What would I miss out on by self insuring my car?
"Convenience, and of course money. In case of an event, you'll have to spend the full worth of money to fix/replace, while if you're insured - you get the insurance to pay for it. It is up to you to decide, if the money saved on the lower premiums worth the risk of paying much more in case of an event. Of course, the cheaper the car the more it makes sense not to pay the premiums. Many people do that. Regarding the bargaining power, I actually think that you would pay less if it is not going through insurance than the bill the insurance pays. I fixed a nasty dent for like $300  at one shop, while at the other they said ""It's $1200, but what do you care, your insurance will cover it"" (I had $500 deductible, so in the end it was cheaper for me to pay $300 without the insurance at all)." As you suspected, there is more than just car replacement taken care of by insurance (some of them are pointed out in Chad's story: You lose your agent services. When my wife wrecked our car 3 years ago our agent took care of everything.  He got us a rental car, made the arrangements to get it fixed, checked in to see how we were doing, and even helped us set up a second opinion on my wifes wrist surgery.  The accident was ruled the fault of the uninsured driver who decided to take off through the red light.  But our insurance was the one that covered it all total expenses over 80k.  We would have had to eat most of those with out full coverage.   Most everything was set up (our rental car, estimates on repair, even her inital consutation with the surgeon) before the investigator had filed her report. Our agents first question was is everyone ok. His second was what can i do to help? He never asked us what happened and was always ahead of our needs in dealing with it.   If these things are not important to you, you can probably save quite a bit of money self insuring.  But if you are in an accident and unable to do them yourself, do you have someone to do it for you?  Do you trust them to handle your business and are you willing to saddle them with the responsibility of dealing with it?  To me insurance is less about me and more about my family.  It was nice that my agent did all of that for me.  I would have been willing to do it myself though.  But I am glad to know he is there for my wife if something happens to me. You're trading a fixed liability for an unknown liability. When I graduated from college, I bought a nice used car. Two days later, a deer came out of nowhere, and I hit it going 70 mph on a highway. The damage? $4,500. If I didn't have comprehensive insurance, that would have been a real hit to me financially. For me, I'd rather just pay the modest cost for the comprehensive. "If you can afford to replace your car, it is more cost effective, on average and over time, not to carry comprehensive and collision insurance. The insurance companies do make a profit, after all. However, you may be able to worry less (""What if someone steals my car if I park here?"") with the insurance, and you have the knowledge the you won't have to spend your own money on a new car if something happens to this one, which may help with financial planning." "One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (""premium"") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit*. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. *Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though." "Here's what you do without, on the negative side, just for balance: A bill: When I last had comprehensive insurance, it cost something like 3-4% of the value of the car per annum.  (Obviously ymmv enormously but I think that's somewhere near the middle of the range and I'm not especially risky.)  So, compared to the total depreciation and running costs of the car, it's actually fairly substantial.  Over the say 10 years I might keep that car, it adds up to a fair slice of what it will take to buy a replacement. Financial crisis costs: I don't know about you, but my insurance went up something like 30% in recent years, despite the value-insured and the risk going down, said by the insurer to be due to market turmoil.  So, at least hundreds of dollars is just kind of frictional loss, and I'd rather not pay it. Wrangling with the insurer: if you have insurance and a loss, you have to persuade them to pay out, perhaps document the original conditions or the fault, perhaps argue about whether their payment is fair.  I've done this for small (non-automotive) claims, and it added up to more hassle than the incident itself.  Obviously all insurers will claim they're friendly to deal with but until you actually have a big claim you never know. Moral hazard: I know I'm solely responsible for not having my car crashed or stolen.  Somehow that just feels better. Free riders: I've seen people ""fudge"" their insurance claims so that things that shouldn't have been covered were claimed to be.  You might have too.  Buy insurance and you're paying for them. Choice: Insurers are typically going to make the decision for you about whether a claim is repairable or not, and in my experience are reluctant or refuse to just give you the cash amount of the claim. (See also, moral hazard.)  Do it yourself and you can choose whether to live with it, make a smaller or larger repair, or replace the whole vehicle with a second hand one or a brand new one, or indeed perhaps do without a vehicle. A distraction: Hopefully by the time you've been working for a while, a vehicle is not a really large fraction of your net worth.  If you lose 10% of your net worth it's not really nice but - well, you could easily have lost that off the value of your house or your retirement portfolio in recent years.  