Here is a question regarding the gold price
RobertS
Posts: 485
<< <i>What appears to have happened under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 is the Treasury seized the Fed’s gold, taking full ownership and claim to its proceeds. The Treasury as an aside transferred a sum of special 1934 series gold certificates to the Fed amounting to the statutory value of gold ($20.67 per ounce) times the quantity of gold transfered from the Fed to the Treasury. The official gold price was later revalued to $35 an ounce, an effective 40.94% devaluation of the currency, and stood at that value until the passing of the Par Value Modification Act of 1972. Under this act, gold was revalued again, this time to $38 an oz, and the Treasury account was credited upwards by $822 million in miscellaneous receipts to reflect the change in the gold price from $35 to $38. The gold was revalued one last time in 1973 to $42.22 and again the Treasury was credited with more addition value to their gold, $1.157 billion to be exact, to account for this. As of today, the Federal Reserve was left with $11.16 billion dollars worth of gold certificates and the Treasury holds 8,133.5 tonnes of gold still valued at $42.22. >>
Please do not shoot me for asking dumb questions, I am back in college and plan to take an economics class next semester, but right now I really only know what I have read here. Based on the quote gold in 1934 was worth $20.67 an ounce and later revalued at $35 and then revalued at $38 per ounce. So that means that the cost of extracting the precious metal was well below the bullion prices, now assuming that technology has improved and methods of harvesting gold have improved then I cannot see how it would cost so much more to extract the precious metal now days. I guess to be fair due to inflation equipment costs more today, but again we should be more efficient extracting this precious metal so even after the inflated price "I do not know what it is" extracting gold should be cheaper "I do not mean cheaper than $38" I mean cheaper after accounting for inflation, than it was 70 years ago. Now as I understand it gold goes up when the dollar goes down as we try to invest our money into something that is not loosing value, but if the true value of gold is not based on how much it cost to extract the precious metal then how is gold any different than the dollar? The cost of material used to make a dollar is probably pennies, and we can print it at will, the same holds true then for gold; extraditing gold is probably much cheaper than the going gold bullion rate. So how is printing money any different than extracting large quantities of gold and selling it at an inflated price? It just seems that we trade one for the other but neither has a true value? More importantly, why gold and not diamonds or any other commodity for that matter?
0
Comments
The paper roubles are now worthless.
Creating the one is not the same as creating the other.
I'd say that promise has come into question at this point in time.
People 'in the business' even play along with the joke. Jim Benham(Benham Capital-Palo Alto) used to have a Dixieland jazz band mockingly named 'Full Faith & Credit'
It's not easy or cheap to find and extract gold. If it were, everyone would be doing it and the market would be flooded with gold, and prices would come down.
I am not worried about the amount of gold being "inflated" through overproduction. Somewhere I read that the amount of gold mined every year increases the total supply by about 1.5 to 2% annually. That seems to be fairly constant over recent decades.
Paper money, on the other hand, or electronic digits representing paper money, can be created ad infinitum. There is no 1.5 or 2% constraint there.
Gold is much more fungible and easier to place a valuation onto than diamonds, which require a gemologist to determine quality and value. Gold has been used as money and large populations of gold coins exist that are readily recognizable and the value can instantly be determined, relative to the spot market price for gold at any given moment.
Every dollar in existance represents a government liability that has to be backed up by the taxpayers. If the government wants to drop a few hundred billion dollars on a pet project for some senator from California who chairs the defense committee or a representative from New York who chairs the tax committee, then the taxpayers have to fund it to pay for the bribes, er - favors that these senators and representatives need to stay in office. If the taxpayers don't like the idea - tough luck, the Treasury can just go ahead and sell bonds into the market (which now consists mainly of the Fed), and the Fed simply prints or electronically keystrokes more "money" into existance.
Gold has to be dug out, refined and then fabricated into it's final form, at a cost. Dollars are virtual money that require virtually no cost to produce. Key point - they can create dollars alot faster (and more of them) than the entire gold industry can produce gold. An ounce of gold has no counter-liability. A dollar is only a debt instrument that someone will want to exract value from the taxpayers from some day.
Another factor is population. When gold was $20.67 the world population was probably about 1 billion. As you will learn in economics, when a resource in demand becomes scarce, the price will go up.
