nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

PCP finance.

[Deleted User]

Ok so after a while of my brother and I trying to figure out the benefits of PCP we can't find any.

He's looking at getting a new Audi and we've been looking into pcp, he changes every 2 years or so and might have 15 k miles maximum on the clock so we thought pcp might suit him better.

You got to come up with a large deposit if you don't have a trade in and while your monthly payments appear low when you add in the fact you need a new deposit for the new pcp after 3 years your 300 a month pcp suddenly turns into 600+ pm.

So what's the benefit over hp or bank loan ?

The only hing with hp or loan is you pay the full interest where as pcp yup don't ?

Either way I see little benefit on a normal loan and trade in and re finance after 3 years or so. Only thing is VW bank has much lower interest than any other bank or finance.

For me doing 20-25 k miles a year pcp would leave me with not much on the gfv.

It seems to me that people could get caught out at the end because you can be damn sure you won't have much over the gfv to use as a deposit.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mickdw

3 years is far more palitable as the steep initial depreciation is averaged out somewhat.
3 years would be reasonably common. 2 years not so much. That is what I said. Very few would see value in changing every 2 years before pcp.
I very much see the sense in keeping a new car every 3 years if you can afford it and want the reliability, efficiency and style of such a car and have regularly argued that point here. My point here is that people are now with pcp going back at 2 years and believing because the car is worth more at that stage that they are somehow doing better than waiting until year 3.
There are a few situations where there may be benefit in going in alittle early but in general the longer the better as the depreciation is slowing all the time.

micks_address

mickdw wrote: »

There are very few who would trade in every 2 years in the times before pcp.
New car depreciation has not improved in recent times. It is still frightfully expensive to be buying new cars every 2 years. The costs are somewhat hidden but they are still there.
If you want a car every 2 years fair enough but it's unlikely to be the best value.

Friend always trades his top end superb every two years
More often than not for about 10k

mickdw

Fair enough. I know passats are costing roughly 5k per year on average over first 3 years and that is a reasonable price. If he can swap a superb every 2 for 10k, he is doing well.

dil999

mickdw wrote: »

3 years is far more palitable as the steep initial depreciation is averaged out somewhat.
3 years would be reasonably common. 2 years not so much. That is what I said. Very few would see value in changing every 2 years before pcp.
I very much see the sense in keeping a new car every 3 years if you can afford it and want the reliability, efficiency and style of such a car and have regularly argued that point here. My point here is that people are now with pcp going back at 2 years and believing because the car is worth more at that stage that they are somehow doing better than waiting until year 3.
There are a few situations where there may be benefit in going in alittle early but in general the longer the better as the depreciation is slowing all the time.

I disagree. I have traded cars after 1, 2 and 3 years and the cost has been the same 20% per year. If you get a good discount on the purchase price then the first years depreciation is more or less the same as the second's and third's. That depreciation is independent of whatever method is used to finance the purchase.

The only advantage of waiting 3 years, and it applies only to situations where finance is used, is that any deposit is spread over a longer period, and therefore the yearly cost over the period is slightly lower. But if you minimize the deposit, then it doesn't make a huge difference.

viper5

dil999 wrote: »

I disagree. I have traded cars after 1, 2 and 3 years and the cost has been the same 20% per year. If you get a good discount on the purchase price then the first years depreciation is more or less the same as the second's and third's. That depreciation is independent of whatever method is used to finance the purchase.

The only advantage of waiting 3 years, and it applies only to situations where finance is used, is that any deposit is spread over a longer period, and therefore the yearly cost over the period is slightly lower. But if you minimize the deposit, then it doesn't make a huge difference.

Perhaps im misunderstanding you here but despite all the defense you spin on buying a new cars so often, it appears a truly staggering waste of money . On 30k car, in 2 years that is 12k lost with really little to show for it other than the vanity of number plate while new. If you bought a new car every 2 years for 10 years so would actually 60k spend on depreciation alone for the 5 cars to drive a new car that 100s of other people who upgraded less regularly have on the road as well.

