Can I consider Rolex as an asset?

[ricardo-sf]

rolex watches are not assets --

specially if you plan on wearing them.

[cloudken]

Most watches arent assets.

Some watches from certain brands like Rolex are assets. In the long run it should keep up with inflation at the very least with some upside and volatility involved. Theyre investments too but not for everybody.

[Robf52]

Originally Posted by vandave

You shouldn't look at watches as an investment, but more of a hedge and a store of value. Everybody should have a reasonable amount of liquid assets like savings, cash, gold, bonds, etc... Watches and jewellery are in that category, but less liquid and less of a known value. If you have a high net worth and have sufficient investments, owning a Rolex isn't a stupid financial decision. What would be a stupid financial decision is looking at a Rolex as an investment of a retirement fund. At best it should be looked at as a source of cash at a time of financial duress.

Agree. As someone approaching retirement, I view my collection of Rolex watches as very enjoyable, beautiful wearable possessions. They are a small part of my net worth, and I do consider them hard assets. I think anyone who has a substantial collection would be lying if they said they do not consider value retention at some point. I don't plan on selling them. I plan on bequeathing them to family, and it's nice to know they have historically held their value. In the meantime I get to wear them.

[amh]

Originally Posted by ricardo-sf

rolex watches are not assets --

specially if you plan on wearing them.

Originally Posted by cloudken

Most watches arent assets.

Some watches from certain brands like Rolex are assets. In the long run it should keep up with inflation at the very least with some upside and volatility involved. Theyre investments too but not for everybody.

Are the watches insured? Then they're assets. Maybe you're one of the few who doesn't care if your house if broken into.

Not only are they assets, they've appreciated to the point where insurance companies wouldn't even provide enough coverage. How would I get them to pay $18k for a GMT that lists at 10k? And they're not even available.

[Driver8]

I think there's a bit of confusion here about asset and investment.

Literally anything you own, that has a value, is an asset. It could be an appreciating asset, or a depreciating asset, but it's an asset nonetheless.

An investment is an asset that was acquired with the aim of generating income, or allowing you to benefit financially from an appreciation in value.

Therefore a Rolex watch is an asset. Just like an Omega watch is an asset. Or a Casio watch is an asset. Of course, the Rolex may be an appreciating asset, while the Casio may be a depreciating asset, but both are still assets. And if you buy a Rolex (or indeed anything) with the express intention of benefiting from an appreciation in value, then you are using that watch as an investment.

Personally I never consider my watch purchases as an investment as I buy them to wear and enjoy, and I consider the purchase price a sunk cost, so "future value" is completely irrelevant to me.

[fsprow]

Surely, you can consider any of your belongings as assets, as you wish. They are typically insured, so most people consider them that way. How you value them in terms of your overall financial plan is also up to you. Personally, I do not include my watch "assets" as financial investments.

[TswaneNguni]

The thrill of going to the AD,to collect it .
Its been 23y and it's as special as always .

THAT, is an asset .
Its priceless.

[DocHorton]

Lots of folks do not understand what an asset is....rather funny.

[falc]

No!

[JoelSteinke]

It's what I would call a near-cash asset. It's not meant to perform like an equity or a bond, it's meant to perform like cash (I mean cash as in short-dated instruments, not physical cash). Sometimes cash returns a small amount, sometimes next to nothing. On a longer time frame, it may or may not perform more like a physical asset. But I would not buy a Rolex expecting it to perform like one.

[Giovannibravo]

Originally Posted by JoelSteinke

It's what I would call a near-cash asset. It's not meant to perform like an equity or a bond, it's meant to perform like cash (I mean cash as in short-dated instruments, not physical cash). Sometimes cash returns a small amount, sometimes next to nothing. On a longer time frame, it may or may not perform more like a physical asset. But I would not buy a Rolex expecting it to perform like one.

That's a good way of looking at it. I would agree. But not an investment by any means.

[Kowaco]

Working on your health is a better investment


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dear Leader]

Any object with a likely future cash value could be called an asset. Insurance companies allow us to insure our assets whether they are watches or paintings. An economist will tell you that assets are designed to produce something be it cash or a cap return

Where it becomes difficult is predicting what the quality of the asset is going to be. I wouldn't bet your retirement on it but it will hold some value which I wouldn't record in my usual way of thinking about assets.

[amh]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

The thrill of going to the AD,to collect it .
Its been 23y and it's as special as always .

THAT, is an asset .
Its priceless.

Well that "Priceless thrill" has certainly increased in value! In the olden days anyone with a credit card could walk into an AD and leave with a stickered unsized Rolex along with 10% discount. Likely get a watch winder thrown in!

Now the thrill requires Tequila Tastings for the entire staff, birthday cards for SAs kids, Christmas cards for the manager, 50k jewelry spend, regular texts & visits "just to chat" (don't mention the list), becoming 'friends' with the SA, director-level approval for your SS sports model "allocation." It's like climbing the Matterhorn!