I knew it would happen.
Cost to produce gold or silver
<< <i>Here is an older thread touching on your question.
Cost to produce gold or silver >>
Nice! thanks for sharing the link, that undoubtedly would have been my next question "what is the actual cost of extracting gold". Really goo points and definitely many things I had not considered, thank you all for sharing information with us newbies!!!
Miners today are working high up in the mountains (5,000 to 10,000 ft) and deep in the earth as well (3 miles down) in some of the coldest and hottest environments imagineable. These are not ideal conditions to mine. The days of finding huge gold deposits near the surface are pretty much gone. The ores of gold being mined to day are about 1/3 of what they were only 10 yrs ago. Hence to keep up miners are having to process 3x the ore just to keep up. During the period of 1993-2002 the gold carry trade was in full swing. This worked perfectly with the Rubin/Summers doctrine of a "strong dollar" and weak gold prices. The miners let their infrastructure go to pot and were happy to hedge their forward production while earning a nice interest on the currency trade. Even today the miners are still trying to recover from their stupidity of the 1990's. Remember that they basically had 15 lost years from 1985-2000 where it wasn't cool to own mining stocks. South Africa which was always the world's leading gold mining nation peaked production in the early 1970's. They now only put out 40% of what they once did and now occupy a lower spot on the totem pole. China is now the world's leading producer and you can bet they are keeping nearly every ounce they mine.
Besides the physical issues you also have geo-political constraints and risks across the globe. Just recently Bolivia suggested that they were going to renationalize some of the world's largest silver mines. Venezuela has already taken over some mines. Peru just elected a socialist to power that could make it tough for continued world class copper, gold, and silver production. Peru is a world leader in silver and copper while #6 in gold. Even with the gold price having doubled over the past 5 years, you will find a large number of significant miners who have seen their costs rise faster than the price of gold. It doesn't help that Wall Street is currently entrenched in a trade that is long bullion but short the miners, making it very difficult for miners to get traction to find more gold. Fiat currencies around the world are increasing supplies from 5-15%/yr among several major nations, but gold just plods along at 1-1/2% per yr.
roadrunner
Gold is similar to paper currency in that it is only worth what a person accepting it values it at. Markets set the value on all mediums of exchange whether they be PMs, currency, beans or labor. The difference with PMs is that there is a fixed limit on quantity and it cannot be created in the factory or from thin air. This is what makes them unique and desireable as backing for any currency. Our own economy was on more solid ground when our currency was backed by gold and our coins contained silver. This prevented the only people authorized to increase the supply (Washington) from watering down the supply (and the value) of them. While the "readily available" quantity of PMs changes by removing more of them from the earth it is still a fixed, estimated quantity. Its price is based on known and expected (estimated) supplies. The unmined supplies are baked into the price. Should science discover that there is twice as much gold in the earth than previously believed, then the price would drop drastically.
Supply and demand - the true determiner of value and price.
I disagree with jmski52 on "Every dollar in existence represents a government liability that has to be backed up by the taxpayers." Dollars are not a liability of the government. They are only a liability to those that hold them in that they may be worth less when they are exchanged for something else. I will agree that promissary notes such as T Bonds are a government liability. But even those are subject to being paid in dollars and we all know that the value of those dollars can be watered down to lessen the liability, as is our government's current economic policy. Dollar notes ceased to be a government liability when they could no longer be presented to the government's agent (Federal Reserve Banks) as a claim on the government's gold or silver.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
If gold cost you $35/ounce, then you spent 20 ounces of gold to get that car.
In 2012 a car can cost you $30,000
If gold cost you $1,500/ounce, then you spent 20 ounces of gold to get that car.
In 1934 a house cost you $6,140
If gold cost you $35/ounce, then you spent 200 ounces of gold to get that house.
In 2012 a house can cost you $300,000
If gold cost you $1,500/ounce, then you spent 200 ounces of gold to get that house.
In 1934 the average wage was $ 1,071 a year, or 30 ounces of gold.
In 2012 the average wage is $ 45,000 a year, or 30 ounces of gold.
<< <i>In 1934 a car cost you $625
If gold cost you $35/ounce, then you spent 20 ounces of gold to get that car.
In 2012 a car can cost you $30,000
If gold cost you $1,500/ounce, then you spent 20 ounces of gold to get that car.
