EVs... no one wants them!
Discussion
EddieSteadyGo said:
DonkeyApple said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
You missed the important diversion to discuss the content of our fridges....
Mine is now a lot emptier than it was this afternoon. Should I be worried?
I think that means we should be either mortified, or dead. Hopefully it (the fridge) will recover by the morning.
EddieSteadyGo said:
KingGary said:
That’s no reason to own one. My ancient Range Rover struggles to make 14mpg and costs £130 to fill with super unleaded. I can afford it, the car is cool so I don’t care.
Nice! Enjoy!And to be very honest, I think there would be a certain pleasure running something like an old Range Rover and enjoying it for what it is.
Dave200 said:
I bet you've driven neither of them, have you? You're just one of those people on the internet who thinks opinion trumps experience, aren't you? I test drove both and bought the Tesla.
I did test drive all of them. Second hand obviously but then I got an E-Mail from Toyota and bought a brand new Subaru masquerading as a Toyota instead 
Paid for with cash but then I also drive around in a shed too so I guess I am a hybrid.
Muzzer79 said:
An assumption, based on the narrow-minded “all debt is evil” rhetoric.
It’s not a complicated calculation to work out that money invested can yield more than money owed.
Example - I could pay a portion of my mortgage off with savings, but choose not to do so because it’s currently earning more money invested than it costs on my low rate mortgage.
The same principle can apply with cars.
It’s not all morons buying white, base model Range Rover Evoques on tick for 80% of their monthly income in order to impress their mates on Instagram……
But that’s because a home is in the long term an appreciating asset, accommodation is a necessity and renting is often more expensive.It’s not a complicated calculation to work out that money invested can yield more than money owed.
Example - I could pay a portion of my mortgage off with savings, but choose not to do so because it’s currently earning more money invested than it costs on my low rate mortgage.
The same principle can apply with cars.
It’s not all morons buying white, base model Range Rover Evoques on tick for 80% of their monthly income in order to impress their mates on Instagram……
I don’t really understand how financing a car as an individual buyer can be cheaper than buying if you have spare capital. Where is it that you can make a guaranteed risk free return in excess of the finance charges? And if there is such a place, why aren’t you borrowing up to the hilt in order to invest more in this high return fund rather than tying up some of your credit limit on a car? Its all just fancy man maths to hide the fact that you want a car which costs more than your disposable spare cash isn’t it?
In your case surely you should extend your mortgage as far as you can and invest more wherever you’re getting a higher return and once you have earned enough, just buy a car? Financing one now is reducing your earning capacity and you should add this lost opportunity cost to your monthly finance bill to see if your car finance makes sense?
Edited by 740EVTORQUES on Sunday 19th May 06:59
Nobody uses PCP at current rates if they have another option such as available cash to buy outright. What makes me smile is the lengths those who clearly can’t afford it go to justify their use of PCP. Loads of hypothetical “money”invested elsewhere in the S&P 500 or in forex trading for example. Of course!
Downside protection is an often used argument in favour of PCP also, most would have to lose a huge amount indeed in depreciation to offset the interest charges such that it is incredibly rare to win at current rates. But as we all know EVs depreciate like stones, in this case alone perhaps that is a stronger argument for using a PCP. Or just don’t buy an EV privately.
Downside protection is an often used argument in favour of PCP also, most would have to lose a huge amount indeed in depreciation to offset the interest charges such that it is incredibly rare to win at current rates. But as we all know EVs depreciate like stones, in this case alone perhaps that is a stronger argument for using a PCP. Or just don’t buy an EV privately.
sturge7878 said:
Nobody uses PCP at current rates if they have another option such as available cash to buy outright. What makes me smile is the lengths those who clearly can’t afford it go to justify their use of PCP. Loads of hypothetical “money”invested elsewhere in the S&P 500 or in forex trading for example. Of course!
Downside protection is an often used argument in favour of PCP also, most would have to lose a huge amount indeed in depreciation to offset the interest charges such that it is incredibly rare to win at current rates. But as we all know EVs depreciate like stones, in this case alone perhaps that is a stronger argument for using a PCP. Or just don’t buy an EV privately.