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Dear Leader

Any object with a likely future cash value could be called an asset. Insurance companies allow us to insure our assets whether they are watches or paintings. An economist will tell you that assets are designed to produce something be it cash or a cap return

Not quite. The line in bold relates to an investment, not an asset per se. As I said in post #95 in this thread, assets can be appreciating or depreciating, while an investment is an asset that was acquired with the aim of generating income, or allowing you to benefit financially from an appreciation in value.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I am an economist.

[INC]

Originally Posted by Driver8

As I said in post #95 in this thread, assets can be appreciating or depreciating, while an investment is an asset that was acquired with the aim of generating income, or allowing you to benefit financially from an appreciation in value.

Thank you for the explanation! I'm not arguing just asking: In these terms, in which group does the artworks belonging to?

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by amh

OP isn't talking about investing, just inquiring how well Rolex holds value

The OP said he intends to buy several Rolex’s as part of his retirement plan. What else do you call it?

[Hardtimes]

I have to chime in here. I NEVER buy a watch based on future value. However historically they pretty much all increase above original MSRP, but inflation may outpace any increase. With that said, there are a whole lot of worse (hobbies, splurges, habits) you could have. For example buy a boat or a motorhome and see what thats worth in 20 years :)

[Calatrava r]

There are appreciating assets and depreciating assets. Anything which has value is an asset. Good point above about being able to insure them. Cannot insure non assets or items of no value.

[MAINEZX10]

What happened to the days when people bought watches because they like them and enjoy wearing them?

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

I hear limited edition Omega is heavily coveted and very rare. There are only a few of them, especially the James Bond limited, you hardly ever see or hear about those, Omega marketing is extremely restrictive!

Or any one of the unlimited limited editions of Panerai




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santiago32]

An asset? sure. A well performing asset?… nope.

A Rolex watch is only as valuable as the next person is willing to pay.

Long term, one is better off investing in the S&P.

[Boothroyd]

I don't consider my meager collection to be an investment, but it is an asset, as I can sell these pretty easily if I choose.

I subscribe to the old view that if you have a Rolex, you can probably sell it to get a flight home if you are in a pinch. So depreciating asset yes, investment no.

[SS Oyster]

Only you can make that call. If history is to be believed, Rolex sports SS models generally tend to rise over time. You can check the graphs for yourself,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corvette]

Originally Posted by JoelSteinke

It's what I would call a near-cash asset. It's not meant to perform like an equity or a bond, it's meant to perform like cash (I mean cash as in short-dated instruments, not physical cash). Sometimes cash returns a small amount, sometimes next to nothing. On a longer time frame, it may or may not perform more like a physical asset. But I would not buy a Rolex expecting it to perform like one.

I’d agree with this statement. A Rolex is essentially as good as cash. If I needed fast cash my Sub or GMT Pepsi could be quickly sold at either break even or a small profit as I purchased both from an AD.

[Boaters]

Anything you pay for should be consider a cash investment. You can figure it from there

[AaronMST]

I buy Rolex watches because I like them - I think they are cool. I have sold a few and have made money on them occasionally. That being said, I only buy them when I can get a good deal on the watch. A good deal is a little subjective though, meaning: how much do I want the watch at the time it is being sold? When impulse and desire are driving a purchase, its probably not an investment......lucky for me, my wife still thinks that they are good investments!!!!

[MILGAUSS88]

Anything that you can sell and get a decent amount of money for I would consider an asset.
Should you buy watches in the gray market at a premium in the hopes of selling in 20 years for a premium? Absolutely not.
Look at what 20 year old Rolex watches are selling for. They are not selling for more than a new watches are on the gray market.
If you bought desirable models new at MSRP, didn't wear them and held them for 20 years, then yes you are probably going to see an increase in value. Will the return be more than the stock market? That's a crap shoot.

I think all investments are similar, in that the return you get varies with how much time you manage it.

If you want make a good return on watches, you have to actively trade them.
Buy everything that you can make money on, sell what you don't think will increase in value, keep what you do think will increase in value. Just like stocks.
If you really think the market is too low, ie vintage model is selling for $1,500, new model is selling for $8,000 buy and hold at retail.

Buying new at MSRP and holding is like buying a mutual fund. It will probably go up but not any great returns.

Buying new at gray market prices, is like buying Peloton during Covid lockdown. Who is the idiot investor that thought a piece of exercise equipment wasn't going to end up in a garage sale like all the other equipment?

I prefer the Warren Buffet method, buy low, buy quality and hold. (With a caveat, buy others to create profit, to support buying the quality.) Hey, there are Timex and Invicta collectors too.

[Macnavara]

Tangible asset yes….investment not sure but they are probably a better long term than tesla shares