I agree.

 

I second that!

 

It's 2008.You need to wait till 2010 and see what's going on out there to get any accurate info regarding your situation....OR just buy the car now to avoid any real or imagined issues you might have in 2 years.Mine is up in 2012,btw.

 

Once you negotiate the sale price for the lease and drive you car for 2-3 yrs (Cheap payment)

I understand that you can re-negotiate the lease end residual price.

which means that you will be able to buy your same car for all around less than in would take to buy new and you have owned it since new.


not bad money sense.

 

Are you kidding me? We're talking about a depreciating asset vs. an appreciating asset (unless you bought your house at the wrong time for too much money). That is not the same comparison.

Now, on to other sub-topics:

I got my lease through Fifth Third bank back in April and the terms were much better than through GM (mostly b/c they had a higher residual value ~25k after 4 years and 60k miles). The way I see it, the Vette won't be worth 25k in 4 years (unless the market really changes). So, I can let her go and buy one used for less, and I make out well or I can renegotiate and I made out well. Win - win. Anyways, I'd check with them. All dealers should work with third party leasing agencies/banks.

I lease for a few reasons. 1) I like to change cars every 3 - 4 years and this is an easy way to do so without the hassle of having to sell your cars and from experience, has been cheaper. If you add up your lease payments over 3 - 4 years versus your car payments and then add in or subtract the amount you still owe to the sales price when you sell, leasing basically is always less costly. 2) I always get them to throw in free maintenance for the life of the lease and my cars are always under warranty. 3) I own my own business and deduct a portion of both leases as expenses. 4) Leasing is a hedge. I have a fixed payment for x years. I know that won't change. When you purchase, you have no guarantee as to what the car will be worth when you sell it. This happened with the H3 we leased. If we had bought it back in Jan instead of leased it, we would have been screwed b/c it wouldn't be worth much now. With the lease, we have low payments and we can walk away when the lease is up. The fact that the vehicle is worth less than the residual is not my problem.

Oh, and you can always get out of a lease. It may cost you a little bit, but there are rarely penalties, they just figure what it's worth on trade minus what you've "paid off". It's best to find out what it would cost and then find a private party to buy it from you. The dealership will then buy it from you and sell it to them. I did it with my Infiniti G35 once I was sick of it.

 

IMO it makes more sense to find a car you can afford and buy it outright.

 

This whole argument about not buying a "depreciating asset" is hogwash.

I wonder if these same people, who say they don't buy "depreciating assets" but instead lease them, lease their underwear and socks too.

You don't buy a car, pay for it, you just pay rent on a car month in and month out. And then when you get done renting that one, you rent another. Makes a lot of sense to me.

If you are leasing thru your business, that may be different. But for many, if not most people leasing, all that has really happened there, is an unaffordable car is now affordable to those who can't really afford them.

As long as the leasing companies can count on your monthly rent payment, for the rest of your driving life, then they have you right where they want you.

Leasing, (I call it renting), good or bad, has at it's core, the primary purpose of allowing people to drive cars which would normally be outside of their means.

 

You kidding me? If I could I would, but a) the cost of your socks and underwear is too low for anyone to finance and not worth the trouble and b) they have no residual value after they've been used for 3 - 4 years.

Leasing makes sense to many who only plan on keeping an item for 2 - 4 years that will still be valuable at the end of that term.

 

That comment was really educated

 

Clearly not analogous.....and besides I dont think anyody would want my socks and underwear back after Ive worn them for a day let alone 48-60 months...

 

i'm not a trader,but i checked out ball park figures for a porsche...they are still happy to lease.....would prefer gm get back in lease business by 2010......the original hope was the c7 would appear in 2010 as my lease expired.

 

You have asked this question twice now. No, nobody is "kidding" you.

The point being made is, this talk about not purchasing depreciating assets and instead renting them, is just talk.

My socks and underwear may not be worth anything to anyone else, but they are still worth something to me. It will be a while before they depreciate down to nothing.

Why spend money every single month "renting" a new pair of drawers, or socks, when I can buy a pair and be done with it, not have to lbuy any more for several months?