In 1934 a house cost you $6,140
If gold cost you $35/ounce, then you spent 200 ounces of gold to get that house.
In 2012 a house can cost you $300,000
If gold cost you $1,500/ounce, then you spent 200 ounces of gold to get that house.
In 1934 the average wage was $ 1,071 a year, or 30 ounces of gold.
In 2012 the average wage is $ 45,000 a year, or 30 ounces of gold. >>
BINGO, we have a winner. Gold's value stays fixed while the market adjusts its price based on current value of the currency it is priced in. Gold value stays fixed because its supply remains fixed. Keep in mind it doesn't have to be just gold. It can be any other thing that markets recognize as rare and limited in supply.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Contrary to popular belief, the dollar is not backed by "The Full Faith and Credit of the U.S. Government." What could they possibly give you in exchange for it? It is not like the old silver and gold certificates that could be exchanged for silver or gold. There are no guarantees from the government with the current paper currency except that they will accept it for public debt. While it is recognized as "legal tender for all debts, public and private" there is no guarantee that someone else has to accept it. The only reason it is still accepted is because those accepting it have the ability to demand more of it as its value declines (price inflation). If it were to become completely worthless the private sector would probably choose not to accept it at all and you would probably see the "good for public debt" removed from the face of it.
Gold is similar to paper currency in that it is only worth what a person accepting it values it at. Markets set the value on all mediums of exchange whether they be PMs, currency, beans or labor. The difference with PMs is that there is a fixed limit on quantity and it cannot be created in the factory or from thin air. This is what makes them unique and desireable as backing for any currency. Our own economy was on more solid ground when our currency was backed by gold and our coins contained silver. This prevented the only people authorized to increase the supply (Washington) from watering down the supply (and the value) of them. While the "readily available" quantity of PMs changes by removing more of them from the earth it is still a fixed, estimated quantity. Its price is based on known and expected (estimated) supplies. The unmined supplies are baked into the price. Should science discover that there is twice as much gold in the earth than previously believed, then the price would drop drastically.
Supply and demand - the true determiner of value and price.
I disagree with jmski52 on "Every dollar in existence represents a government liability that has to be backed up by the taxpayers." Dollars are not a liability of the government. They are only a liability to those that hold them in that they may be worth less when they are exchanged for something else. I will agree that promissary notes such as T Bonds are a government liability. But even those are subject to being paid in dollars and we all know that the value of those dollars can be watered down to lessen the liability, as is our government's current economic policy. Dollar notes ceased to be a government liability when they could no longer be presented to the government's agent (Federal Reserve Banks) as a claim on the government's gold or silver. >>
Absolutely right, I made a boo-boo. Treasuries are backed by the full faith and credit of our govt. The dollar is a piece of paper that allows me to buy coffee at the store and I can't use gold to do that.
<< <i>The dollar is a piece of paper that allows me to buy coffee at the store and I can't use gold to do that. >>
Funny you should mention that. I used $1 presidential "gold" coins at Starbucks yesterday and boy did that clerk freak. Had to call the manager over before she would take them.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>In 1934 a car cost you $625
If gold cost you $35/ounce, then you spent 20 ounces of gold to get that car.
In 2012 a car can cost you $30,000
If gold cost you $1,500/ounce, then you spent 20 ounces of gold to get that car.
In 1934 a house cost you $6,140
If gold cost you $35/ounce, then you spent 200 ounces of gold to get that house.
In 2012 a house can cost you $300,000
If gold cost you $1,500/ounce, then you spent 200 ounces of gold to get that house.
In 1934 the average wage was $ 1,071 a year, or 30 ounces of gold.
In 2012 the average wage is $ 45,000 a year, or 30 ounces of gold. >>
This is so misleading.
A $625 car in 1934 MIGHT make it across country...20 OZ of gold.
In 2011, I can buy a car for $1500 with one ounce of gold that would have a better likelyhood of making it from NY to LA.
Average wages in 1934 & 2012? ---which isn't here yet BTW---are just plain irrelevent. In 1932 my mom was working for 25 cents an hour. If you are working for $45,000 next year....you're broke.
