Parts lot FMV requested

Stampie said:

In reply to darkbuddha and maschinenbau :

Honestly the list started as me doing a FMV myself but hey if people want to agree then that works also.   The way I read the rules on hetrogenous lots if I buy $100 of different parts as a lot, I then FMV them all.  Say widget A is %10 of that lot.  So widget A is worth $10 in recoup to trade for whatever.

Interesting thought process, and I see the logic, but it's definitely a double-edged sword when dealing with the recoup budget. So a purchase described as a "heterogenous collection of parts" (could be any purchase really) could/would be itemized, FMV'd, value calculated as percentage of the whole purchase price, allowing its individual calculated value as in-budget. This seems like an extra budget-friendly approach.

But this stings on the trade/recoup side of the equation in that its calculated percentage value is less than FMV, and when traded/sold, it would only have that calculated percentage value. So, if widget A has an FMV of $100, but it's calculated percentage value is $10 (as claimed on the budget), you can only get $10 of trade/recoup value back out of it. So then if you want to trade it for widget B that has an value of $100 (FMV or paid), you'd need (the equivalent of) 10 widget As to trade for widget B. Of course, I'm assuming that trades hit the recoup budget at the value (FMV or paid) of the part for which it was traded (widget B).

Now, unless I'm missing something in the logic, the only way to get more for your money on both sides of the budget (expenditure and recoup/trade) is the use the "heterogenous collection of parts" calculation on the expenditure side, but use FMV on the recoup/trade side. Admittedly, this is likely within (an interpretation of) the rules, but also definitely seems to tread very closely to, if not all over, the DBAD rule.  But as someone said, there's always an option to protest; could/would a flagrant attempt at this type of calculation be the trigger for the first protest ever?

In reply to darkbuddha :

you bring up some really good points, especially re. the trading of a part that has been FMV'd down as part of a heterogeneous parts lot.  the trade rule used to say something about FMV on both sides of the trade, but i don't see that in the 2024 rules.  pretty wacky that you could FMV a $500 transmission down to $50 and then trade it for a $500 LS and only hit your budget for $50.

@Tom Suddard, was the [paraphrase] similar FMV on both sides of the trade [/paraphrase] removed intentionally?

i guess the questions are philosophical.

1. where is the line between "parts car" and "heterogeneous parts lot"?  driver?  roller?  more than 50% assembled?  has exhaust system?  number of parts used on challenge car?
2. do we really need that line to be defined, given the leaning toward real-world project funding via the allowance of recouping and trading?

in my green-sky world, everyone would apply their understanding/interpretation consistently throughout their build, and plead their case to the protest board should a protest be lodged.

The great news about the recent rule change to make trades hit recoup limits is it nullifies the advantage of a trade. Before, trades were advantageous because you could use them to go "above and beyond" purchase price. Now, you cannot, and therefore trades are the same as selling a part. 

I am "snapping back" to thinking only about simply recouping to max, because the trades no longer are advantageous, and recouping is much simpler to execute and document than all this FMV garbage. Honestly, why trade anymore? Just recoup the item you're not using and buy what you need.

I see what stampie is doing here a bit like getting a million separate receipts when buying a car (without the hassle of actually doing that). I'll buy your $500 car but I'm paying $5 for that wheel, $10 for the windshield, $7 for the backseat with the stain, $8 for the backseat that is stain free, etc.

Legal? Probably. But stampie I think you should do the work to document all the FMVs yourself to avoid dickland. If you want to use this loophole, do it yourself instead of asking us to do it for you.

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

I am "snapping back" to thinking only about simply recouping to max, because the trades no longer are advantageous, and recouping is much simpler to execute and document than all this FMV garbage. Honestly, why trade anymore? Just recoup the item you're not using and buy what you need.

i'm reworking my budget for 2024 in a few different ways:

• convert all trades to FMV purchases, with recoup maxed at $2000
• keeping all trades, counting their values as part of $2000 "recoup plus trade" limit
• converting "parts car" to "heterogeneous parts lot" and only charging myself the FMV of the individual pieces of the "heterogeneous parts lot". again, where is the line between "car" and "parts lot", and does that line really matter?

and i will submit whichever version gets me under $2000, because i have no interest in exhibition.

