I give up. You're brilliant. You know everything about financing. Even more than @CaptainAmerica who has an MBA. I bow to your superior knowledge and debate talent.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Win or Lose (Lease / Rent vs Buy)
- Thread starter RustySpork
- Start date
I give up. You're brilliant. You know everything about financing. Even more than @CaptainAmerica who has an MBA. I bow to your superior knowledge and debate talent.
Who said anything about a 4% APR? That's the second time you've mentioned it, but you're the only one who has. Don't forget the Acura RSX, that was an example I used against your leasing is better argument too.
21stamps
Well-Known Member
.
LMAO that was a typo. 2.4% which is the same number I've used ever since.
flynnibus
Premium Member
You are comparing a lease vs a conventional 4-5 year loan. You are comparing apples and peaches. If you want to say its a 36month loan... then you need to face the fact the leasee has only had an outlay of about 1/5th that the buyer has. Yes the buyer has residual value... but it's not realized value till they sell. You aren't comparing the same thing.
The car's value is not the only thing you need to account for.. and that's where your ponzi scheme and explaination falls apart. The fact the leasee doesn't have a car at the end is meaningless... because neither do if you want to realize the value in that car. You want to have your cake and eat it too... claiming you have the value from the car and the car at the same time without recognizing your liability as negative value against that car.
Maybe this logic works when you talk fast to one of your buddies.. but it doesn't fly here.
And what's the price of tea in china? This is an independent criteria that means nothing to the discussion.
You need reading lessons. The 20% number was included as a 'typical' number.. followed up by TWO specific examples using real numbers from Edmunds that proved 20% was actually in the band... not too good, not too bad. The cites were for a 2017 porsche (to address your 'high value car' example) and a ford fusion to address the far more average scenario.
This doesn't even make sense to the text quoted.
Because unlike your 'free energy' buying guidance... you need to keep contributing more to convert that car into a new equivalent or better. You shun another model as 'burning money'... then preach how continual transactions is better... which throws the highest percentage of money away out of any model.
You really should rethink the guidance someone gave you and what your true principles you are trying to follow are. If you just want a new car every 3 years... that's fine.. but its probably the biggest bonefire of money you can come up with.
I'm comparing it to a simple interest loan. It's realized when they sell which includes trading. That's what I have said all along.
Ponzi scheme? That's a hoot. You're making some nice assumptions there, which are of course false. That's nice.
Oh it does, because it causes your story to fall apart. If you total the car, what happens?
You gave two numbers that math calculated at 15% even though you claimed 20%.
Of course not because if you admit that, you'll be wrong.
You're really stuck on this free energy stuff. I said both models burned money, try paying attention.
Sure it is.
flynnibus
Premium Member
No, you are taking $1, burning it.. then throwing 3 more in.. then burning 1 of those... and repeating... but arguing you only burned $1 the whole time and ignoring you've put far more in the pile than your first $4
Where did I ever say that I only burned $1 the whole time? Please show me.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Somewhere a car sales man is enjoying a Mai Tai right now at @RustySpork 's expense...
Nice diversion, but of course they are. Just like they did when you bought a car.
flynnibus
Premium Member
When you tried to argue you had money AND a car while the leasee had no car. You said the leasee doesn't have a car... but your buyer has a car AND realized the residual value of their car (because you claim the net of the sale and loan balance).
You can't have it both ways... you either have a car with unrealized value and are down a bunch of cash.. or you sold the car and have the net value. You don't have the cash AND car... unless you've burnt another dollar on another trade.
What? You're not even close. I never said the leasee didn't have the car. I said the leasee couldn't keep the car unless they bought it at the end of the lease. I also never said that you didn't burn any more on trade. You've made all that up.
flynnibus
Premium Member
No, it's called reality raining on your parade.
Yeah, uhh.. That's what it is. If you say so.
You sure showed me with your telling me I'm wrong without any facts or data or evidence what so ever. Nice work!
flynnibus
Premium Member
The only one who hasn't seen the facts is you @RustySpork
Let us know when you return to our planet... until then.. I think we've covered this 4x over already. We're done here.
Let us know when you return to our planet... until then.. I think we've covered this 4x over already. We're done here.
I see the facts, let me lay a couple of them out for you.
Fact #1: You say lots of things, and those things "are true" simply because you say so.
Fact #2: You distort and divert to avoid providing evidence of your claims when challenged.
Fact #3: You continue to claim that I'm wrong without evidence.
Fact #4: You'll continue to try to control the conversation by replying and telling me I'm wrong, or crazy, or whatever so you can be "right".
contrariwise
Well-Known Member
You mean "lessee".
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
I may have missed this but I haven't seen any discussion beyond the initial lease period. The equation doesn't stop at 36 months. What does our theoretical consumer do when they return the vehicle at the end of the lease period? Do they begin using public transportation at no additional cost or do they repeat the lease cycle with another vehicle? Personally, I tend to buy vehicles with high resale value and keep them for 7-8 years while putting 15K-25K miles a year on them. The equivalent of three 36 month lease terms would be a far more expensive proposition for me. Even when I reduce ownership duration to 5-6 years, the equivalent two leasing cycles plus excessive mileage charges still works out to more than outright purchase. Nor did I calculate any additional savings by exercising the purchase option at the end of the first lease cycle.
Last edited:
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Yea, well I'm starting to scare the hell out of 70 years old. I can't even order a 3 minute egg anymore unless I pay in advance. Leasing is the best alternative for me. The depreciation of a brand new car right after you leave the new car lot is higher then what it would cost me to do a new and different lease. I would, like I always did, be tempted to hang on to my "owned" car longer then was fiscally wise in an effort to "save" more money and eventually blow it just doing repairs needed to maintain any value at all. Leasing a car for 3 years with a 3 year bumper to bumper warrantee and a smaller monthly payment then would be needed if I bought, is the way for me to go. At the end of three years, if I am still able to drive, I get a brand new car to drive for 3 years with only a leasing fee. What I am basically paying in lease payments is very close to what the depreciation amount will be over those 3 years.
The, so called, "equity" is only the amount that the dealer will actually give you or what you can get on a straight sale and is based on the actual condition of the car. All the "Blue Books" in the world are only ballparking the value. Most of the time you get much less then what those lists tell you the cars are worth. It boils down to what the car is worth to the people that you're selling it too or trading it for.
The, so called, "equity" is only the amount that the dealer will actually give you or what you can get on a straight sale and is based on the actual condition of the car. All the "Blue Books" in the world are only ballparking the value. Most of the time you get much less then what those lists tell you the cars are worth. It boils down to what the car is worth to the people that you're selling it too or trading it for.