If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Why pre-ordering is dangerous (and often stupid)
On 6/30/2011 6:29 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
My point of reference was this paragraph: " Prove it. Give me an actual case that shows end value better in a lease vs. an outright purchase for a car at a given price. Don't forget all the T&C's and the end states." I was referring to the last sentence obviously. You also said 'I didn't say end value, but end "state".' You said both. I did take into account all possible end states. Wrong. He's had use of the car for three years at a lower cost and at less risk than if he had bought it. He has nothing in hand. 0. Wrong again. Using your figures, he has $7200 that he hasn't had to pay to the finance company. Is (600-400)*36 that hard to compute? You conveniently deleted the other paragraph of course which shows a much lower overall cost of using a car. I guess that was inconvenient, huh? Let's run some numbers, shall we? I'll assume a loan rate of 6.5%, since that's what my bank is quoting today. That means he financed $30,665. After 36 payments, he has paid $21,600 and stills owe just under $13,000. Now, let's assume he leased the car instead, and stuck that extra $200 in the bank at _zero_ interest. After 36 months, he now has $7200 in the bank. Looking at residual values of $30,000 cars, we see that after three years one needs to pay between 50 and 55% to buy the car at the end of the lease. Let's use the higher figure, meaning he'll have to shell out $16,866. His net cost, less the $7200 you banked, is $9,666. But let's assume that he got a 1.9% promotional rate from the car dealer instead. Now he financed $34317 and at the end of three years he owes just over $13,500. The buyout on the car is now up to $18,874, meaning a net cost of $11,674. In other words, _using your own numbers_, he would have been better off leasing even if he got a bargain rate. The inconvenient truth is that he may have been a rube for turning in the car, but not for leasing in the first place. The effective interest rate on your hypothetical lease is 0.0%. Fact is, since a car loses so much value in the first few years, but still provides reliable transportation for 10, one is a fool not to take advantage of the low cost of the last 5 years. Which one can still do with a lease. Which part of that don't you understand? Since I turned in that Nissan, I've owned exactly two cars. One I purchased in 1994 on a 0.9% finance deal. The other I purchased in 2003 for cash. But I looked at and rejected lease deals each time. No, not understanding basic finance makes one a rube. So you're a rube. Too bad. Reduced to name calling, Alan? -- Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required) You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Why pre-ordering is dangerous (and often stupid)
On 2011-06-30 19:57 , Mike Benveniste wrote:
On 6/30/2011 6:29 PM, Alan Browne wrote: My point of reference was this paragraph: " Prove it. Give me an actual case that shows end value better in a lease vs. an outright purchase for a car at a given price. Don't forget all the T&C's and the end states." I was referring to the last sentence obviously. You also said 'I didn't say end value, but end "state".' You said both. I did take into account all possible end states. Wrong. He's had use of the car for three years at a lower cost and at less risk than if he had bought it. He has nothing in hand. 0. Wrong again. Using your figures, he has $7200 that he hasn't had to pay to the finance company. Is (600-400)*36 that hard to compute? You conveniently deleted the other paragraph of course which shows a much lower overall cost of using a car. I guess that was inconvenient, huh? Let's run some numbers, shall we? I'll assume a loan rate of 6.5%, since that's what my bank is quoting today. That means he financed $30,665. After 36 payments, he has paid $21,600 and stills owe just under $13,000. Now, let's assume he leased the car instead, and stuck that extra $200 in the bank at _zero_ interest. After 36 months, he now has $7200 in the bank. Looking at residual values of $30,000 cars, we see that after three years one needs to pay between 50 and 55% to buy the car at the end of the lease. Let's use the higher figure, meaning he'll have to shell out $16,866. His net cost, less the $7200 you banked, is $9,666. But let's assume that he got a 1.9% promotional rate from the car dealer instead. Now he financed $34317 and at the end of three years he owes just over $13,500. The buyout on the car is now up to $18,874, meaning a net cost of $11,674. Just shift those variables around to make your point and cherry pick differential interest rates. Bravo. Anyone can do that - doesn't