the extended
service plans (the insurance) is not that valuable, on average.

Jeff

On 06/21/07 11:02 am Jeff wrote:


Thinking of extended warranties as "insurance policies" makes a lot of
sense, but it seems that you apply different rules to these compared to
other kinds. If you never have a claim on your homeowner's insurance, do
you consider that your premiums were a waste of money and recommend
people not buy such insurance?

That being said, however, the only reason we have a 7yr/75Kmile warranty
on our '02 300M is that it was a freebie, presumably because Chrysler
wanted to unload the '02 models to make way for the '03 models. But in
fact ours wasn't one that had been sitting around that they wanted to
get rid of: it was built to order because we wanted side air bags and no
moon roof or multi-disc CD player.

Perce

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:


compared to the cost of the repairs, the home insurance makes a lot more
sense than the extended service. Even an expensive repair after 4 years
(on new cars is not very likely) is probably less expensive than the
service policy, if you have to buy it.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:20:28 -0700, BlueD rebooted the Etch-A-Sketch and
scribbled:


When I bought my Avalanche in Sepember last year, they asked if I wanted
"extended coverage."  

The price was $1200.   At the time, GM was only offereing 3/36000mi
coverage. In other words, I'd be paying $1,200 for two years of coverage.

I declined.  Knowing the 5.3L engine and the 4L80/4L60 transmission, I
figured they would not go bad before five years. Any other repair would
not cost anywhere near $1200. (I put 150K miles on my '95 Jimmy with the
4L60 and never had a slip.)

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

Insurance is for things that you can't afford to fix yourself. A burnt
down house, for example.

The cost of repairs, IMHO, doesn't qualify for buying insurance. The
odds and costs make auto repairs something that most people should
effectively self-insurance.


Yeah, but they can't very well say that these nearly identical cars have
the insurance and these don't. Those sorts of offers apply to all
qualifying cars.

Jeff