Alfa Romeo Stelvio Forum banner

61 - 80 of 107 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,675 Posts
Please tell me you are an accountant or financial planner....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,397 Posts
Please tell me where you get 3% guaranteed return, in a market where you quote lease/borrow rates at close to zero.
Maybe the question should be, guaranteed by who?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Please tell me you are an accountant or financial planner....
Lol look everyone has a way their more comfortable with and thats totally great.

Not trying to crap on yours just showing how mine works in comparison.


Please tell me where you get 3% guaranteed return, in a market where you quote lease/borrow rates at close to zero.
Maybe the question should be, guaranteed by who?
Well even in the lowest interest rate environment in the world you can get a 1.36% savings account today. A year ago they were over 3%. A year before 4%. Average it over 30 years and thats at least 2.5% guaranteed.

Barely keeping up with inflation but better than nothing.

Granted id much prefer safe investing as opposed to guaranteed returns if talking a 30 year outlook and assuming i completely passive investing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,397 Posts
Not to nit pick, but a year ago they were barely over 2; to get close to 3 required a 5 year cd.
"Average it over 30 years" haha past 30 or future 30? Do you have a crystal ball?
As the disclaimer goes, past results may not be indicative of future results, and having paid attention to this kind of stuff for close to forty years, I'd say that has never been more true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
@bhvrdr, like I said above, using your specific lease example cherry picks key pieces of data (that are, indeed, important) that make it appear a lease is better than buying (in many cases?). Seems you got a great deal and that's great. But the fact that you did not address certain lease-specific costs (or at least potential costs) that are not present when buying AND less control of the process (compared to a buyer) that could result in lease-specific costs distorts the lease vs. buy argument a bit. I mention several examples above to include vehicle damage insp, mileage penalty, and so on. What I did not include is the buyer's option to sell privately instead of trading in, which would almost certainly bring in more (perhaps much more---depends on buyer) than trading in. I realize this costs more time vs. trading in (and time = $), but would still be financially advantageous to some owners. While the buyer has to deal with excessive mileage and damage, etc...too, only the buyer controls the timing and place if the buyer decides to sell privately or trade in. Buyer decides where to get repairs done (cheaper than dealer cost for same---or their vendor buddy), detailing (if any), etc... Oh, and mods. Lessee prob has to remove them at turn in to restore to OEMish state---partial sunk cost (sure, possible resell on Ebay, maybe). Whereas an owner gets to potentially leverage these for a small bump in value---especially if selling privately to the right buyer.

I'm not saying buying is better. I'm saying it depends on indiv circumstances. I think we all agree on that. If we all agree that in general (I realize some specific deals do not fit these):

1. Customer is going to pay for depreciation one way or the other. It's a depreciating asset either way and depreciation is independent of buying vs. leasing.
2. From a price perspective, a well-informed and aggressive consumer could prob do equally well leasing vs buying, and could invest any savings accordingly.
3. The entire car finance/lease company industry did not structure leases to put themselves out of business---get it wrong too often (overestimate residuals for example), upside down, you're fired.

Then it really comes down to the level of control a buyer has over a lessee, which could be a big deal for some, including me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Not to nit pick, but a year ago they were barely over 2; to get close to 3 required a 5 year cd.
"Average it over 30 years" haha past 30 or future 30? Do you have a crystal ball?
As the disclaimer goes, past results may not be indicative of future results, and having paid attention to this kind of stuff for close to forty years, I'd say that has never been more true.

Thats fair hehe. Although my only rebuttal is that if interest rates stay this way for the next 30 years and we cant get guaranteed returns better than now over the next 30 years then we have more to worry about then new cars ;)

@bhvrdr, like I said above, using your specific lease example cherry picks key pieces of data (that are, indeed, important) that make it appear a lease is better than buying (in many cases?). Seems you got a great deal and that's great. But the fact that you did not address certain lease-specific costs (or at least potential costs) that are not present when buying AND less control of the process (compared to a buyer) that could result in lease-specific costs distorts the lease vs. buy argument a bit. I mention several examples above to include vehicle damage insp, mileage penalty, and so on. What I did not include is the buyer's option to sell privately instead of trading in, which would almost certainly bring in more (perhaps much more---depends on buyer) than trading in. I realize this costs more time vs. trading in (and time = $), but would still be financially advantageous to some owners. While the buyer has to deal with excessive mileage and damage, etc...too, only the buyer controls the timing and place if the buyer decides to sell privately or trade in. Buyer decides where to get repairs done (cheaper than dealer cost for same---or their vendor buddy), detailing (if any), etc... Oh, and mods. Lessee prob has to remove them at turn in to restore to OEMish state---partial sunk cost (sure, possible resell on Ebay, maybe). Whereas an owner gets to potentially leverage these for a small bump in value---especially if selling privately to the right buyer.

I'm not saying buying is better. I'm saying it depends on indiv circumstances. I think we all agree on that. If we all agree that in general (I realize some specific deals do not fit these):

1. Customer is going to pay for depreciation one way or the other. It's a depreciating asset either way and depreciation is independent of buying vs. leasing.
2. From a price perspective, a well-informed and aggressive consumer could prob do equally well leasing vs buying, and could invest any savings accordingly.
3. The entire car finance/lease company industry did not structure leases to put themselves out of business---get it wrong too often (overestimate residuals for example), upside down, you're fired.

Then it really comes down to the level of control a buyer has over a lessee, which could be a big deal for some, including me.
I do agree one is not best for everyone but to address your specific points.

1. I nitpicked the numbers in the buyers case benefit assuming all their payments are at zero percent interest.

2. For $500 total over 3 years i purchase excess wear coverage. Again this covers you for 7 grand in damages. I can return my car with bald tires, significant dents, and curbed rims and not be charged a dime.

3. Mileage overages affect the value of the vehicle whether a buyer or leasee. A three year old giulia with 90k miles on it is worth very little. True though if i put on 90k miles a year id have a prius commuter.

4. Leasees can also sell their car privately. You simply do the lease buyout and sell it. No penalty for that.

5. I absolutely agree that not all leases are going to be as good as the stelvio and giulia. Those just happen to be the cars we are talking about and they are lease hackable cars. You're always going to find lease hacks. Giulias and stelvios for 400 per month sign and drive, toyota Tacomas last month for $240 per month sign and drive etc. Youre right not all cars lease out well. Not all cars purchase well either. Some give discounts, others not.

Rule of thumb with leasing coming out well ahead of depreciation is 1% rule.

If your payment is less than 1% of MSRP you are likely to do well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,397 Posts
Check interest rates in Japan for the last 20.
And Europe, more recent negative rate history.
A lot of stuff doesnt make sense, but .... whodathunk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Thats fair hehe. Although my only rebuttal is that if interest rates stay this way for the next 30 years and we cant get guaranteed returns better than now over the next 30 years then we have more to worry about then new cars ;)



I do agree one is not best for everyone but to address your specific points.

1. I nitpicked the numbers in the buyers case benefit assuming all their payments are at zero percent interest.

2. For $500 total over 3 years i purchase excess wear coverage. Again this covers you for 7 grand in damages. I can return my car with bald tires, significant dents, and curbed rims and not be charged a dime.

3. Mileage overages affect the value of the vehicle whether a buyer or leasee. A three year old giulia with 90k miles on it is worth very little. True though if i put on 90k miles a year id have a prius commuter.

4. Leasees can also sell their car privately. You simply do the lease buyout and sell it. No penalty for that.

5. I absolutely agree that not all leases are going to be as good as the stelvio and giulia. Those just happen to be the cars we are talking about and they are lease hackable cars. You're always going to find lease hacks. Giulias and stelvios for 400 per month sign and drive, toyota Tacomas last month for $240 per month sign and drive etc. Youre right not all cars lease out well. Not all cars purchase well either. Some give discounts, others not.

Rule of thumb with leasing coming out well ahead of depreciation is 1% rule.

If your payment is less than 1% of MSRP you are likely to do well.
Well, I think you are totally missing my point about control. Owners have a lot, lessees don't, not much anyway. (note this is a different dimension from cost since we seem to agree that buyers and lesees can do about equally well, or not, based on market timing and type of vehicle). Let me explain by using a couple of your examples.

1. Excess wear coverage. A quick internet search tells me to not ever get this b/c there are so many exclusions and limitations--and horror stories of denied claims. Kind of like the huge scam of Car Shield for repairs. Ever see their claims ratings by policy owners? 5 min on internet is all you need to see---a dumpster fire. Back to wear/tear policies. For example: from Auto Nation and Toyota Financial: “Plan does not cover excess mileage.” Wait, what? So you exceed your stingy industry-determined mileage limits (10-12K, 15k rare/yr) and void your coverage. Lol. Torpedos your argument for coverage actually working if you violate another part of the lease agreement. Again, loss of control/freedom that buyers don't face.

