I intentionally left out opportunity costing as also embedded is the assumption of future returns as well as a plethora of perceived value judgments.

But, let’s go down this rabbit hole for just a bit.

How many people have averaged a 10% annual dividend return since year 2000? To say nothing of market returns? Very few is the answer, so it is far from an accurate assumption to make that the far overused historical reference to a 10% market return over a 120 year period has been the case in today’s modern secular markets.

If we are going to do this right then we need to toss aside anecdotal assumptions and actually use real factual historical investment data (my degree is in finance - with a focus on securities analysis). The average DJIA since Jan 2000 through May 2019 including dividend reinvestment was 4.489%, without dividends it was 2.054%. This indicates that roughly, dividends added under 2.5% per annum over the past 20 years. That’s a far cry from 10%.

So using real numbers based upon actual real historical averages over the past 20 years, the CWA resale owner would have earned 24960*0.024=$599 per year in dividends. $4300-$600=$3700. So, certainly better than it was as you point out, and it will push out the time to breakeven, but the problem with this assumption is the guarantee of any future returns. Ask anyone from Japan who invested heavily in the Japanese markets in the 1980’s if they saw any positive returns over the next 15+ years, but I think we all know the answer already.

We would then also need to bake into the analysis the same assumptions for the first use case, meaning that the net positive delta would be invested over that same time period. We can do the math if we really want to do so, but the problem with opportunity costing is that there are too many assumptions in play when it comes to the future.

Heck, your average American would take every last dime of any money saved buying resale and go buy a new car.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk