Market value?

[Scubbo]

I dunno if anyone told you but buying new vehicles especially in NZ isn't a good investment --- depreciation is very steep (less on bikes sure, but at the cheaper end, why buy 2nd hand when its only a few hundred more for a brand new, factory fresh, not driven by a grandma only on sundays that's done 1400KM in 4 months)

[ldcroberts]

Dealers sell low km, low age cars and bikes *all* the time. They are called demo models. They regularly sell for 5-10% less than RRP.. That is fact, not brainwashing.

Try again young grasshopper.

Sure, that is Market Price, not Market value - as per wikipedia. If there was a demo for sale same as my bike I'd accept that tho. I actually think given the difficulty running in the ninja's a demo would be worth the same as new or more - ask anyone that's run it in by the book, it's not fun - if the demo was legitimately run-in then it's a better buy, and I'm not the only one with that opinion. However I can accept that people who haven't tried running one in won't get it.

[discotex]

That is almost exactly what I would do in similar circumstances. However I would only file against the other driver. his insurer didn't cause the loss and are not party to the claim. The other driver has the contract with the insurance company.

They will turn up as 2nd party anyway.

From http://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals...de-against-you

"Disputes in the Tribunal often involve insurance. Your insurance company is entitled to take part in the hearing if it has paid you for the loss or damage, or if it might have to pay."

[ldcroberts]

I dunno if anyone told you but buying new vehicles especially in NZ isn't a good investment --- depreciation is very steep (less on bikes sure, but at the cheaper end, why buy 2nd hand when its only a few hundred more for a brand new, factory fresh, not driven by a grandma only on sundays that's done 1400KM in 4 months)

it's not smart to buy new with a view to on-selling quickly sure. If you intend to keep it for 10 years then buy new so you know it's been cared for.

Depreciation only happens on paper, you don't lose money unless you sell. I had no intention of selling, but now I have to.

If the guy who hit me is forcing me to effectively lose money through his actions, he's culpable for that too.

It is between me and him, his insurance company can claim whatever policies they want, they have to honour his obligation at the end of the day.

[discotex]

Sure, that is Market Price, not Market value - as per wikipedia. If there was a demo for sale same as my bike I'd accept that tho. I actually think given the difficulty running in the ninja's a demo would be worth the same as new or more - ask anyone that's run it in by the book, it's not fun - if the demo was legitimately run-in then it's a better buy, and I'm not the only one with that opinion. However I can accept that people who haven't tried running one in won't get it.

Actually what I said is the Wilipedia definition.. You're just too uneducated to understand what it means.

[skippa1]

There are a lot of parallels between the two situations.

I think the biggest issue, which I'm sure everyone here can actually relate to, is people are being brainwashed into thinking that vehicles lose a lot of value immediately.

How many people here think "oh yeah I'd be willing to sell this 10k bike for 9k after 4 months if it was mine" ? nobody

yet we are all supposed to swallow that this is what would happen in a fair market

sure people think "I'd only pay $9k for a 4 month old vs 10k for new".

So nobody is selling (unless they are forced to - and then accept they take a loss blaming it on whatever reason forced them to sell).

Then in an accident you are effectively forced to sell, but they are supposed to make it based on a fair sale that you willingly did, yet nobody has the education or gumption to actually work it out that way, instead they look at the last time someone was forced to sell one, look at what they got from it, and go with that.

That is not the biggest issue, the biggest issue is that you refuse to believe your second hand bike isn't worth the same as a new one. It's got nothing to do with education or gumption, it's also got nothing to do with Wikipedia, or what's on the market that is a mirror image of what you lost.

it is everything to do with companies that apply the same set of principles to evaluating written off vehicles. Because you don't agree with that is of little consequence and if you we're really worried about achieving maximum value for your bike in a write off situation you would have got full comprehensive cover.

you didn't. Now you choose to argue the point on a forum, a situation where you will never win, because we don't have to replace your bike. And nor does your insurance company, because you don't have one. You are fucked. No amount of bleating here or using stupid analogy sis going to change that. Suck it up.

[ldcroberts]

That is not the biggest issue, the biggest issue is that you refuse to believe your second hand bike isn't worth the same as a new one. It's got nothing to do with education or gumption, it's also got nothing to do with Wikipedia, or what's on the market that is a mirror image of what you lost.

What I refuse to believe is that the 9k offer is what willing sellers would sell that same bike for. I know I wouldn't, would you?

And after researching the law and how it all works, compensation in the instance of damage is supposed to be based on a willing seller and a fully informed willing buyer. That's a difficult point to get just by reading it, you have to think about something that doesn't usually happen in the vehicle market. Vehicle trading is not an example of a fair market, as the seller knows more than the buyer.

I'm not the first person to point this out, but it seems like it isn't well understood in NZ.

[Scubbo]

it's not smart to buy new with a view to on-selling quickly sure. If you intend to keep it for 10 years then buy new so you know it's been cared for.

Depreciation only happens on paper, you don't lose money unless you sell. I had no intention of selling, but now I have to.

If the guy who hit me is forcing me to effectively lose money through his actions, he's culpable for that too.