Like you say it’s all relative, I can afford it if I waned but just makes no logical sense to me . I’ve always felt the practice of upgrading annually or bi annually is all about showing off really and keeping up appearances than making any logical argument despite how hard you are trying here .

dil999

viper5 wrote: »

Perhaps im misunderstanding you here but despite all the defense you spin on buying a new cars so often, it appears a truly staggering waste of money . On 30k car, in 2 years that is 12k lost with really little to show for it other than the vanity of number plate while new. If you bought a new car every 2 years for 10 years so would actually 60k spend on depreciation alone for the 5 cars to drive a new car that 100s of other people who upgraded less regularly have on the road as well.

Like you say it’s all relative, I can afford it if I waned but just makes no logical sense to me . I’ve always felt the practice of upgrading annually or bi annually is all about showing off really and keeping up appearances than making any logical argument despite how hard you are trying here .

Yes you are misunderstanding me.

My point is that for the first 3 years of a cars life, depreciation is more or less linear at 20%. And I know that because I have changed cars after 1, 2 and 3 years.

Regarding your own point; The advantages/disadvantages of buying a new car vs a used car is probably for another thread.In your case I get the impression you see buying a car as a financial decision, I treat it as a necessary expense. There are many reasons for changing car every 1,2 or 3 year. Cost is only one. Keeping up appearances and "number plate vanity" falls way down the list for most people.

As I said its an interesting topic for another thread, go ahead and start one. It might be a good discussion

carsfan2

I would class myself as a car enthusiast and have changed cars in the past after one or two years, mainly because I want to try something different. I can’t see the point in changing to the same car after a year or two unless it is a business tool that requires updating.
I disagree that the cost to change is linear however. The first year depreciation is definitely more than the second and subsequent years.
I can see how sometimes if a manufacturer has offers on or your car is readily sale able you might do better but I think this is rarely the case.

Leprechaun77

I think off-setting the discount you get from the list price of a new car against year 1 depreciation is stretching it a bit......but it does take the spike somewhat out of the YR.1 loss to be fair.

dil999

Leprechaun77 wrote: »

I think off-setting the discount you get from the list price of a new car against year 1 depreciation is stretching it a bit......but it does take the spike somewhat out of the YR.1 loss to be fair.

Just giving my experience. I changed a car after one year and it cost me 20% of the value of the new car to change I changed that car after 2 years and it cost me 40%. My last car I changed after 2.5 years, and it cost me 50% of the value of the new car. Its pretty consistent.

If you have a different personal experience, let us know. If you are just guessing then also let us know.

[Deleted User]

viper5 wrote: »

Perhaps im misunderstanding you here but despite all the defense you spin on buying a new cars so often, it appears a truly staggering waste of money . On 30k car, in 2 years that is 12k lost with really little to show for it other than the vanity of number plate while new. If you bought a new car every 2 years for 10 years so would actually 60k spend on depreciation alone for the 5 cars to drive a new car that 100s of other people who upgraded less regularly have on the road as well.

Like you say it’s all relative, I can afford it if I waned but just makes no logical sense to me . I’ve always felt the practice of upgrading annually or bi annually is all about showing off really and keeping up appearances than making any logical argument despite how hard you are trying here .

You aren't taking into account things like very high annual mileage etc. Changing after 2 years might make little sense for someone doing 5k per year but if you are doing 60k miles a year then even two years could be a lot.

dil999

carsfan2 wrote: »

I would class myself as a car enthusiast and have changed cars in the past after one or two years, mainly because I want to try something different. I can’t see the point in changing to the same car after a year or two unless it is a business tool that requires updating.

Just because you can't see the point in something doesn't mean there isn't one. Some people want to buy a new car every couple of years others don't. People spend their money on different things. Some people change their iPhones every year. Some people upgrade their 50" TV every year. Some people spend €120 per month on Sky when they could just as well have Freesat. Some people go on the beer in town every Saturday night and spend €100 plus. Some people go out for a meal, when they could just as easily eat at home.

This reverse snobbery regarding new cars is a little bit silly.

Leprechaun77

dil999 wrote: »

Just giving my experience. I changed a car after one year and it cost me 20% of the value of the new car to change I changed that car after 2 years and it cost me 40%. My last car I changed after 2.5 years, and it cost me 50% of the value of the new car. Its pretty consistent.

If you have a different personal experience, let us know. If you are just guessing then also let us know.

Not having a go....I have nothing against people getting new cars every 1/2/3 years. I would ask though, if the depreciation is so linear, why would somebody wait three years to change a car when they could get in to a new one every year for the exact same effective cost?