It can still work for current rates when PCP or PCH are being used to hide massive discounts. Downside protection is an often used argument in favour of PCP also, most would have to lose a huge amount indeed in depreciation to offset the interest charges such that it is incredibly rare to win at current rates. But as we all know EVs depreciate like stones, in this case alone perhaps that is a stronger argument for using a PCP. Or just don’t buy an EV privately.
That Honda EV deal recently had an £8k deposit contribution and a guaranteed future value similar to what you can buy a ‘brand new’ pre-reg one for now.
We just leased an EV because looking at the cost of renting it for 3 years was significantly cheaper than either PCP or outright purchase. Unless of course used values of see a massive increase - unlikely given that the ZEV regulations are trying to force more EV sales, not fewer.
Yes, I think manufacturer discounts can make finance more attractive, as most of us won’t be good enough at haggling to get the same desk for cash.
But you’re still better off taking the finance and then settling straight away, assuming the small print allows that. The reason they discount us that you are paying back that discount in charges and interest, it’s not usually a free lunch!
I did that once to good effect.
Now that depreciation has returned to EVs and ICE, the old advice to buy a 1-3 year nearly new car as the best bet is king again I would say. Especially with EVs where there’s little to go wrong.
But you’re still better off taking the finance and then settling straight away, assuming the small print allows that. The reason they discount us that you are paying back that discount in charges and interest, it’s not usually a free lunch!
I did that once to good effect.
Now that depreciation has returned to EVs and ICE, the old advice to buy a 1-3 year nearly new car as the best bet is king again I would say. Especially with EVs where there’s little to go wrong.
740EVTORQUES said:
Yes, I think manufacturer discounts can make finance more attractive, as most of us won’t be good enough at haggling to get the same desk for cash.
But you’re still better off taking the finance and then settling straight away, assuming the small print allows that. The reason they discount us that you are paying back that discount in charges and interest, it’s not usually a free lunch!
I did that once to good effect.
Now that depreciation has returned to EVs and ICE, the old advice to buy a 1-3 year nearly new car as the best bet is king again I would say. Especially with EVs where there’s little to go wrong.
That works if there’s a big deposit contribution and you want to keep the car for a long time. But you’re still better off taking the finance and then settling straight away, assuming the small print allows that. The reason they discount us that you are paying back that discount in charges and interest, it’s not usually a free lunch!
I did that once to good effect.
Now that depreciation has returned to EVs and ICE, the old advice to buy a 1-3 year nearly new car as the best bet is king again I would say. Especially with EVs where there’s little to go wrong.
If you think the guaranteed final value is inflated, you’re still taking a risk, especially if you plan on moving on fairly quickly.
Although if you know you’re handing it back a lease might be better anyway. Again, it’s a place that the manufacturers like to hide discounts.
Fully understand why someone would lease or PCP a brand new EV - the depreciation risk is high and financing offers you a known monthly payment.
I think a used 2/3 year old EV will be a decent buy when they've depreciated ~50% and you have the cash/bank loan to pay for it.
Surprising number of people on the Tesla forums who paid cash for a Model 3/Y and have lost a huge amount in a few years..
I think a used 2/3 year old EV will be a decent buy when they've depreciated ~50% and you have the cash/bank loan to pay for it.
Surprising number of people on the Tesla forums who paid cash for a Model 3/Y and have lost a huge amount in a few years..
BricktopST205 said:
Dave200 said:
I bet you've driven neither of them, have you? You're just one of those people on the internet who thinks opinion trumps experience, aren't you? I test drove both and bought the Tesla.
I did test drive all of them. Second hand obviously but then I got an E-Mail from Toyota and bought a brand new Subaru masquerading as a Toyota instead Paid for with cash but then I also drive around in a shed too so I guess I am a hybrid.
740EVTORQUES said:
But that’s because a home is in the long term an appreciating asset, accommodation is a necessity and renting is often more expensive.