2. If one were to buy their car at lease turn in, then turn around and sell it, seems that defeats the initial benefits of leasing in the first place (unless this is written in the contract up front which will change the calculus a bit for the lease company, which may hedge by calculating residuals a bit differently to their advantage). If it's not in your lease contract and you have to nego all over again, what do you think the dealer is gonna do? That's right, some clawback time. Don't like their price, then no sale (and no private sale for you later). Also, from Fidelity Car Warranty excess wear/tear coverage policy: "you must not exercise the purchase option.” Voids the excess wear coverage. Again, loss of control independent of initial cost in these cases that owners don't have to deal with.

3. High mileage advantages the buyer in the long run---if the buyer keeps the car (compared to equivalent miles put on a leased vehicle). Nice try with the unicorn 3 yr old and 90k miles Giulia example though. Yea, that's pretty normal.

4. You forgot my mods point above. That stuff has all got to be removed at lease turn in or pay $$$. Perhaps a sunk cost for a lesee, but not for the buyer who could parlay these into at least a small value bump during a private sale to the right buyer.

Again, not talking cost anymore, am talking control of events/processes. The buyer keeps control, the lessee is much more vulnerable to someone else's decision-making (whether to honor a wear/tear claim for guys like you or just fair vs excess wear and tear penalties for someone with no coverage, whether to waive early lease turn in penalty, mods, price to buy at lease turn in--if not in original contract).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
@bhvrdr, like I said above, using your specific lease example cherry picks key pieces of data (that are, indeed, important) that make it appear a lease is better than buying (in many cases?). Seems you got a great deal and that's great. But the fact that you did not address certain lease-specific costs (or at least potential costs) that are not present when buying AND less control of the process (compared to a buyer) that could result in lease-specific costs distorts the lease vs. buy argument a bit. I mention several examples above to include vehicle damage insp, mileage penalty, and so on. What I did not include is the buyer's option to sell privately instead of trading in, which would almost certainly bring in more (perhaps much more---depends on buyer) than trading in. I realize this costs more time vs. trading in (and time = $), but would still be financially advantageous to some owners. While the buyer has to deal with excessive mileage and damage, etc...too, only the buyer controls the timing and place if the buyer decides to sell privately or trade in. Buyer decides where to get repairs done (cheaper than dealer cost for same---or their vendor buddy), detailing (if any), etc... Oh, and mods. Lessee prob has to remove them at turn in to restore to OEMish state---partial sunk cost (sure, possible resell on Ebay, maybe). Whereas an owner gets to potentially leverage these for a small bump in value---especially if selling privately to the right buyer.

I'm not saying buying is better. I'm saying it depends on indiv circumstances. I think we all agree on that. If we all agree that in general (I realize some specific deals do not fit these):

1. Customer is going to pay for depreciation one way or the other. It's a depreciating asset either way and depreciation is independent of buying vs. leasing.
2. From a price perspective, a well-informed and aggressive consumer could prob do equally well leasing vs buying, and could invest any savings accordingly.
3. The entire car finance/lease company industry did not structure leases to put themselves out of business---get it wrong too often (overestimate residuals for example), upside down, you're fired.

Then it really comes down to the level of control a buyer has over a lessee, which could be a big deal for some, including me.
Well, I think you are totally missing my point about control. Owners have a lot, lessees don't, not much anyway. (note this is a different dimension from cost since we seem to agree that buyers and lesees can do about equally well, or not, based on market timing and type of vehicle). Let me explain by using a couple of your examples.

1. Excess wear coverage. A quick internet search tells me to not ever get this b/c there are so many exclusions and limitations--and horror stories of denied claims. Kind of like the huge scam of Car Shield for repairs. Ever see their claims ratings by policy owners? 5 min on internet is all you need to see---a dumpster fire. Back to wear/tear policies. For example: from Auto Nation and Toyota Financial: “Plan does not cover excess mileage.” Wait, what? So you exceed your stingy industry-determined mileage limits (10-12K, 15k rare/yr) and void your coverage. Lol. Torpedos your argument for coverage actually working if you violate another part of the lease agreement. Again, loss of control/freedom that buyers don't face.

2. If one were to buy their car at lease turn in, then turn around and sell it, seems that defeats the initial benefits of leasing in the first place (unless this is written in the contract up front which will change the calculus a bit for the lease company, which may hedge by calculating residuals a bit differently to their advantage). If it's not in your lease contract and you have to nego all over again, what do you think the dealer is gonna do? That's right, some clawback time. Don't like their price, then no sale (and no private sale for you later). Also, from Fidelity Car Warranty excess wear/tear coverage policy: "you must not exercise the purchase option.” Voids the excess wear coverage. Again, loss of control independent of initial cost in these cases that owners don't have to deal with.