Casati

micks_address wrote: »

Friend always trades his top end superb every two years
More often than not for about 10k

I got a price of 9500 to change from a 151 Superb Combi Ambition 2.0 TDI to a brand new, new model Superb Combi Ambition 2.0 TDI in Jan 2017. Decided to hold off another year.

Sterling has really damaged the second hand value of fresh cars like mine while the rrp continues to rise so I might get hammered when I go shopping around this month but in general I’ve never lost 60% the value of a car after three years but I’m sure it’s possible if you buy a high depreciation car initially

dil999

Leprechaun77 wrote: »

Not having a go....I have nothing against people getting new cars every 1/2/3 years. I would ask though, if the depreciation is so linear, why would somebody wait three years to change a car when they could get in to a new one every year for the exact same effective cost?

Another poster "Viper" was, not you. I just replied to yours as the last post.

Again you and others seem to think that car buying decisions are completely money related, they are not.

I changed a car after one year because I wasn't happy with the car. I kept one Mondeo for 5 years because it was a super car. It can be hassle to change your car every year. It's a personal choice.

dil999

Casati wrote: »

I got a price of 9500 to change from a 151 Superb Combi Ambition 2.0 TDI to a brand new, new model Superb Combi Ambition 2.0 TDI in Jan 2017. Decided to hold off another year.

Sterling has really damaged the second hand value of fresh cars like mine while the rrp continues to rise so I might get hammered when I go shopping around this month but in general I’ve never lost 60% the value of a car after three years but I’m sure it’s possible if you buy a high depreciation car initially

That was a pretty good deal. Obviously the Superb has good residual values. What mileage? Cars in that class tend to be worth approx 45% after 3 years.. So not quite 20% per year, I was rounding up.

Lantus

Casati wrote:

I got a price of 9500 to change from a 151 Superb Combi Ambition 2.0 TDI to a brand new, new model Superb Combi Ambition 2.0 TDI in Jan 2017. Decided to hold off another year.

Can you clarify this? Are you saying you are on a pcp deal and with your 151 you need 9500 cash to enter into another PCP deal? Cheers.

Casati

Lantus wrote: »

Can you clarify this? Are you saying you are on a pcp deal and with your 151 you need 9500 cash to enter into another PCP deal? Cheers.

The retail of my car in 2015 was 33000 and the 2017 has increased to 35000. I was offered 25500 trade in for my car. I didn’t get into details on pcp as at the time I wasn’t interested in another pcp deal. I had about 45000 km on the clock and the car was perfect condition

acronym Chilli

dil999 wrote: »

I
The only advantage of waiting 3 years, and it applies only to situations where finance is used, is that any deposit is spread over a longer period, and therefore the yearly cost over the period is slightly lower. But if you minimize the deposit, then it doesn't make a huge difference.

This is completely wrong and calls into question whether you've any grasp on the actual details.

dil999

acronym Chilli wrote: »

This is completely wrong and calls into question whether you've any grasp on the actual details.

In the context of the specific point I was making it is correct. It's simple maths.

car 30K, 10% deposit 3K, GMFV 12K. 0% finance amount 5K per year

3 years.
year 1 you pay 8K
year 2 you pay 5K
year 3 you pay 5K

total 18K average 6K

2 years
year 1 you pay 8K
year 2 you pay 5K

total 13K average 6.5K

Perhaps it calls into question your ability to do simple maths :rolleyes:

acronym Chilli

dil999 wrote: »

In the context of the specific point I was making it is correct. It's simple maths.

car 30K, 10% deposit 3K, GMFV 12K. 0% finance amount 5K per year

3 years.
year 1 you pay 8K
year 2 you pay 5K
year 3 you pay 5K

total 18K average 6K

2 years
year 1 you pay 8K
year 2 you pay 5K

total 13K average 6.5K

Perhaps it calls into question your ability to do simple maths :rolleyes:

I think you're introducing new errors. Why average one scenario over 3 years and one over 2?
Maths does not equal arithmetic. Your arithmetic is ok.