make for a real world case though. In other words, _using your own numbers_, No. Using numbers you plugged in after the fact to make whatever point you like. he would have been better off leasing even if he got a bargain rate. The inconvenient truth is that he may have been a rube for turning in the car, but not for leasing in the first place. The effective interest rate on your hypothetical lease is 0.0%. Fact is, since a car loses so much value in the first few years, but still provides reliable transportation for 10, one is a fool not to take advantage of the low cost of the last 5 years. Which one can still do with a lease. Which part of that don't you understand? Since I turned in that Nissan, I've owned exactly two cars. One I purchased in 1994 on a 0.9% finance deal. The other I purchased in 2003 for cash. But I looked at and rejected lease deals each time. No, not understanding basic finance makes one a rube. So you're a rube. Too bad. Reduced to name calling, Alan? Really thin skinned I guess. Just don't reply if you don't like it. Face the facts. There is no lease that where you will come out ahead when you option to buy a car for the long term. It goes against the cost base that the leasing co. faces. They have to pay for all the costs that occur when you decide not buy the car in the end. It is a more expensive model of doing business - customer always pays for that - up front. Buy a car the way I buy it and there is no lease that can touch it. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Why pre-ordering is dangerous (and often stupid)
On 6/30/2011 8:29 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
Just shift those variables around to make your point and cherry pick differential interest rates. Bravo. Anyone can do that - doesn't make for a real world case though. I supplied real world numbers. Here are my sources: http://www.cars.com/go/alg/index.jsp http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...es/Offers.aspx http://www.bankrate.com/financing/ra...massachusetts/ I used Microsoft Excel's PV function to determine the original amount financed, based on a 60-month loan with a payment of $600 per month. The cars I chose to look at were the Audi A4 and Toyota Camry. Both are excellent cars with high residual value. I assumed the highest cost to buy at the end of the lease I could, and also assumed zero interest earned. In short, I gave your numbers the best possible chance. If I wanted to cook the books, I could have chosen a car like the Buick Lucerne with a 36-month residual percentage of 38%. I get a 0.25% discount at Salem Five, resulting in 6.49%. If you care to choose a different interest rate for the loan, I'll run those numbers as well. If _you_ didn't supply real world numbers, whose fault is that? Face the facts. There is no lease that where you will come out ahead when you option to buy a car for the long term. My own case was real world. I have the papers to prove it. But I'll give you another example from today. Toyota has a lease deal on Toyota Highlander at $329 a month for 36 months, $1,979 due at signing. I'm going to assume that's for the least expensive model -- any other assumptions would only make the lease a better deal. According to cars.com, MSRP on that car is 28,200. Next, I'm going to compute the present value of your predicted cash flows for that lease. You pay $1979 at signing, which includes the first month lease payment. You then pay $329 per month for 35 months. Finally, using the cars.com figure, you pay $14382 to purchase the car at the end of the lease. I'm also going to use the 3-year T-bill rate as an interest rate -- any higher rate would only make the lease a better deal. So that makes the Excel Formula for the present value of your payments: =PV(0.81/1200, 35, -329, -28200*0.51)+1979 = $27401.57. Don't believe me about the interest rate? =PV(1.9/1200, 35, -329, -28200*0.51)+1979 = $26779.41. =PV(6.5/1200, 35, -329, -28200*0.51)+1979 = $24346.96. The current cash incentive on the same car is $500. So even if you add in the incidentals of leasing, the lease is still the better deal. So if I were to buy that car today, I'd take the lease rather than paying cash outright. Real world. Real Math. Right now. -- Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required) You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Why pre-ordering is dangerous (and often stupid)