3. High mileage advantages the buyer in the long run---if the buyer keeps the car (compared to equivalent miles put on a leased vehicle). Nice try with the unicorn 3 yr old and 90k miles Giulia example though. Yea, that's pretty normal.

4. You forgot my mods point above. That stuff has all got to be removed at lease turn in or pay $$$. Perhaps a sunk cost for a lesee, but not for the buyer who could parlay these into at least a small value bump during a private sale to the right buyer.

Again, not talking cost anymore, am talking control of events/processes. The buyer keeps control, the lessee is much more vulnerable to someone else's decision-making (whether to honor a wear/tear claim for guys like you or just fair vs excess wear and tear penalties for someone with no coverage, whether to waive early lease turn in penalty, mods, price to buy at lease turn in--if not in original contract).
1. Excess wear and tear covers 7 grand in damage. Period. Excess mileage does not void your coverage. They said it doesnt cover excess mileage. Meaning it doesnt pay the mileage overage for you as excess wear. That would be awesome. It covers dents, worn tires, worn brakes. Ill likely be returning my car at 30k mikes or so with completely worn brakes and tires. No way i could sell it that way but i can turn it in that way.

2. Buyout is written in every open ended lease contract. Its all in your paperwork the day you sign the lease. Of course excess wear policy doesn't kick in if you exercise the lease buyout option because you dont get charged for excess wear OR for excessive mileage if you do a lease buyout. Plenty of control there.

3. I didnt make up the 90k mile scenerio. Viscontiverde said he puts 30k miles a year on his cars. Talk to him about it.

4. Mods generally detract value from a car. I would never sell my car modded and never buy a modded car. That said ill be taking my jb4 off my giulia in 10 minutes it takes to remove and selling it. If i get an axleback id remove that. If youre the type who builds motors and tubs cars, yeah leasing is not for you no doubt.

Again, just pointing out people have illusions leases are somehow significantly restrictive. In reality many of these concerns tend to be exaggerated.

Ive owned about 45 cars and leased about 10 cars and ive only been driving for 25 years or so so believe me i see the value in both buying used cars and in leasing new cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,532 Posts
^ what he said.

Pros and cons to both. Analyze all of them and leasing may surprise you. Personally I have regretted the costs involved with purchasing cars more often than leasing...but then as I have said before, the thought of turning a lease in is insane to me. Trade it or sell it before the lease is up. I always come out ahead that way. Always. So does everyone else I know who does the same. (Which would be most friends and family the same age or younger than me...the old guard all "knows better")

Either way..no reason to feel bad about what you did, or plan on doing to have the car you want to drive in your driveway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
1. Excess wear and tear covers 7 grand in damage. Period. Excess mileage does not void your coverage. They said it doesnt cover excess mileage. Meaning it doesnt pay the mileage overage for you as excess wear. That would be awesome. It covers dents, worn tires, worn brakes. Ill likely be returning my car at 30k mikes or so with completely worn brakes and tires. No way i could sell it that way but i can turn it in that way.

2. Buyout is written in every open ended lease contract. Its all in your paperwork the day you sign the lease. Of course excess wear policy doesn't kick in if you exercise the lease buyout option because you dont get charged for excess wear OR for excessive mileage if you do a lease buyout. Plenty of control there.

3. I didnt make up the 90k mile scenerio. Viscontiverde said he puts 30k miles a year on his cars. Talk to him about it.

4. Mods generally detract value from a car. I would never sell my car modded and never buy a modded car. That said ill be taking my jb4 off my giulia in 10 minutes it takes to remove and selling it. If i get an axleback id remove that. If youre the type who builds motors and tubs cars, yeah leasing is not for you no doubt.

Again, just pointing out people have illusions leases are somehow significantly restrictive. In reality many of these concerns tend to be exaggerated.

Ive owned about 45 cars and leased about 10 cars and ive only been driving for 25 years or so so believe me i see the value in both buying used cars and in leasing new cars.
So you exercise the buy out and are, in theory anyway, in the same boat as a buyer (for any future private sale or to just keep it), then are still out the cost of buying the excess wear policy. So, to become an owner in this case costs you more $$. Orig buyers don't have this problem.

90k Giulia example. I realize it did not come from you orig. Was just making the point that in the long run, mileage favors the buyer who keeps the car.
Maybe I read it the excess mileage voiding wear/tear/damage coverage incorrectly, but from an insurance actuarial perspective, excessive mileage sure as heck increases the likelihood of more damage, wear and tear to many parts of the car.
Mods: note I was careful to say private sale to the right buyer might deliver a slight value bump. More importantly, the buyer gets to choose what stays on or comes off. Lesees don't have this option---no control.