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

I see what [REDACTED] is doing here a bit like getting a million separate receipts when buying a car (without the hassle of actually doing that). I'll buy your $500 car but I'm paying $5 for that wheel, $10 for the windshield, $7 for the backseat with the stain, $8 for the backseat that is stain free, etc.

there are many ways to establish FMV. I agree that the Challenger should be responsible for doing the legwork. i believe the intent of "ask the board" is for onesy-twosy items.

Honestly, I've always been uncomfortable with being able to break a purchase into smaller bits. (The "zip tie rule").

If my neighbor is selling 3 Miata shells for $600, they don't cost $200 each.  The price is $600 for 3.  I can't buy 1 for $200- a condition of the sale is that I buy all 3.  I have always been of the opinion that bulk sales should be counted IN FULL.  I should put a $600 purchase in my budget, then recoup $400 when I unload the 2 tubs I don't need.

Its dishonest to say I bought a chassis for $200.  I didn't, and one was not available.

But that's just my opinion. I know the rules have allowed using only a portion of a lot for a long time. 
 

Still not too sure about this particular approach...

In reply to SV reX :

I largely agree, and that's personally how I play the Challenge. The Lotus was listed "for free", but as a condition of it being free, I had to buy your $900 Avalon. So the first line in my budget is "Lotus + Avalon package: $900". Splitting that out any other way would be untrue to what actually went down. 

I have a lot of stuff I could theoretically "FMV self-trade" in the parts lot that came with the Lotus+Avalon package. But that's never been how I play the Challenge, because I'm so good that I don't need to, and I have beaten all of you without needing to 

In reply to maschinenbau :

That's correct. I agree with you completely, and like that approach. 
 

(I took a lot of grief for that)

darkbuddha said:

Now, unless I'm missing something in the logic, the only way to get more for your money on both sides of the budget (expenditure and recoup/trade) is the use the "heterogenous collection of parts" calculation on the expenditure side, but use FMV on the recoup/trade side. Admittedly, this is likely within (an interpretation of) the rules, but also definitely seems to tread very closely to, if not all over, the DBAD rule.  But as someone said, there's always an option to protest; could/would a flagrant attempt at this type of calculation be the trigger for the first protest ever?

I stand corrected; the rules state "You may never recoup more than a part or car’s purchase price or fair market value (whichever value you listed on your budget sheet)."  This seems to imply that there has to be a uniformity of valuation in the accounting, meaning you couldn't value something one way on the expenditure side, then in a different way on the recoup (selling/trade) side.

All of this has my head in a bit of a spin, but mostly I'm dreading having to go through all the stuff that came with my initial purchase and trying to FMV it all, with all the bits of interior and exterior trim and gaskets, etc. Makes me very wary of even trying honestly, but I know that would be the best/easiest way to max out the $2k of available recoup limit. Sigh...

In reply to darkbuddha :

Kinda makes sense to me that for the biggest advantage (big parts pile at a good price), you need to do the most legwork.

Stampie I'm not saying you can't do it that way but don't. 

In reply to ralleah :

Perhaps that's true.

In this case there is a 12 page long thread in which the OP continuously referred to the purchase as a "car", and never a "parts deal".

Its uncomfortable to me that the rules are now so convoluted that we don't seem to know the difference between a car and a parts deal, and that they seem to encourage trying to recalculate purchases in as many ways as we can to maximize the budget benefit.  
 

It's a big turn off to me. 

Why did we diverge from needing actual receipts/bills of sale[/trade] and shift to circular horse-trading again?

Tis tradition at GRM to endlessly debate the rules and theoreticals online instead of going in the garage and building a competitive car. 

In reply to SV reX :

I hear that, truly.