It is between me and him, his insurance company can claim whatever policies they want, they have to honour his obligation at the end of the day.

but it was 4 months old and 1400KM ridden, it's not new, it's not worth 100% no matter what you say

you seem naive to think that the world owes you for choosing to take the risk of hedging 10K onto an asset so easily damageable and of little value to the world. you had bad luck, but a 9K recomp sounds pretty fricken good to me --- as you can't just blame the man for your crash, when it was you who bought the bike and decided to ride that day, with the known risks that entailed. (and the money protection wasnt important to you as you decided you didnt need full insurance support to bolster the odds in your favor)

[skippa1]

What I refuse to believe is that the 9k offer is what willing sellers would sell that same bike for. I know I wouldn't, would you?

And after researching the law and how it all works, compensation in the instance of damage is supposed to be based on a willing seller and a fully informed willing buyer. That's a difficult point to get just by reading it, you have to think about something that doesn't usually happen in the vehicle market. Vehicle trading is not an example of a fair market, as the seller knows more than the buyer.

I'm not the first person to point this out, but it seems like it isn't well understood in NZ.

What you refuse to believe isn't relevant to the other parties insurance company. Because you don't have a willing seller nor a willing buyer, principles are applied to calculate values. It's these principles that you refuse to agree with, but you have no control over that.

[Oscar]

insurance companies give you a brand new bike if it's less than 12 months old, they all do it these days.

I think you are implying that I'm trying to claim for something more than I'm fairly entitled to, however that is not the case.

Entitled?

If you had of wanted that outcome, you should have insured your bike.
You can bitch and moan all you like, but that outcome ain't going to happen.
You're entitled to what you can negotiate.

[skippa1]

but it was 4 months old and 1400KM ridden, it's not new, it's not worth 100% no matter what you say

you seem naive to think that the world owes you for choosing to take the risk of hedging 10K onto an asset so easily damageable and of little value to the world. you had bad luck, but a 9K recomp sounds pretty fricken good to me --- as you can't just blame the man for your crash, when it was you who bought the bike and decided to ride that day, with the known risks that entailed. (and the money protection wasnt important to you as you decided you didnt need full insurance support to bolster the odds in your favor)

This here is the truth

[FJRider]

Plenty of them have sold for that too, that's why they keep listing them. Selling like proverbial hotcakes is what one dealer told me.

Did that dealer say what he would offer you for a near new EX300 with ABS and 1600 km's on the clock .. ???

In this situation to actually buy a replacement, I have to meet the market - i.e. come up to sellers expectations - and those are higher than what the insurance guys reckon they should be ...[/QUOTE]

No you don't have to "Meet the market" ... or any sellers expectations. You have to prove that your used and very second hand wreck was worth more than you are currently offered by said insurance guys. To date ... you haven't proved such. Nor made any Stated) attempt to prove such. A whinge on KB is all you've done.

There's all this talk of the phantom 2nd hand bike that should be for sale at 9k, but nobody is actually offering it, and everyone who has a brand new one wants 9899 and existing owners aren't talking - certainly nobodies jumped on this thread saying hey i've got a near new ninja I'll sell you for 9k have they.

I doubt if they would sell their bike just to do you a favour. And probably not sell at all until the warranty runs out. Or until their full license is gained. New bike purchase is better suited for longer terms of ownership .... as resale value on any new vehicles drop immediately after purchase. EX300's are not exempt nor are they an exception .... ask any dealer ...

[Oscar]

It is between me and him, his insurance company can claim whatever policies they want, they have to honour his obligation at the end of the day.

Nope, it's between you and his insurer.
He has subrugted all his rights and interests to his insurer in this matter.

What's more - the insurer has no obligation to you.
Their obligation to their client is to cover him for damages that he becomes legally liable for.

Their obligations to their shareholders is to limit that amount to as little as legally possible.

[ldcroberts]

but it was 4 months old and 1400KM ridden, it's not new, it's not worth 100% no matter what you say

It probably is worth 100% but I'm happy to accept 5% less. (Just to clarify in case it wasn't clear from the 50 other posts I already said much the same thing in.)

you seem naive to think that the world owes you for choosing to take the risk of hedging 10K onto an asset so easily damageable and of little value to the world. you had bad luck, but a 9K recomp sounds pretty fricken good to me --- as you can't just blame the man for your crash, when it was you who bought the bike and decided to ride that day, with the known risks that entailed. (and the money protection wasnt important to you as you decided you didnt need full insurance support to bolster the odds in your favor)

nope the guy who didn't look, it's him that owes me.

What I now see clearly is that there is a difference between the bike market and a fair market. I also see the insurance companies and valuers are using the bike market as a guide, and everyone here including me can see that 9k is about right for selling a 2nd hand bike like mine on the bike market.

However, compensation for damages is supposed to be based on what would happen in a fair market (not a bike market). So in fact the market value in a fair market is higher than given in the bike market (the bike market the buyers have less information therefore on average offer less to offset the risk).

So effectively the whole insurance industry in NZ needs to change to use fair market - this will affect everyone in the industry - it will cause some insurance companies to raise premiums as payouts will be higher, and victims of accidents will feel they were treated more fairly.

So this is much bigger than just me and my bike and a few hundred dollars in difference between our perceived values.

[skippa1]

There's all this talk of the phantom 2nd hand bike that should be for sale at 9k, but nobody is actually offering it.

Incidentally, you're the only one that has mentioned a phantom bike