Sure, for many (most?) leases, maybe it works out fine (on the control thing--and potential assoc costs). My point is that if it does work out well for you, you did not make the decision in some aspects for it to work out well for you---the lease company, or wear/tear coverage insurance carrier did in terms of what they approved you were covered for. That's the loss of control I am talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,675 Posts
"Again, not talking cost anymore, am talking control of events/processes. The buyer keeps control, the lessee is much more vulnerable to someone else's decision-making (whether to honor a wear/tear claim for guys like you or just fair vs excess wear and tear penalties for someone with no coverage, whether to waive early lease turn in penalty, mods, price to buy at lease turn in--if not in original contract)".

"So you exercise the buy out and are, in theory anyway, in the same boat as a buyer (for any future private sale or to just keep it), then are still out the cost of buying the excess wear policy. So, to become an owner in this case costs you more $$. Orig buyers don't have this problem".

BVH you have your techniques, I have mine. Time to dail away from this because TDW is putting big dents in your armour.

Look , I buy low and sell as I wish. 100% control over the transaction. I like my titles in their individual envelopes in a safe. I can go to bank anytime, pull out a title, sell or trade that car in spontaneously. No lease company to drag their feet. We are seeing that plenty at present. Do you have the ability to wake up, decide to swap a car today and come home with a different ride the same day. Doubtful.

I bought my Evora for 30% off in 5/14 as a 2011 leftover. had it shipped from Cali to CT. Sold my 2010 in 10days at a 15k loss from purchase price. So upgrading from the 10 to 11 cost me 15K but the car was worth 15 K more...In other words, sweet deal.
Bought Maserati for 46% off, so depreciation hit is already over with. Now I own a classic Pinninfarina design with a quintessential powerplant. End of an era. Sounds unlike almost anything on the road.
Miata was dealer wife's car, like new
Stelvio, I got what I wanted. VV. Yes many folks got better deals. I made up for that by getting a ~6500 dollar tire/wheel package for 2K.
Range Rover. Bought it at invoice as dealer worked with me when I dumped my Evoque after 15months due to the ZF 9 speed debacle. (german parts and I have a histroy)

If I wanted, I could wake up tomorrow and trade in Stelvio for a Quad. Seen as 75+ % driving is in winter, not necessary. maybe next time
Miata could be traded for a 4C, but wife loves her Miata.
RRS could be traded for a Levante. maybe if a great deal comes around in September
Evora for Evora swap....maybe
Ownership gives me that freedom. Once you buy the asset, climb the ladder you have control.


They wouldn't sell leases if they didn't make money on them. I am not into renting things. I see at least half of those Beemers,Mercedes Audis...etc.etc.etc. out there driven by folks in over their heads. Its not their car! They are typically the ones that go belly up in a recession or even when 1 of the two income earners loses their job because they live life beyond their means. CC's are maxed out. 2nd mortgage is maxed out etc. We will see this play out over the next year due to COVID. They live life by the monthly payment. Every salesperson on the planet drools when one of these folks come in with a monthly payment in mind. BVR, you are obviously not in this camp and understand all the complex little calculation involved in leasing. Everybody in the leasing world is a wheeler dealer. I'm more simple. "Here's my title" I know MSRP, % off, and reale values for trade in v private party as needed. Oh, and the lower the rate the better. When in impulse mode, I rarely put any money down on the vehicle BTW....but within 6 months I throw a big chunk of change at it to neutralize finances charges. Maserati note was gone in a year with the initial 30K being thrown at it before 1st payment. Banks hate that!!
Extended warranties are another bad concept. I am at a point in life where I have NEVER done an extended warranty on anyhting. My ballpark calculation is I've saved 50K by not being stupid. I could throw a car away and still be ahead at this point. Again, they sell those warranties because they make money on them. Homey don't do dat!

I'm on car 31 so its not like I do this every 6 months. Some yearsd are busy, some are 10 year keepers. Never quite know at the signing...but there is that control thing for later. Maybe it does cost me a few bucks more??? According to my 30yr accountant, doubtful. Frankly, he and most of my family and friends realize my vehicles still cost less than 1 child's education.....and my deals sometimes benefit them esp when I find out what I'm being given to trade in, and I usually offer it to them first. Ex, my sister got my 04 XJVDP for ~12-13K instead of 18K off dealer's lot.