Three years ago Real estate was 40% higher and gold was lower. So--for the purposes of comparing a home in 1934....200 OZ of gold---to 2007-8 let's say........ the home may have been $450,000 and gold may have been $1000 an OZ so it would take 450 ounces of gold to buy the house.
The suppositions made for the purposes of comparing 1934 prices relevent to gold and current price relativity would flunk you in a high school paper. Nothing personal. Just how I would grade the paper. The assumptions may or may not be accurate but you can't compare apples to oranges.
<< <i>
<< <i>In 1934 a car cost you $625
If gold cost you $35/ounce, then you spent 20 ounces of gold to get that car.
In 2012 a car can cost you $30,000
If gold cost you $1,500/ounce, then you spent 20 ounces of gold to get that car.
In 1934 a house cost you $6,140
If gold cost you $35/ounce, then you spent 200 ounces of gold to get that house.
In 2012 a house can cost you $300,000
If gold cost you $1,500/ounce, then you spent 200 ounces of gold to get that house.
In 1934 the average wage was $ 1,071 a year, or 30 ounces of gold.
In 2012 the average wage is $ 45,000 a year, or 30 ounces of gold. >>
This is so misleading.
A $625 car in 1934 MIGHT make it across country...20 OZ of gold.
In 2011, I can buy a car for $1500 with one ounce of gold that would have a better likelyhood of making it from NY to LA.
Average wages in 1934 & 2012? ---which isn't here yet BTW---are just plain irrelevent. In 1932 my mom was working for 25 cents an hour. If you are working for $45,000 next year....you're broke.
Three years ago Real estate was 40% higher and gold was lower. So--for the purposes of comparing a home in 1934....200 OZ of gold---to 2007-8 let's say........ the home may have been $450,000 and gold may have been $1000 an OZ so it would take 450 ounces of gold to buy the house.
The suppositions made for the purposes of comparing 1934 prices relevent to gold and current price relativity would flunk you in a high school paper. Nothing personal. Just how I would grade the paper. The assumptions may or may not be accurate but you can't compare apples to oranges. >>
Disagree, comparing gold to dollars is like comparing apples to oranges. The only way you can accurately do it is to assign the value of a third item to both at a given point in time. While the post's numbers may not be exact, its point is: History shows that gold holds constant value over time.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i> While the post's numbers may not be exact, its point is: History shows that gold holds constant value over time. >>
That is correct, with an emphasis on "holds constant value over time".
<< <i>In 2011, I can buy a car for $1500 with one ounce of gold that would have a better likelyhood of making it from NY to LA. >>
Very unlikely...it's obvious you haven't priced the used car market and furthermore, and its unlikely your $1500 clunker will pass inspection.
As a matter of fact a customer called me recently and wanted to know if I knew anybody that needed an early 90's fuel injected v6 CHEV half ton with 90k on it for $1800. That truck could go from NY to LA and back w/o a problem. I'm in CAL, our cars don't rust to the ground in 7 years
OPA, 10 years ago, I had about 1500 cars on the property. I do have a little knowledge about autos.
Let's not assume I'm a college student --OK.
20 ounces of gold could get you a top of the line car in 2012.
1 ounce of gold can not get you a top of the line car in 2012.
<< <i>OPA, I am very familiar with the car market, as those who know me are aware of. For $1500, I could buy...if I wished a 2000-3 CHEV ---for one ounce of gold---that would run circles around a 1934 ford in 1934. '
As a matter of fact a customer called me recently and wanted to know if I knew anybody that needed an early 90's fuel injected v6 CHEV half ton with 90k on it for $1800. That truck could go from NY to LA and back w/o a problem. I'm in CAL, our cars don't rust to the ground in 7 years
OPA, 10 years ago, I had about 1500 cars on the property. I do have a little knowledge about autos.
Let's not assume I'm a college student --OK. >>
I know we are both old farts ... but in my neck of the woods ... $1500 used car would probably be w/o an engine....(Washington DC metro area)
<< <i>20 ounces of gold could get you a top of the line car in 1934.
20 ounces of gold could get you a top of the line car in 2012.
1 ounce of gold can not get you a top of the line car in 2012. >>
PM, this is where I step off the ship. In 1932 a Duesenburg was $12,000 and gold was $20. ergo 600 OZ of gold. That is what I would call a top of the line car. That car today is well over a MILLION, so it obviously held it's value far better than gold.