On 6/30/2011 8:29 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2011-06-30 19:57 , Mike Benveniste wrote: On 6/30/2011 6:29 PM, Alan Browne wrote: My point of reference was this paragraph: " Prove it. Give me an actual case that shows end value better in a lease vs. an outright purchase for a car at a given price. Don't forget all the T&C's and the end states." I was referring to the last sentence obviously. You also said 'I didn't say end value, but end "state".' You said both. I did take into account all possible end states. Wrong. He's had use of the car for three years at a lower cost and at less risk than if he had bought it. He has nothing in hand. 0. Wrong again. Using your figures, he has $7200 that he hasn't had to pay to the finance company. Is (600-400)*36 that hard to compute? You conveniently deleted the other paragraph of course which shows a much lower overall cost of using a car. I guess that was inconvenient, huh? Let's run some numbers, shall we? I'll assume a loan rate of 6.5%, since that's what my bank is quoting today. That means he financed $30,665. After 36 payments, he has paid $21,600 and stills owe just under $13,000. Now, let's assume he leased the car instead, and stuck that extra $200 in the bank at _zero_ interest. After 36 months, he now has $7200 in the bank. Looking at residual values of $30,000 cars, we see that after three years one needs to pay between 50 and 55% to buy the car at the end of the lease. Let's use the higher figure, meaning he'll have to shell out $16,866. His net cost, less the $7200 you banked, is $9,666. But let's assume that he got a 1.9% promotional rate from the car dealer instead. Now he financed $34317 and at the end of three years he owes just over $13,500. The buyout on the car is now up to $18,874, meaning a net cost of $11,674. Just shift those variables around to make your point and cherry pick differential interest rates. Bravo. Anyone can do that - doesn't make for a real world case though. In other words, _using your own numbers_, No. Using numbers you plugged in after the fact to make whatever point you like. he would have been better off leasing even if he got a bargain rate. The inconvenient truth is that he may have been a rube for turning in the car, but not for leasing in the first place. The effective interest rate on your hypothetical lease is 0.0%. Fact is, since a car loses so much value in the first few years, but still provides reliable transportation for 10, one is a fool not to take advantage of the low cost of the last 5 years. Which one can still do with a lease. Which part of that don't you understand? Since I turned in that Nissan, I've owned exactly two cars. One I purchased in 1994 on a 0.9% finance deal. The other I purchased in 2003 for cash. But I looked at and rejected lease deals each time. No, not understanding basic finance makes one a rube. So you're a rube. Too bad. Reduced to name calling, Alan? Really thin skinned I guess. Just don't reply if you don't like it. Face the facts. There is no lease that where you will come out ahead when you option to buy a car for the long term. It goes against the cost base that the leasing co. faces. They have to pay for all the costs that occur when you decide not buy the car in the end. It is a more expensive model of doing business - customer always pays for that - up front. Buy a car the way I buy it and there is no lease that can touch it. You are forgetting financial facts. If you finance a car the value of the vehicle after three years is usually less than the balance due on your loan.The negative value will vary with the interest rate. If you lease a car you are getting interest free use on the residual. At the end of the lease period you can then decide if you want to keep the car. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. The objection here is to the essence of your comment that it never makes sense to lease. -- Peter |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Why pre-ordering is dangerous (and often stupid)
On 2011-06-30 22:04 , Mike Benveniste wrote:
On 6/30/2011 8:29 PM, Alan Browne wrote: Just shift those variables around to make your point and cherry pick differential interest rates. Bravo. Anyone can do that - doesn't make for a real world case though. I supplied real world numbers. Here are my sources: http://www.cars.com/go/alg/index.jsp http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...es/Offers.aspx http://www.bankrate.com/financing/ra...massachusetts/ I used Microsoft Excel's PV function to determine the original amount financed, based on a 60-month loan with a payment of $600 per month. The cars I chose to look at were the Audi A4 and Toyota Camry. Both are excellent cars with high residual value. I assumed the highest cost to buy at the end of the lease I could, and also assumed zero interest earned. In short, I gave your numbers the best possible chance. If I wanted to cook the books, I could have chosen a car like the Buick Lucerne with a 36-month residual percentage of 38%. I get a 0.25% discount at Salem Five, resulting in 6.49%. If you care to choose a