Maybe things have changed, but I was taught that a leased vehiclke is not an asset. It is a liability so it does NOTHING to help your credit ratings. It used to be considered a negative affect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Agree with Visconti on the general concept of extended warranties, and to add to this, pretty much everything the F&I guy pushes on the back end of the deal---profit clawback time and usually big money-makers for dealers who otherwise pretty much have to rely on their service depts and used car sales to make $$. I'm sure things like wear and tear coverage can be useful in their utility for some folks.

But bhvrdr's example is interesting. 500 bucks for 7k in wear/tear/damage coverage. Sounds like a great deal for a fairly small premium. But not so fast---I'd like to know what the cap is per incident? Other restrictions? The fine print matters a lot. I've never had one of these policies so I had to do some internet mining out of curiousity. Looking at the Leasehackr site threads---including a BMW FI guy who made comments, seems the "standard" cap payable per incident is about $1,000 (at least in the examples in this thread, YMMV I suppose). And, this is really important, if you have damage/excess wear to any covered car item that exceeds this $1,000, the customer pays the whole amount. The thread gave an example similar to this---Wear/tear/damage to an item is $1001.00. Customer cannot apply the 1,000 cap and only pay 1 dollar. Customer pays the whole thing. This could be a significant limitation that costs the customer WAY more than the 500 dollar premium for the policy. But then again, the folks who write these for a living know what they are doing or they'd be outta business long ago. It now makes more sense why a "7k policy" actually only costs 500 bucks over the lease term---just perhaps don't assume you get to freely make cumulative claims up to that limit. Devil is in the details. And exactly who determines the cost of repair? From what I have read, its the captive lease company using their estimates to ensure the car remains at an OEM-ish state for resale. Again, these policies prob do work out well for some customers, but the customer does not always control whether it does or not. You are at the mercy of the lease company. Again, that control thing---that outright buyers have a lot more of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Agree with Visconti on the general concept of extended warranties, and to add to this, pretty much everything the F&I guy pushes on the back end of the deal---profit clawback time and usually big money-makers for dealers who otherwise pretty much have to rely on their service depts and used car sales to make $$. I'm sure things like wear and tear coverage can be useful in their utility for some folks.

But bhvrdr's example is interesting. 500 bucks for 7k in wear/tear/damage coverage. Sounds like a great deal for a fairly small premium. But not so fast---I'd like to know what the cap is per incident? Other restrictions? The fine print matters a lot. I've never had one of these policies so I had to do some internet mining out of curiousity. Looking at the Leasehackr site threads---including a BMW FI guy who made comments, seems the "standard" cap payable per incident is about $1,000 (at least in the examples in this thread, YMMV I suppose). And, this is really important, if you have damage/excess wear to any covered car item that exceeds this $1,000, the customer pays the whole amount. The thread gave an example similar to this---Wear/tear/damage to an item is $1001.00. Customer cannot apply the 1,000 cap and only pay 1 dollar. Customer pays the whole thing. This could be a significant limitation that costs the customer WAY more than the 500 dollar premium for the policy. But then again, the folks who write these for a living know what they are doing or they'd be outta business long ago. It now makes more sense why a "7k policy" actually only costs 500 bucks over the lease term---just perhaps don't assume you get to freely make cumulative claims up to that limit. Devil is in the details. And exactly who determines the cost of repair? From what I have read, its the captive lease company using their estimates to ensure the car remains at an OEM-ish state for resale. Again, these policies prob do work out well for some customers, but the customer does not always control whether it does or not. You are at the mercy of the lease company. Again, that control thing---that outright buyers have a lot more of.
For sure whether it be "wheel and tire" packages, excess wear, interior protection, or extended warranties these are basically insurance products. I usually say no to all of them with the exception of my 997s i spent $4500 on an extended warranty when i bought the car used with 50k miles on it to cover the car up to 125,000 miles. The engine is a 35k dollar rebuild that can get bore scoring so i bit on that one.

The excess wear policy doesnt have incidents you have to claim along the way. You turn the car in when you're done and they add up all the damage. Now what they do protect themselves against in some cases is if you basically crash the car before you turn it in and don't get your insurance to fix it. So they look at the damage and if theres clearly one item like a single wreck up front that costs 4 grand to repair, not covered. I dont believe ally has this exclusion but id have to look.

Now if you curb all 4 wheels all to hell...thats 4 items so you get 4 new wheels. If you turn all 4 tires in bald, thats 4 items so i get 1200 in tires. If i turn my truck in with 36k miles on it i know its going to need brakes. Theyll cover it. I use this truck like its an f150 because its cheaper than one. Ive already scratched the **** out of the rear bumper hauling wood. Ill likely scratch it more backing into a trailer hitch a dozen times or so. And i only have 600 miles on it. So this time around i was like screw it, im getting the wear and tear and using this as a truck.

