[rad doc]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I'm not saying that sources that are credible about car values don't use the term. They do use it. What I'm saying is that they misuse it. They use the term because it's a relatively straight forward thing to calculate and because the word itself is the linguistic opposite of "appreciate." It's also not that cars don't depreciate in one's book of record; they do. It's that what depreciation is and what is most often described as depreciation in connection with a car aren't the same things and the latter is not what depreciation is, but it is a decline in market value or market prices. The key distinction is that depreciation is driven by internal business decisions asset owners make, and a drop in market value is driven by, well, the market, that is buyers and sellers.

Let:
PP = Purchase price
SP = Selling price
AD = Accumulated depreciation (the sum of all depreciation recorded over the asset's life)
PP - AD = NBV on the owner's books

The statements made on KBB reflect the following: NBV - SP = Gain/loss on sale or PP - AD - SP = Gain/loss on sale.

I didn't write ever that the gain or loss one realizes is unaffected by depreciation. I wrote that the difference between the purchase price and selling price is not depreciation expense. The decline what an item is worth (recorded at) in the books of its owner is attributable to depreciation (assuming no impairment occurred). The decline in the open market value (worth) of an asset is attributable to a number of things, but depreciation (which is only ever recorded on an owner's books) is not among them.

Lastly, what the KBB use of "depreciation" does is misdescribe a concept that is widely by the general public misconstrued, misapplied and misused. Moreover, you'll notice that KBB does not tell you how to calculate the loss in value, they don't indicate how "worth" is determined and they identify in their "full definition" what "economic factors and historical data" pertain to. So even if the use the term "depreciation," given the ambiguity and vagueness of how they explain it, what makes them a "credible source" with regard to the use of the term in your mind?

You clearly haven't read enough of my posts. There are multiple examples of my having been wrong. When I am wrong, I admit it and move on. I don't persist in standing my ground simply because I think I'm right. You need only use the search feature to find them.

The thing is that I don't typically cite facts that I am not certain are factually true. When I do write things that I'm not entirely certain about, I let my reader know that is the case. I do so by using words like "ostensibly," "perhaps," "possibly" or "arguably," or I use phrases such as "as far as I know" "to the best of my understanding," and "I believe."

All the best

So far what I know about you is: you are really proud of your speed reading ability, you don't know S@&$ about Porsche, have a background in finance/accounting and that prevents you from using a term in a generally acceptable albeit perhaps lay manner.