If you are wearing a "ShirtaDay" sorry, couldn't resist, then why not buy 7 shirts instead of renting 7?

The only reason would be because you could "rent" nicer shirts than you could afford to buy. And of course everyone you saw would say "nice shirt".

However, if you buy quality, then those 7 you bought, would still be good well beyond the lease period of the 7 you rented, and there would be no need to rent 7 new shirts.

Since my car will always be of use to me and of value to me, and should never depreciate all the way down to nothing, it will save me money to keep it for as long as I can once I purchase it.

All leasing does is guarantee that I will owe someone every single solitary month that car is in my possession, And after that, I will owe someone else because the cycle starts all over again.

It may. But 2-4 years later, that person's cycle of car payment starts again.

If you don't mind having a car payment every single solitary month, with no end in sight, and nothing to look forward to but starting the cycle over again, then leasing is the way to go.

Especially if you like to drive a new car every 24 months or so. However keep in mind, some people leased Vettes for 4-5 yrears.

That trade off of having a brand new car in exchange for a never ending car payment, will be worth it for some, and not worth it for others.

 

Actually, thats part of the point.

If you can still wear them after 48-60 months, then no pressing need to replace them with new ones.

Whereas had you leased them, you'd be looking at having to lease new socks and underwear, whether you needed them or not.

But seriously, the analogy is valid in that, those items, along with your shoes, suits, shirts, etc. all depreciate and are all "depreciating assets". But we don't lease those, do we?

If someone came to you and said "Look, I am going to lease you your underwear on a monthly basis for x number of dollars per month. At the end of the year, you bring it back and we will start with another lease agreement to cover the next year."

Pretty soon, you would realize, depending upon how hard you are on socks underwear, that it made more sense to just buy it outright and not have a monthly underwear bill.

 

Yeah but I dont want them....

 

That's just another reason why people don't lease socks or underwear.

As mentioned, leasing is great if you don't want to keep your car for eternity and if you want to trade up every 2 - 4 years. I will have a new car every 3 - 4 years whether I lease or buy b/c I enjoy it and I'm willing to pay for it. Since that is the case, leasing is cheaper than buying and then selling every 3 - 4 years.

That's the same reason I buy new shirts or pants. While they may still work after 4 or even 10 years, I like to wear the latest styles and therefore choose to purchase new clothes. And no, I wouldn't lease clothes b/c they have little to no residual value after 3 - 4 years and nobody's going to finance a $100 pair of jeans. Then you'd have to insure them, etc.

 

That's where you're wrong. If someone came to me and said I'm willing to lease you this pair of socks, and every pair of your socks, which cost let's say $4 each for the price of $0.04167/month for 48 months, I'd take that deal. After 4 years I'd have only paid $2 and I'd be able to get new socks. That's how it is with a lease on a corvette. It's not like you pay the full purchase price of the vehicle over 4 years and then start over again.

 

leasing is not for everyone, obviously. But it still makes sense if you use it for what it is.

1. New car every 2-3 years.
2. No warranty issues.
3. Paying lower payment vs. higher payment for financed car if didnt buy out.

A lot of us sell our cars every 2-4 year. IF you are not one of these people and have bought your car outright, this does not apply. Cars depreciate fast and if one finances, they are likely to be upside down at time of sale (2-4 years) if they didnt put a very large down payment.

I personally dont want my car in 3-4 years. I get bored of the same car and I drive it hard. I cant wait to give the cars back and get another one to beat up. Its a daily driver. Its not a garage queen.

 

 

I love it when people say "leasing is for people that cannot afford to buy a vette". What an arrogant statement.

The guy in the lease is driving the same car as you only paying significantly less in monthly payments and can walk away completely in only 36 months without the hassle of trying to get whatever risidual is left. This idea that if you cannot pay cash or traditionally finance a vette, you should not be driving one, is elitist.

I for one think Paul Getty had it right:

If It Appreciates, Buy It. If It Depreciates, Lease It

Still believe in Paul Getty

 

If you tend to flip your cars after only 24-36 months, leasing might be the way to go.

But if you don't have to have a new car that frequently, and tend to drive them for a while, and paid cash or want a reprieve from a car payment, then it isn't.