The point is that the underlying cost of ownership is not driven by the financing choice, certainly in the first order level.
There might be a cash flow difference, and there could be interest costs, but you don't identify those.

mickdw

I believe you are making an error in your 20 percent thinking.
It could be argued that 20 percent of the reducing value is correct but this is significantly different to your thinking.
35k passat would therefore lose
7000 year 1
5600 year 2
4400 year 3

That's a 17k loss over 3 years or 5666 yearly or 34k for 6 years driving.

Changing the same car every 2 years with same depreciation figures will give a loss of 12600 over 2 years or 6300 yearly or 37800 over 6 years, that's an extra 3800 spent over 6 years.
Imo the depreciation is also steeper than this year 1 so the additional cost would be even more.

[Deleted User]

dil999 wrote: »

Another poster "Viper" was, not you. I just replied to yours as the last post.

Again you and others seem to think that car buying decisions are completely money related, they are not.

I changed a car after one year because I wasn't happy with the car. I kept one Mondeo for 5 years because it was a super car. It can be hassle to change your car every year. It's a personal choice.

Hope you didn't experience the linear 20% on that mondeo :pac:

viper5

dil999 wrote: »

Yes you are misunderstanding me.

My point is that for the first 3 years of a cars life, depreciation is more or less linear at 20%. And I know that because I have changed cars after 1, 2 and 3 years.

Regarding your own point; The advantages/disadvantages of buying a new car vs a used car is probably for another thread.In your case I get the impression you see buying a car as a financial decision, I treat it as a necessary expense. There are many reasons for changing car every 1,2 or 3 year. Cost is only one. Keeping up appearances and "number plate vanity" falls way down the list for most people.

As I said its an interesting topic for another thread, go ahead and start one. It might be a good discussion

Given all your comments in the last few pages and today are relating solely to the "hardly frightening expensive" practice of changing cars every 1-2 years , its very strange you think i should start a new thread when you are already commenting here so much about the practice so il keep my posts here . My comment was in relation to comments of yours like below

So for a 30K car it's 6K per year, €500 per month. for a 15K car its 3K per year or €250 per month. Hardly frighteningly expensive

I would almost thinking you were trolling here but i have seen the way you are replying to others here. I "get the impression" The dealer you are buying cars from is taking you to town if that is your level of value lost of the cars you are trading back in.

Beyond doing big mileage annually , changing every 1-2 years is certainly not a necessary as you say but an entirely optional choice involves a staggering waste of money if you do this 4-5 times over 10 years. You mention today people buying iphones, TVs etc as some comparisons but you could have all those and thousands left over every year so despite your best efforts to find examples justifying the financial side of changing car so often i feel it will fall on deaf ears. Finally, suggesting people who change their car every 1-2 years has nothing to do with vanity or showing off its plain denial - these are mainly sole and only reason haha.

maidhc

acronym Chilli wrote: »

The point is that the underlying cost of ownership is not driven by the financing choice, certainly in the first order level.
There might be a cash flow difference, and there could be interest costs, but you don't identify those.

PCP certainly masks the cost to change beyond all recognition. What you are paying is wrapped up in gmfvs, monthlies and deposits. This is intentional by the financial institutions.

If you are changing a car and paying cash, dropping 15k every 3 years seems much less appealing, and dropping 20k every 6/7 seems far more palatable. Cars are reasonably reliable, and don't need changing every 2/3 years, so it is purely a choice thing.

My complaint remains that pcp is a dangerous tool.

Jobs OXO

maidhc wrote: »

PCP certainly masks the cost to change beyond all recognition. What you are paying is wrapped up in gmfvs, monthlies and deposits. This is intentional by the financial institutions.

If you are changing a car and paying cash, dropping 15k every 3 years seems much less appealing, and dropping 20k every 6/7 seems far more palatable. Cars are reasonably reliable, and don't need changing every 2/3 years, so it is purely a choice thing.

My complaint remains that pcp is a dangerous tool.

It's only dangerous to the slow or simpletons among the population. These type of dimwits are generally separated from their cash easily anyway so whether it's pcp, holiday homes in turkey, gambling, fags & booze the end result will be the same.

dil999

maidhc wrote: »

PCP certainly masks the cost to change beyond all recognition. What you are paying is wrapped up in gmfvs, monthlies and deposits. This is intentional by the financial institutions.