What you actually need to insure is genuinely serious risks that would seriously change your life if they were lost, such as your ability to work.  For about the same cost as insuring a $x car, you can insure against $x income every year for the rest of your life, and I think it's far more important. If I have a write-off accident but walk away I'll be perfectly happy. And, obviously, liability insurance is important, because being hit for $millions of liabilities could also have a serious impact.   Coverage for mechanical failures: If your 8yo car needs a new transmission, insurance isn't going to help, yet it may cost more than the typical minor collision.  Save the money yourself and you can manage those costs out of the same bucket. Flexibility: If you save up to replace your car, but some other crisis occurs, you can choose to put the money towards that.  If you have car insurance but you have a family medical thing it's no help. I think the bottom line is: insure against costs you couldn't cope with by yourself.  There are people who need a car but can just barely afford it, but if you're fortunate enough not to be in that case you don't really need comprehensive insurance." Insurance is to mitigate risk you can't handle yourself.  (All insurance, not just car insurance.)  The expected value of the insurance will always cost more than the expected value of your loss, that's how the insurance company makes money.  But sometimes the known fixed cost is better for your ability to sleep at night than the unknown (though likely lower) variable cost. If you were suddenly hit with a bill the size of your car tomorrow, would you be ok?  If so, then you can handle the risk yourself and don't need insurance.  If not, then you need the insurance. The insurance company sells thousands of policies and it's much easier to predict the number out of 1000 people that will get in an accident tomorrow than the chance that you specifically will get in an accident tomorrow.  So they can manage the risk by making a small amount of money from 999/1000 people and buying the other guy a new car. "As others have pointed out, it's all about a fixed, small cost versus the potential of a large cost. If you have insurance, you know you will pay a fixed amount per month. There is a 100% probability that you will have to pay this premium. If you don't have insurance, there is a large chance that you will have no cost in any given month, and a small chance that you will have a large cost. Like my home-owners insurance costs me about $50 per month. If I didn't have insurance and my house burned down, I would be out something like $100,000. What's the chance that my house will burn down this month? Very small. But I'd rather pay $50 and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I just bought a filing cabinet for $160 and the store offered me an ""extended warranty"" for something like $20 a year. What's the probability that some accident will happen that damages my filing cabinet? Pretty small. Even if it did, I think I could handle shelling out $160. I can imagine my stomach in knots and lying awake at nights worrying about the possibility of losing $100,000 or finding myself homeless. I can't imagine lying awake at nights worrying about losing $160 or being force to stuff my files under the bed. I'll take my chances. When I was young and had even less money than I have now, I bought cars that cost me a thousand dollars or. Even poor as I was, I knew that if the car was totaled I could dig up the cash to buy another. It wasn't worth paying the insurance premium. These days I'm driving a car that cost me $6,000. I have collision and comprehensive insurance, but I think it's debatable. I bought the car with cash to begin with, and if I had to I could scrape up the cash to replace it. Especially considering that my last payment for my daughter's college tuition is due next month and then that expense is gone. :-)"
"Hi there, I'm a Tesla owner. I think, for the Model S and X segment currently buying cars, you're right. Environmentalism isn't the first and foremost thing in their mind. However, that isn't to say being environmentally conscious isn't a credit they should receive for their purchase, because other informing factors, like charging at home instead of needing to refuel, is a perk AND it reduces oil/gas usage. I didn't buy my car to ""lower my carbon footprint"", as buying an EV doesn't necessarily do so in the big picture. I do, however, LOVE the fact I can charge my car at home and never visit a gas station. Every day, I get in my car with a ""full tank"", and I'm one less paying customer at the pump.   As far as a status symbol, for me, it's the opposite. I don't want a showy, iconic vehicle that people will gawk at me over. I'm fairly low key, I'd rather not have the attention. I just needed/wanted a car with great interior cargo space, but was an electric vehicle I could charge at home. The Chevy Bolt, VW eGolf, Fiat 500e, and other EV options didn't fit the bill for me. Also, and most importantly, I wanted a vehicle that's future proofed (at least for a few years) to offer full self driving capability the moment it was allowed. Tesla became the icon for offering attractive electric vehicles at a time when most available options looked phoned in.  Remember what you said in your first post: ""$500,000,000 loan for a car they've never seen and many won't receive for well over a year?"" A lot of people, myself included, never saw the ""official prototype"" until after we made our reservations on March 31, 2016. So the notion that it's purely an icon seems incomplete. I will say this, though: as soon as other auto makers take the EV market seriously, and design cars that actually look attractive, I think you'll see the Tesla demand drop for those who are looking for EV options pure and simple.  