different interest rate for the loan, I'll run those numbers as well. If _you_ didn't supply real world numbers, whose fault is that? Face the facts. There is no lease that where you will come out ahead when you option to buy a car for the long term. My own case was real world. I have the papers to prove it. But I'll give you another example from today. Toyota has a lease deal on Toyota Highlander at $329 a month for 36 months, $1,979 due at signing. I'm going to assume that's for the least expensive model -- any other assumptions would only make the lease a better deal. According to cars.com, MSRP on that car is 28,200. Next, I'm going to compute the present value of your predicted cash flows for that lease. You pay $1979 at signing, which includes the first month lease payment. You then pay $329 per month for 35 months. Finally, using the cars.com figure, you pay $14382 to purchase the car at the end of the lease. I'm also going to use the 3-year T-bill rate as an interest rate -- any higher rate would only make the lease a better deal. So that makes the Excel Formula for the present value of your payments: =PV(0.81/1200, 35, -329, -28200*0.51)+1979 = $27401.57. Don't believe me about the interest rate? =PV(1.9/1200, 35, -329, -28200*0.51)+1979 = $26779.41. =PV(6.5/1200, 35, -329, -28200*0.51)+1979 = $24346.96. The current cash incentive on the same car is $500. So even if you add in the incidentals of leasing, the lease is still the better deal. So if I were to buy that car today, I'd take the lease rather than paying cash outright. Real world. Real Math. Right now. Real cherry picking. I'm not sifting through your data, validating it and then cherry picking the counter part. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Why pre-ordering is dangerous (and often stupid)
On 7/1/2011 9:51 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
Real cherry picking. I'm not sifting through your data, validating it and then cherry picking the counter part. Looking back up the thread, I see that you asked for _an_ actual case, and your claim is that no such cases exist. If you don't want people to cherry pick, why did you ask for cherries? The point is that cherries exist. So do lease deals which are financially better than conventional financing or buying outright. They exist because car dealers know that most lessee's _won't_ exercise their option, giving the dealer additional profit down the road by getting the lessee back into the showroom. That creates an an arbitrage opportunity for those who _are_ willing to buy at the end of a lease. There's no need to cherry pick the "counter part." No one here is claiming that leasing is always better. Most lease deal _aren't_ better, nor is leasing right for everyone. But until one actually runs the numbers, that person is risking leaving money on the table. -- Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Why pre-ordering is dangerous (and often stupid)
On 2011-07-01 11:41 , Michael Benveniste wrote:
On 7/1/2011 9:51 AM, Alan Browne wrote: Real cherry picking. I'm not sifting through your data, validating it and then cherry picking the counter part. Looking back up the thread, I see that you asked for _an_ actual case, and your claim is that no such cases exist. If you don't want people to cherry pick, why did you ask for cherries? The real fact is that by constraining a case, picking numbers you can make the case for leasing as long as the buyer does not consider the longer term cost of ownership. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Why pre-ordering is dangerous (and often stupid)
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:52:09 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
The real fact is that by constraining a case, picking numbers you can make the case for leasing as long as the buyer does not consider the longer term cost of ownership. I suppose I could have, but I didn't. 1 presented numbers which did consider the longer term cost of ownership by including the buy out. But you are apparently unable or unwilling to do the math yourself, or even accept that one _can_ and often _should_ buy the car at the end of the lease. That's fine with me. After all, when you and others leave money on the table, it isn't coming out of my pocket. -- Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required) Amo conventum instituti. -- Artifex Hannibal |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Why pre-ordering is dangerous (and often stupid)