If you are changing a car and paying cash, dropping 15k every 3 years seems much less appealing, and dropping 20k every 6/7 seems far more palatable. Cars are reasonably reliable, and don't need changing every 2/3 years, so it is purely a choice thing.

My complaint remains that pcp is a dangerous tool.

What a load of utter nonsense. Reading through your earlier posts in this thread you seem to be of the opinion that only certain people should be allowed drive new cars. People who you believe can afford them. You really need to get over the fact that people who you deem unworthy can actually afford a new car.

PCP is a loan. No different from a bank loan or a hire purchase agreement. A dangerous tool????

You see buying a car as a financial decision. It's not. for many people it's simply a purchasing decision, like a buying a new 50" TV or upgrading your iPhone.

You have said on a few occasions that people are better off purchasing a new car from their savings. That's stupid advice. Why would you fund an expense like a motor vehicle from your savings? Nobody with any grasp of finance would ever consider doing that. If you required 3 years use of a product, only a complete idiot would pay for 8 years use out of their own money, then go back to the seller hoping to get the cost of the final 5 year's use back. You would be taking all the risk of depreciation, the seller none. Do businesses fund their vehicles from cash reserves? No. Why? Because they are an expense and they get funded as an expense.

PCP and HP are excellent financial product for a car. There may me an argument that they need to be better explained.

Jobs OXO wrote: »

It's only dangerous to the slow or simpletons among the population. These type of dimwits are generally separated from their cash easily anyway so whether it's pcp, holiday homes in turkey, gambling, fags & booze the end result will be the same.

Maidhc appears to wants to protect these people from themselves

dil999

viper5 wrote: »

Given all your comments in the last few pages and today are relating solely to the "hardly frightening expensive" practice of changing cars every 1-2 years , its very strange you think i should start a new thread when you are already commenting here so much about the practice so il keep my posts here . My comment was in relation to comments of yours like below

So for a 30K car it's 6K per year, €500 per month. for a 15K car its 3K per year or €250 per month. Hardly frighteningly expensive

I would almost thinking you were trolling here but i have seen the way you are replying to others here. I "get the impression" The dealer you are buying cars from is taking you to town if that is your level of value lost of the cars you are trading back in.

Beyond doing big mileage annually , changing every 1-2 years is certainly not a necessary as you say but an entirely optional choice involves a staggering waste of money if you do this 4-5 times over 10 years. You mention today people buying iphones, TVs etc as some comparisons but you could have all those and thousands left over every year so despite your best efforts to find examples justifying the financial side of changing car so often i feel it will fall on deaf ears. Finally, suggesting people who change their car every 1-2 years has nothing to do with vanity or showing off its plain denial - these are mainly sole and only reason haha.

Does the way other people spend their money really bother you that much?

maidhc

dil999 wrote: »

You see buying a car as a financial decision. It's not. for many people it's simply a purchasing decision, like a buying a new 50" TV or upgrading your iPhone.

You have said on a few occasions that people are better off purchasing a new car from their savings. That's stupid advice. Why would you fund an expense like a motor vehicle from your savings?

Buying a car *is* a financial decision. Second biggest one after a house. Why is it stupid advice to buy a car from savings? Given that you are earning 0% on it in the bank, it is cheap money. If you don't have ample reserves after buying a car, then sure, you shouldn't do it.

I'm not against hp or pcp per se, just how people are using it. It isn't all sustainable. Hp is obviously much more transparent and a far better product imo. Leasing also has its uses, more in a commercial context though.

I would also suggest buying a new tv every two years would be pretty idiotic. iPhones obviously tend not to last as long, so different factors apply.

dil999 wrote: »

PCP and HP are excellent financial product for a car. There may me an argument that they need to be better explained.

Maidhc appears to wants to protect these people from themselves

If you had any knowledge of regulatory matters (I do...) a great deal of time is spent trying to protect people, not from themselves, but from savvy sales people.

acronym Chilli

dil999 wrote: »

You see buying a car as a financial decision. It's not. for many people it's simply a purchasing decision, like a buying a new 50" TV or upgrading your iPhone.

I sense that the word "financial" doesn't mean what you think it means.

You have said on a few occasions that people are better off purchasing a new car from their savings. That's stupid advice. Why would you fund an expense like a motor vehicle from your savings? Nobody with any grasp of finance would ever consider doing that.