I think, in the next few years, as more EV makers step up, what will differentiate the vehicles is the underlying tech in the car first and foremost, closely followed by design aesthetic. Tesla will retain buyers if they beat everyone to market with an available, fully self-driving capable vehicle, but they'll see some of that market shift away if other makers break in." You are asking about what happens when an ETF/mutual fund company goes bankrupt. If you were asking about a bank account you would be asking about FDIC coverage.  Investment funds are different, the closest thing to FDIC protection is provided by  Securities Investors Protection Corporation (SIPC) SIPC was created under the Securities Investor Protection Act as a   non-profit membership corporation. SIPC oversees the liquidation of   member broker-dealers that close when the broker-dealer is bankrupt or   in financial trouble, and customer assets are missing. In a   liquidation under the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPC and the   court-appointed Trustee work to return customers’ securities and cash   as quickly as possible. Within limits, SIPC expedites the return of   missing customer property by protecting each customer up to $500,000   for securities and cash (including a $250,000 limit for cash only). SIPC is an important part of the overall system of investor protection   in the United States. While a number of federal and state securities   agencies and self-regulatory organizations deal with cases of   investment fraud, SIPC's focus is both different and narrow: restoring   customer cash and securities left in the hands of bankrupt or   otherwise financially troubled brokerage firms. SIPC was not chartered by Congress to combat fraud. Although created   under a federal law, SIPC is not an agency or establishment of the   United States Government, and it has no authority to investigate or   regulate its member broker-dealers. It is important to understand that   SIPC is not the securities world equivalent of the Federal Deposit   Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures depositors of insured   banks. "In terms of how to make your decision, here are some considerations. Comprehensive insurance often covers other perils besides collision, including fire, theft, hail or other weather damage, additional liability coverage etc. It may be worth looking at your specific policy to see what is covered. No matter what you do, make sure you have some form of personal liability coverage in case you are sued (doesn't necessarily need to be through the auto policy). While it can make financial sense to drop comprehensive coverage once you can afford to self-insure against collision, this will only be the case if you are certain that you can set aside dedicated savings that you would only need to dip in to in the case of a collision or other major loss. For example, if you only have $5-$10,000 in the bank, and you happen to lose your job, and then the next month you happen to be hit in an accident and the car is totaled, could you afford to replace the car out of pocket? I would recommend looking at dropping comprehensive insurance as similar to a ""DNR"" (do not resuscitate) order for your car, i.e. under no circumstances would you choose repair the car were it totaled or damaged. For example, if your car's exterior were badly damaged in a hail storm (but still ran fine), would you pay $500 or more to repair it, or would you simply get a new car? Ultimately, this is going to be a judgement call based on how much financial risk you want to take on. Personally, I would continue to pay the extra $300 per year for now in order to insure a $6-8,000 asset (5% of the asset value) However, in the next few years the resale value of your car will continue to decline. If in a few years the car were worth $1,500, I would probably not pay the same $300 a year (or 20% of the asset's value). When you should make that choice depends on how many more years of service you expect to get from the car, which is a very localized question. Hope that helps!" This person could buy another car at any moment without any money problems, so I don't really see any point in insuring, especially with such a ridiculously high price compared to the extremely low risk. Convenience.  If you self-insure, then an accident means that you have to make arrangements to get the car towed, fixed, evaluated, etc.  If you buy insurance, your insurer would prefer to do all that.  They argue with the mechanic over prices, the lawyer over liability, etc.   And of course, rich people need more liability insurance than other people, not less.  So part of that $1400 is probably money that your friend would have to pay regardless. There are a couple of reasons that a person might choose to use insurance even if they could handle the financial loss if something went wrong. They know their risk better than the insurance company. While it might seem odd at first glance that an individual can be better at assessing risk than a large company with thousands of actuaries. There are limits to the amount of knowledge that an insurance company can have or use to price their insurance products. For instance if you were a very aggressive driver but didn't have any recent tickets or accidents because you were in college and didn't have a car on a regular basis, but now you have a job and drive 30 miles to work every day. You know your risk is relatively high but the insurance company sees you as relatively low risk and aren't able to price that extra risk into your premium. Just because a person can survive financial after losing something like a car or a house doesn't