Ive never needed wear and tear before. I take care of my cars, but this is my utility truck so different. The reality is no one who decently cares for their vehicle should be charged at the end of a lease. Multiple door dings that are a half dollar size or smaller are automatically and mandated by the government to be forgiven. Certain sized scratches are mandated to be forgiven. I cant imagine trying to sell a car thats more messed up than you are allowed to turn your lease car in quite frankly. Youd need to do some reconditioning to sell a car too thats that bad.

Allowable wear and tear...

19321



Excessive wear brochure....

19322
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
For sure whether it be "wheel and tire" packages, excess wear, interior protection, or extended warranties these are basically insurance products. I usually say no to all of them with the exception of my 997s i spent $4500 on an extended warranty when i bought the car used with 50k miles on it to cover the car up to 125,000 miles. The engine is a 35k dollar rebuild that can get bore scoring so i bit on that one.

The excess wear policy doesnt have incidents you have to claim along the way. You turn the car in when you're done and they add up all the damage. Now what they do protect themselves against in some cases is if you basically crash the car before you turn it in and don't get your insurance to fix it. So they look at the damage and if theres clearly one item like a single wreck up front that costs 4 grand to repair, not covered. I dont believe ally has this exclusion but id have to look.

Now if you curb all 4 wheels all to hell...thats 4 items so you get 4 new wheels. If you turn all 4 tires in bald, thats 4 items so i get 1200 in tires. If i turn my truck in with 36k miles on it i know its going to need brakes. Theyll cover it. I use this truck like its an f150 because its cheaper than one. Ive already scratched the **** out of the rear bumper hauling wood. Ill likely scratch it more backing into a trailer hitch a dozen times or so. And i only have 600 miles on it. So this time around i was like screw it, im getting the wear and tear and using this as a truck.

Ive never needed wear and tear before. I take care of my cars, but this is my utility truck so different. The reality is no one who decently cares for their vehicle should be charged at the end of a lease. Multiple door dings that are a half dollar size or smaller are automatically and mandated by the government to be forgiven. Certain sized scratches are mandated to be forgiven. I cant imagine trying to sell a car thats more messed up than you are allowed to turn your lease car in quite frankly. You'd need to do some reconditioning to sell a car too thats that bad.

Allowable wear and tear...

View attachment 19321


Excessive wear brochure....

View attachment 19322
Well, you show the glossy adverts from Ally (the stuff they want you to see) that the F&I would show a customer when pushing this. In an earlier thread, you said your worn brakes are covered. I don't see brakes on this brochure and if something like that was actually covered (which is more like an expensive maintenance item not covered by regular new car warranties anyway---except in rare cases where the brakes are actually defective from the manufacturer), then Ally would sure as heck list it in their glossy fold out. Is it listed on the reverse side of the brochure?---damn, I would even consider this for brakes b/c that is very likely needed at or before 36k/ 3 yrs for anyone. For 500 bucks, plus all the other potential coverage? Sounds like I and thousands of others are on their way to putting Ally out of business. But no, not happening...

I note with raised eyebrows the "fine print" at the bottom that says: "See excess wear and tear contract for complete details and coverage limitations." That is the money statement, seen in adverts of all kinds the world over. If you want to believe only what is in the glossy advert, then you are doing exactly what the seller (Ally) wants. So again, what is your cap per claim (even if all claims made at lease turn in) and other real restrictions? I don't expect you to dig for all this, but my point remains: this may end up being a really good deal for you and others. But these companies make money off this stuff in the long run. And they do this by the fine print limits/restrictions in the actual contract. So, your simple claim of 7k coverage for 500 is quite suspect. They'd go broke if it were that simple. It's just math, econ 101.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
I think the point i was making was overlooked which is that people make it out that you have to turn a lease car in pristine condition or face thousands in fines.


In reality ive never been charged a dime. I dont know anyone in the giulia boards that has. Heck ally doesn't even do a lease turn in inspection...seriously which is wierd.

Theyre not looking to make enemies out of alfa romeo leasees clearly.

Looks like brakes are covered. Policy excludes anything that would be covered by an automotive policy such as factory warranty or vehicle service contract but brakes arent covered by either so would be by wear and tear policy but looks like they can probably wiggle out of that anyways because i cant find anywhere that Ally actually requires you to turn the car in with any specific amount of brake left. Nowhere

These companies make money because id guess 90% of people or far more turn in their vehicle with at most a few door dings, a few scratches. Thats actually required by law to be forgiven by ally. So ally can't charge the policy.