I don’t really understand how financing a car as an individual buyer can be cheaper than buying if you have spare capital. Where is it that you can make a guaranteed risk free return in excess of the finance charges? And if there is such a place, why aren’t you borrowing up to the hilt in order to invest more in this high return fund rather than tying up some of your credit limit on a car? Its all just fancy man maths to hide the fact that you want a car which costs more than your disposable spare cash isn’t it?
In your case surely you should extend your mortgage as far as you can and invest more wherever you’re getting a higher return and once you have earned enough, just buy a car? Financing one now is reducing your earning capacity and you should add this lost opportunity cost to your monthly finance bill to see if your car finance makes sense?
Dull ramble alert:I don’t really understand how financing a car as an individual buyer can be cheaper than buying if you have spare capital. Where is it that you can make a guaranteed risk free return in excess of the finance charges? And if there is such a place, why aren’t you borrowing up to the hilt in order to invest more in this high return fund rather than tying up some of your credit limit on a car? Its all just fancy man maths to hide the fact that you want a car which costs more than your disposable spare cash isn’t it?
In your case surely you should extend your mortgage as far as you can and invest more wherever you’re getting a higher return and once you have earned enough, just buy a car? Financing one now is reducing your earning capacity and you should add this lost opportunity cost to your monthly finance bill to see if your car finance makes sense?
Edited by 740EVTORQUES on Sunday 19th May 06:59
Correctly risk weighted it simply isn't possible to borrow money at a retail rate and achieve a greater yield by investing. In order to exceed something like a base rate which tends to be deemed a 'risk free' rate one has to put capital at risk and that risk multiplies quicker than the yield rises.
So the act of borrowing on a three year, short term contract, and making a return that exceeds the cost whether by yield or capital gains is a gamble not an investment. It's a risk loaded punt just like having a few beers and then walking into the bookies to watch which dag has a pee to guide one's shrewd investment placing. And of course the junk debt levels that car vendors levy for supposedly 'secured' debt puts one so insanely off-side that it really doesn't work for the average punter and is merely a tale taken from the Man Maths jackanory saga, Chapter 2 'Things to Say to Stop the Wife From Leaving'.
But even the biggest loser in the bookies can have a win so there will be chaps who borrowed £30k and invested £30k into high risk assets where the net gain after transaction costs and taxes was greater than this ludicrously expensive borrowing cost. Taking on excessive risk doesn't always mean losing, it's just the norm for the vast majority of bets made. And is humans have a genetic design that prevents us from accurately calculating risk which is exactly why gambling is so popular and bookies so wealthy.
However, this doesn't mean that every PHer who rolls out the 'my money is better invested' bulls
t is one of the prolific man maths losers spewing out the lines they use on their family who are the people who really want to believe this person isn't a loser. There are lots of factors at play that mean it is correct for some. Probably the most obvious and simplest ones are born out of tax situations.
If someone wants to make a few years of excess pension contributions or a lump sum as a higher rate tax payer then the tax rebate % on each GBP placed into the wrapper can exceed 3 years worth of normal unsecured borrowing costs which combined with the capital at risk not going into punting assets typically and being invested long term means one would have to have some serious bad luck for it not to be better to borrow for the car.