mean it isn't desirable to pay a small price to mitigate that risk. If you are using your savings to pay for an emergency then that money needs to be semi liquid in case you need it limiting your investment options. Where as if you purchase insurance you pay a small amount of money to be able to invest the rest of your money. Liquidity is a big deal particularly if you are a small business and investing into your business where your money can make your more money but you may or may not be able to access that money very easily. The moment that you start to rent your car to strangers you are talking about using your car as a business. Will it be financially advantageous? If you can convince somebody to rent your vehicle for more than your required monthly payments then it might be. Of course you have to determine what would be the true cost of ownership for you. It could include your auto loan, and insurance, but you would be saving on the garage costs. Of course if you don't have it rented 100% of the time you will still have some costs. Your insurance company will need to know about your plan. They charge based on the risk. If you aren't honest about the situation they won't cover you if something goes wrong. The local government may want to know. They charge different car registration fees for businesses. If there are business taxes they will want that.  Taxes. you are running a business so everybody from the federal governemnt to the local government may want a cut. Plus you will have to depreciate the value of the item. Turning the item from a personal use item to a business item can have tax issues. If you don't own it 100% the lender may also have concerns about making sure their collateral survives. Is it safe? and from the comments to the question :  Should I do a contract or something that would protect me? Nope. it isn't safe unless you do have a contract. Of course that contract will have to be drawn up by a lawyer to make sure it protects you from theft, negligence, breach of contract.... You will have to be able to not just charge rent, but be able to repossess the car if they don't return it on time. You will have to be able to evaluate if the renter is trustworthy, or you may find your car is in far worse shape if you can even get it back. "There are cases where it makes sense to insure something, even if you can bear its loss.  Insurance is a tool to control risk.  One reason you might want to control risk is indeed if you cannot afford to bear it's loss.  However, there are other reasons you might wish to insure something when you look at your life in totality. Let's say you have $100 to work with, and you have an item A that costs $30. Perhaps you really need A in your life, but its clear here that you can afford to replace it, so maybe you don't insure it.  Then you get item B, which also costs $30, and item C which costs $30.  We can see that you can cover all three of these (total value $90), so one might argue that you don't need to insure it. Now let's add item D onto the plate, also at a cost of $30.  Now you're in an interesting position, with 4 items you depend on, A B C and D, which have a sum total replacement cost of $120.  Now if all of these break or are stolen, you no longer have the funds to replace them.  Of course, what are the odds that all of them break at the same time?  You may be able to do the math to determine the probability of going broke, and use that to determine whether you want to insure the item or not. Now consider that you will have to make a similar mathematical analysis for every additional purchase you make.  You will also have items which you can ""bear to lose"" but you really don't want to.  These can add a large amount of effort to every decision you make.  It may be worth getting insurance in such a case.  One could think of the purchase in two parts.  There is the part that accounts for the statistical expectation of loss, and the other is the insurance company's profits.  The profits could be thought of as paying the insurance company for a service which makes it easier for you to think through complicated decisions by removing risk." Prior to having children we did exactly what you describe.  We would visit my mother in law about four to six times a year, a 350-mile-each-way trip for a weekend.  We'd simply rent a car, drive down, drive back, return it, out $150 or so for the weekend, a total of under $1000 a year; far cheaper than owning. You should factor in whether you will save money, though, on things you might not immediately consider.  Will you spend less on groceries, in particular, if you can drive to Costco or Sam's Club (or even just to a regular grocery store)?  I doubt you'll save the cost of the car ($2000/year as you say), but it's possible it will factor into the mix. I definitely would discourage purchasing a new car, if you're considering the financial side primarily.  I suspect you can get a used car - maybe the $10k car you would've sold - and spend more like $1000 a year on it, or less.  I don't know if I'd go to the $5000 level as those in comments suggested, as if you're doing long trips you want something with higher than average reliability; but even a car like a 5 year old mid-level sedan, easily costing you less than $10k, would be fine and likely sell in 5 years for $5k itself while hopefully not having too much maintenance (especially if you choose something with lower mileage; shop around!).  But even with those assumptions, 20 days a year of rental which you can probably get less than $50 rates on (particularly if you look at some of the car sharing options, Zipcar and Enterprise both allow you to do longer term rentals for reasonable prices) seems like a fine deal compared to the hassle of owning.