Is it werent for me using this as a haul about truck i wouldn't have bothered with the policy at all. I mildly curb all my rims and ive never been charged a dime. I may get 1 or 2 door dings or 1 or 2 scratches. You can have small windshield cracks too and ally cant charge excess. I never leave windshield cracks. Always get them repaired or replaced. Ive never needed this policy at all. I dont keep bald tires on my cars. I change my own brakes at 40% just to have something to do. But with this truck...lol .. itll not be babied.

The truth is, again, i cant imagine personally ever trying to sell a car outright that has as much cosmetic damage to it as a lease turn in allows.

I remember in 2005 i leased a ford focus zx3 that had just come out. I was in college and needed a cheap reliable car to get me through and my brother was an exec at Ford who got me A-plan pricing. So for $200 a month i had reliable transportation.

I HATED that car though. And i was busy to all hell with classwork so im ashamed to say i treated that car like hell. I didnt wash it once in 3 years. I mean that. I drove it through multiple love bug seasons in central Florida never washing them off in 3 years. The ENTIRE frond bumper, hood, mirrors had thousands of pits in the paint and plastic from bug guts acid bodies eating through. All 4 wheels were completely curbed to hell. Not a little. Like all the way up the rim to the lug bolts.

I turned that car in and held my breath for like 3 months... nothing...not a dime owed.

Id never treat any car like that again but if id have had to sell that car...id have been screwed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,675 Posts
Does anybody care to comment on leasing and credit ratings??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Then maybe you made the right move getting that coverage for your truck. I still doubt the brake thing and agree Ally will wiggle out of it or just say that it is not covered b/c it is not specifically mentioned or something----covering that seems like a horrible business decision on their part since many cars by 3yr/36k might need it. I have lots of friends and relatives who have leased with no issues after the damage inspection (they took care of their cars decently)--and several of them re-leased with same company (makes it even easier to waive damage), but have other friends/neighbors and one relative that had to pay out of pocket and had no control over the process---drop off car, dealer moved car, lease rep/contract vendor comes a week later to inspect, lesees not around during insp---got bill in mail later. Pay up. Small sample sizes here, but years of casual internet scanning seems to show most turn-ins go well with no damage fee. It still isn't the potential cost thing to me, it's the fact that I don't have a say in the process, the loss of control. So your Ford-exec brother gets you a discount lease through Ford Motor Credit I assume, you trash the car and pay no damage at the end. Hmmm, why am I not surprised, but good for you anyway. To your first comment, don't know anyone in here saying leased cars have to be returned in "pristine" condition or face thousands in fines. I, for one, never suggested that nor do I believe it. Leases simply expose folks to someone else's decisions more than buying (control of destiny thing). That's mainly why I prefer buying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,532 Posts
I still dont understand....

Why would you turn in a lease at the end?

I know people do it..but why? Seems utterly nonsensical. A car lease is not an apartment lease. With an apartment you have no options, with a car..lots and lots of options. Giving the keys back at the end being the singular most popular, and profitable for both dealer and bank..but straight dumb for the consumer. Whether or not you are charged for wear and tear.

Sell it or trade it. Period. 0 loss of options, you actually gain some. When you sign the contract, understand..sell it or trade it before the final month. Or buy it. Basically the exact same choises you have with a purchase, except you will most likely not be as upside down in value at 1-3 years of use.

Leasing requires better credit than a purchase, because the bank actually, in general makes less off a lease than a purchase transaction in the short term. However alot more is made when the car comes back and they sell it a second time used. This is why banks/dealers love leasing. They are essentially guaranteed to sell the car twice, earning profit both times with a lower risk of repossession due to the stricter credit demands on the 1st transaction and the sale of a low mile used vehicle on the 2nd, which are statistically the least repo'd vehicles.

Done correctly, with research and planning, leasing can be win, done poorly a loss. Exactly.the same as a a purchase. Hate to break it to you..but any time a person enters into any contract with a corporate entity.....they lose control of some of thier destiny. Even if it's for employment not a sale.

Another benifit of leasing? Because it requires better credit, it also has a more positive impact on your score when the contract is finished. Whether you purchase it, sell it, trade it in or give it back. Looks better than a purchase. For me, years of leasing vehicles meant the first time I ever purchased a home I qualified for prime rates......not bad. Saved slot of money over my non-leasing friends who got hosed on thier first home loans.

Helps also that I had like 6-7 car loans to thier 1 or 2.
 
61 - 80 of 107 Posts
Top