In 2011, A top of the line 740i is around 70k+ or about 47 ounces of gold
AND...a 740i will run circles around that Duesey...In fact the Duesey would probably fall apart after 50k miles whereas the bimmer would go 200,000.
Gold means nothing in comparing technologically evolving items or their collectibility. You don't seem to understand what I'm 'driving' at.
And yes you could probably buy a Craftsman home in 1934 for 200 oz. But 20 years earlier you could buy the same home for $3,000 with 150 OZ of gold when gold was $20/oz.
The point being is that the statistics offered are faulty and you can paint them any way you like.
Offer any statistics on what gold purchased 80 years ago and change the comparrison years by a few or the price of gold in it's price cycle by a few years and the arguement takes on a whole new tilt.
flame on, I'm off to the salt mines. bye
<< <i>
<< <i>20 ounces of gold could get you a top of the line car in 1934.
20 ounces of gold could get you a top of the line car in 2012.
1 ounce of gold can not get you a top of the line car in 2012. >>
PM, this is where I step off the ship. In 1932 a Duesenburg was $12,000 and gold was $20. ergo 600 OZ of gold. That is what I would call a top of the line car. That car today is well over a MILLION, so it obviously held it's value far better than gold.
In 2011, A top of the line 740i is around 70k+ or about 47 ounces of gold
AND...a 740i will run circles around that Duesey...In fact the Duesey would probably fall apart after 50k miles whereas the bimmer would go 200,000.
>>
I think you take things to extremes streeter. Can't speak for PM, but I read it as a car like a Honda van today that would cost you
$30,000, as opposed to years ago a good family Ford car that would cost you $650.00
You used a "Used" car in your first analysis, and then you used a rare care and related it to a cheaper car of today. I can list you a
"top of the line" car today that you'd have to pay $500,000 for. PM was probably just speaking of regular, well made cars that are
new and made to last. Not used cars like you first stated, or a Duesenburg.
My thesis is...that while gold holds it value as opposed to paper fiat...what you do with the fiat money can dwarf gold appreciation. I have always felt that and that is why I am an active collector and investor rather than a passive one.
Some here know me but I prefer to not promote my activities or my passions on the internet. I am a relatively successful investor and collector. Not as much as some but more than most --I am not keeping score, just against myself.
OPA,(btw, I'm not old---57 ain't old
NOW to my point. A GIVEN: In 1934, IF you could buy a 34 Ford for $650....you could buy a 34 Ford station wagon for the same price. Let's say, 20 OZ of gold. Well last year, Nick Alexander sold a 34 Ford wagon for $566,000. 566,000/1400oz=404 oz of gold. While not all people were as smart as Nick's dad(Ben Alexander-dragnet TV) but that is an extreme example of using what the gold will buy to profit if you take a stationary asset like gold and putting it to work. The purchase of the car employeed Americans and other people ate that friday because Ben Alexander bought that 34 Ford. Nobody ate for the last 75 years if Ben would have just sat on the gold, but Nick could have cashed it in and got $28,000 and bought a used 740i off his lot.
I guess I could condense it down to this, don't let the acquisition of gold dominate your investing psyche. Keep a certain percentage of your assets in gold but look for opportunities to use that gold to make a lot of money. Just burying gold in the backyard is pointless. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD.....it's well within the realm of probability that sanctions and new laws will be enacted to punish gold hoarding when you decide to cashout. I feel it in my gut. If you don't sell, you're OK but you are also paralyzed because they may make it so onerous to cash out that you may be ski-rooed. Nothing is off the table with these nut cases in D.C.
You know, that's what I've been thinkin' about lately. The gold will keep your profile low, but you might end up with a low profile the rest of your life. Which is ok, I suppose. You must weigh that possibility against the possibility of buying into a great opportunity and then having the looters take most of it anyhow. The point of winning the game is to make life easier and/or more fun.
I'd like some opinions on this piece that I saved from 1 year ago. It's really just an advertisement, but it's very relevant to taxes and I'd like some help figuring out what his real strategy is, as he is dangling the bait in the last paragraph. I printed the darned thing off to analyze this weekend, because I think this guy actually does have a valid angle, but I need to focus on it and someone else might understand the angle faster than I can ferret it out. Thanks in advance if you bring something forward.