On 7/1/11 10:13 AM, Michael Benveniste wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:52:09 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: The real fact is that by constraining a case, picking numbers you can make the case for leasing as long as the buyer does not consider the longer term cost of ownership. I suppose I could have, but I didn't. 1 presented numbers which did consider the longer term cost of ownership by including the buy out. But you are apparently unable or unwilling to do the math yourself, or even accept that one _can_ and often _should_ buy the car at the end of the lease. That's fine with me. After all, when you and others leave money on the table, it isn't coming out of my pocket. Alan has made his case, and he absolutely can not be proven in slight error, much less flat out wrong...... |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Why pre-ordering is dangerous (and often stupid)
On 7/1/11 4:51 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 6/30/2011 8:29 PM, Alan Browne wrote: On 2011-06-30 19:57 , Mike Benveniste wrote: On 6/30/2011 6:29 PM, Alan Browne wrote: My point of reference was this paragraph: " Prove it. Give me an actual case that shows end value better in a lease vs. an outright purchase for a car at a given price. Don't forget all the T&C's and the end states." I was referring to the last sentence obviously. You also said 'I didn't say end value, but end "state".' You said both. I did take into account all possible end states. Wrong. He's had use of the car for three years at a lower cost and at less risk than if he had bought it. He has nothing in hand. 0. Wrong again. Using your figures, he has $7200 that he hasn't had to pay to the finance company. Is (600-400)*36 that hard to compute? You conveniently deleted the other paragraph of course which shows a much lower overall cost of using a car. I guess that was inconvenient, huh? Let's run some numbers, shall we? I'll assume a loan rate of 6.5%, since that's what my bank is quoting today. That means he financed $30,665. After 36 payments, he has paid $21,600 and stills owe just under $13,000. Now, let's assume he leased the car instead, and stuck that extra $200 in the bank at _zero_ interest. After 36 months, he now has $7200 in the bank. Looking at residual values of $30,000 cars, we see that after three years one needs to pay between 50 and 55% to buy the car at the end of the lease. Let's use the higher figure, meaning he'll have to shell out $16,866. His net cost, less the $7200 you banked, is $9,666. But let's assume that he got a 1.9% promotional rate from the car dealer instead. Now he financed $34317 and at the end of three years he owes just over $13,500. The buyout on the car is now up to $18,874, meaning a net cost of $11,674. Just shift those variables around to make your point and cherry pick differential interest rates. Bravo. Anyone can do that - doesn't make for a real world case though. In other words, _using your own numbers_, No. Using numbers you plugged in after the fact to make whatever point you like. he would have been better off leasing even if he got a bargain rate. The inconvenient truth is that he may have been a rube for turning in the car, but not for leasing in the first place. The effective interest rate on your hypothetical lease is 0.0%. Fact is, since a car loses so much value in the first few years, but still provides reliable transportation for 10, one is a fool not to take advantage of the low cost of the last 5 years. Which one can still do with a lease. Which part of that don't you understand? Since I turned in that Nissan, I've owned exactly two cars. One I purchased in 1994 on a 0.9% finance deal. The other I purchased in 2003 for cash. But I looked at and rejected lease deals each time. No, not understanding basic finance makes one a rube. So you're a rube. Too bad. Reduced to name calling, Alan? Really thin skinned I guess. Just don't reply if you don't like it. Face the facts. There is no lease that where you will come out ahead when you option to buy a car for the long term. It goes against the cost base that the leasing co. faces. They have to pay for all the costs that occur when you decide not buy the car in the end. It is a more expensive model of doing business - customer always pays for that - up front. Buy a car the way I buy it and there is no lease that can touch it. You are forgetting financial facts. If you finance a car the value of the vehicle after three years is usually less than the balance due on your loan.The negative value will vary with the interest rate. If you lease a car you are getting interest free use on the residual. At the end of the lease period you can then decide if you want to keep the car. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. The objection here is to the essence of your comment that it never makes sense to lease. Well put. Clearly, it'd be a cold day in Belize when it would make sense for Alan to lease. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|