I could be very mean and remind you that you've said buying a car is not "a financial decision" so why would that matter!

If you required 3 years use of a product, only a complete idiot would pay for 8 years use out of their own money

But mostly we're talking about people who want a car (or use thereof) for the foreseeable future. Anyway, the bigger problem I see in your posts is a muddle about the underlying costs, apparently from getting tangled up in the weeds of financing.

, then go back to the seller hoping to get the cost of the final 5 year's use back. You would be taking all the risk of depreciation, the seller none. Do businesses fund their vehicles from cash reserves? No.

Incorrect. I know directly of one large fleet, over 1000 vehicles (light commercial and up) and that fleet is directly funded from cash. Vehicles are continuously being replaced, so there's spend every year, but each vehicle is bought for cash. Leasing and other options have been explored, but don't stack up, so remains in this model.

When you talk about people not knowing finance or saying stupid things, you should really temper that language and look at your own posts. You've effectively argued that the depreciation cost for Year 1 is the same as that for Year 2 is the same as that for Year 3.

That means you've argued that the value of driving a brand new car from day 1 to day 365 is the same as having the same car for the third year of its life after its been used for 2 years already.
Does that really make sense to you? If I was a car dealer, and you had 6000 in your hands, and for that I was about to give you a brand new car (model X) to drive away for 1 year; and if I then said, "actually, hang on, I've a 2 year old car, same model, same features, but with 2 years of normal wear and tear on it, take that instead for your 6k", would you be just as happy?

You've also in the last post argued that your purchase practices allow you to transfer risk to the seller (e.g. for depreciation). Do you believe that there's a systematic way to transfer risk to another (well informed party) at zero cost?

dil999

acronym Chilli wrote: »

I sense that the word "financial" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I understand what the word financial means.

acronym Chilli wrote: »

I could be very mean and remind you that you've said buying a car is not "a financial decision" so why would that matter!

Taking a big chunk of savings to fund an expense is a stupid decision. be that financial or otherwise

acronym Chilli wrote: »

But mostly we're talking about people who want a car (or use thereof) for the foreseeable future. Anyway, the bigger problem I see in your posts is a muddle about the underlying costs, apparently from getting tangled up in the weeds of financing.

But we are not. we are talking about people who want to change their car every 3 years

acronym Chilli wrote: »

Incorrect. I know directly of one large fleet, over 1000 vehicles (light commercial and up) and that fleet is directly funded from cash. Vehicles are continuously being replaced, so there's spend every year, but each vehicle is bought for cash. Leasing and other options have been explored, but don't stack up, so remains in this model.

If that is true it is a very rare occurance. Over the years I have worked for 5 different large mulinationals, All of their vehicle fleet was leased. And all of them had vast amounts of cash reserves.

acronym Chilli wrote: »

When you talk about people not knowing finance or saying stupid things, you should really temper that language and look at your own posts. You've effectively argued that the depreciation cost for Year 1 is the same as that for Year 2 is the same as that for Year 3.

My own experience of changing cars is that my cost to change was a little under 20% per year and that was changing after 1, 2 and 3 years. If you have some evidence that the depreciation curve is different, please share it. Otherwise you are just guessing.

acronym Chilli wrote: »

That means you've argued that the value of driving a brand new car from day 1 to day 365 is the same as having the same car for the third year of its life after its been used for 2 years already.

I didn't, I argued that the cost of driving a car from day 1 to 365 of driving a car is approximately the same as from day 366 to 731. 'Value' is a subjective concept and is not, on its own, a financial term and is meaningless as such

acronym Chilli wrote: »

You've also in the last post argued that your purchase practices allow you to transfer risk to the seller (e.g. for depreciation). Do you believe that there's a systematic way to transfer risk to another (well informed party) at zero cost?

Yes its called GMFV and its part of the PCP loan structure.

You really need to properly read the posts your are commenting on. You are coming across as being aggressive and argumentative for the sake of it. You completely misunderstood another earlier post of mine and then said:

acronym Chilli wrote: »

This is completely wrong and calls into question whether you've any grasp on the actual details.

If that's not being deliberately augmentative, then I don't know what is. I am not getting into anymore of these silly posts with you, as I have better things to be doing, and I am sure they are of no interest to the other posters in the thread