Hidden Gold Taxes, and ***the Question*** of How to Reverse the Inflation Tax
I knew it would happen.
Right now---IMO---well located crop land is cheap --in relation to how high the metals have soared the last few years. And it produces a yield which metals don't and it allowed me to diversify. Not much of a yield but enough to keep ahead of inflation....if you listen to what D.C. says is the rate of inflation.
And 19th century type above xf is also cheap.
Metals don't seem cheap to me anymore.
It's very unusual for a car collector not to lose money following a restoration these days. It was possible during the fast-paced years of 2004-2007, but those days are gone. This is why so many projects and average to lower end condition cars are just sitting there on the market.
Would have to agree that XF for better 19th century type coins seem cheap in the scheme of things compared to precious metals. But then again precious metals are used the world over while US 19th century type coins have a fairly limited playing field (ie tens to hundreds of thousands of potential buyers for US type coins vs. hundreds of millions of potential buyers world wide for PMs.). To many, PMs act as money. That will never be the case for an XF seated half. The whole area of US collectibles probably seems cheap right now. But there is far more there than the market can handle, hence falling prices. Everything over 25-30 yrs old is now considered a "collectible" by most and there's just too much of it. The supply keeps growing as the years go by. Saving our entire heritage as collectibles is a relatively new concept since we've only been on fiat for 40 yrs. But one way to keep up with inflation is to save everything you ever bought as a potential collectible. This is not something our forefathers had to worry about when we were on a partial hard money standard. This whole collect the "universe" concept came about because of the declining value of fiat (ie parabolically increasing debt). How else was J6P going to fight the ravages of inflation?
roadrunner
I'm not referring to restoring a duesey because that would be too complicated. What about Nick Alexanders dad buying those early Woody wagons and they didn't do anything except keep them in storage.
Or Otis chandler buying the unrestored 1971 hemi Cuda convertible?
i don't want to go off onto restoring cars as a way to undermine the analogy. you'll play devils advocate to anything i've posted for 7 years.
geesh. good night.
But that car is a freak of nature and circumstances. In that case I know the guy and he parked the car in his recreation room around 1974 with the intention of getting it out not too far
down the road. Fast forward to around 1995 and the car was still in the rec room. Probably a $75K car today (MSRP $4300). A nice return to say the least but not something that probably outperformed many top notch stocks. But that hardly compares to one of 21 - 1970/71 hemi Cuda convertibles built. The low production sort of insured that several would survive in excellent original condition. Otis Chandler buying an unrestored "gem" hemicuda-vert is essentially a 1 off event. These kinds of transactions have as much bearing on me and you as those who buy 1913 Lib nickels, a PF65 1804 $10 gold piece, or J-1776. But after scouring the car market for the past 20 yrs for original low mileage cars, I can safely say those are in the top 1% of all surviving collectible cars. They are freaks....just like the 1794 SP66 dollar that survived. We can't judge markets effectively based on those any more than we can use Microsoft stock from the early 1980's to 2000 to evaluate typical stock performance. Duesenburgs, 1934 Ford Wagons, and Hemi Cuda convertibles play in a totally different league than PM's and really shouldn't be used in these analogies. But it is ironic that many of us here could have ordered a 1971 Hemicuda convertible for $5000 back in the day. It just didn't happen though except for 7 select individuals. Buying the Deusey or Ford Wagon and keeping it properly stored through World Wars would have taken quite a bit of luck and foresight. Again, 99.99% of the population had no such opportunity or the financial means to wait it out. And the prices of these collectibles didn't explode until the later 1970's and 1980's when pure fiat started taking its toll.
I recall talking to the original owner of a tan 1971 440-6 pack bronze Cuda convertible back in 1997. At that time his totally orig car with 22,000 miles was worth around $100,000+ (by 2007 it was probably worth $300K-400K). He said that he originally wanted to buy the hemi cuda but at the last minute decided the 440-6 would be a more driveable car with just as much performance... not to mention that the insurance would have nailed him with the higher 425 hp rating (the 440-6 was only rated at 390 hp...but both cars were probably really in the 475-500 gross hp range straight from the factory). They only made 17 of the 440-6 verts vs. the 7 hemi verts. Not a huge difference in pops, but a 5X to 10X increase in price.
roadrunner