The real issue being that car vendors charge junk rates to their customers so if you have a credit rating so bad that you can't get fair prices unsecured or even secured debt on the open market then car vendor debt is cheap to you but if you can borrow on the open market at normal rates then you're paying an enormous premium just to subsidise the s
thouse credit rating of random punters. And to help make the solvent pay for the insolvent while sitting in the middle making a fat turn on their 3.8% debt book they pull stunts like 'Dealer Contributions' which are great because the average consumer will genuinely think they're being given a discount when the reality is that it's a punishment mechanism to force those who can borrow as sensible rates into taking the house junk rate by making the amount they need to borrow and pay higher if they don't comply. It's pure Shylocking and completely legal. They can sit there and say you can have the car for £30k but have to take our debt at 12% or if you don't take our extremely over priced debt we will increase the price to £35k. And sir might want to pay us an additional monthly payment in case something unpleasant were to happen to Sir. We'll just call this protection money GAP insurance shall we? . £30k over 3yrs @12% is going to cost something like £40k. At 8% it'll be around £7k so just adding 3k of punishment charge for not taking the house deal is enough to fk a solvent customer. And if you can then twist that punter into a PCP vehicle then there are really good odds that you can fk them again in three years and potentially just keep at it. And why wouldn't a sane consumer take the monthly deal that has the lower monthly charge for the same goods? Genuinely you're going to take the PCP not because it's a better or good debt product but because you're being done in the arris over a desk and this looks to be smaller sized object. What the very solvent can do is trick the house utilising consumer legislation against them. Borrow the £30k junk debt from them to get a vaguely fair price in the goods or at least to not get punished by the 'dealer contribution' then pay it off using £30k you've borrowed from the legitimate lending market at the correct rate for your circumstances. This isn't particularly common due to a very significant number of people not being able to borrow that kind of sum and if they could it would be at a rate higher than the car Shylock rate. After that you then have the people who are solvent, can borrow £30k at fair rates but it's actually £60k because they've already just borrowed £30 and are now asking a computer for another £30 and said computer can't have it explained that one is to net the other. So the number of people who can play that trick is tiny.
Corporation taxes are another time when renting/borrowing makes better sense than buying outright in one's own name. It can be treated as a cash flow element and can have large tax advantages. For example, it would be very unlikely that it would be cheaper for someone to buy a £30k EV in their own name if they had a tax liability generating Ltd they could use instead and you'd typically cover from cash flow than use a lump sum as one tends not to leave large slugs of cash inside an Ltd if it's not there for a business reason.
Then you have numerous other more minor reasons. Pension money that's more tax efficient to extract monthly than it is to pay higher rate tax on a lump sum. Leaving unwrapped GIA funds to be CGT managed efficiently instead of cashing out for a car at a bad time for a tax liability. IHT in slow probate. Funds needed as cash for an impending property debt renewal within the car loan period. Paying down a mortgage to hit a lower LTV for a rollover deal.
There are all sorts of valid reasons for paying more for finance over using cash but for the majority of blokes it's just a bulls
t, Billy big balls, man maths excuse that no one else believes. Terry says his massive wad of superiority and winningness is tied up in crypto and making serious bank which is why he preferred to get bent over a desk by a double glazing type shyster on an M3 loan while his Jimmy Saville jewellery goes jingle jangle. Everyone knows Terry fkwit. 
. PCP was created as a fiscal catnip to lure the fkwit family. The asset rich, cash poor but where the assets have a habit of being imaginary. At the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing wrong with consumer debt when any excess level beyond essential is paid out of genuine excess income, the shopping and fun tokens after taking care of all the essentials such as bills, mortgage, cash safety buffer, ISA and obviously the pension that will allow you to maintain the desired quality of life from when most employers just stop wanting old people littering the place and upsetting the younger and superior work assets. Take care of the important stuff and who cares what you personally choose to piss away your fun tokens on. It doesn't matter whether you spend it on a single bottle of wine a month, financing consumer debt or anything that one personally enjoys.
If someone has all their affairs in order and is left, for example, with £2 or £3k left over each month then that money can be spent on having fun. That's what it is there for. You can spend that £3k on food, wine, holidays etc, give it to the kids or grandkids or you can use it to take out a f
k load of fixed risk consumer debt and get yourself a yacht, a silly car, why not Klarna some jingle jangle. Just poss it away on what we you want that makes you happy. And there are literally millions of pensioners in the U.K. who had no real money during their working life but have an excess of income now with which to go have fun with. And there's no shortage of working households with such an excess even if it's just £500/month. Then there are those who think they have a monthly excess when in fact they've forgotten to take care of things like the cash buffer, the ISA and critically the pension. These tend to be the chaps who confuse their affordability with the concept of affordability a lender uses to guesstimate the default risk of a wealthless punter they would be lending to for three years. I do feel that very many people have confused the two completely different concepts of 'affordability', something which tends to manifest itself most clearly amongst the over 50s who were high earners but suddenly realise they don't own their home and they don't have a suitable pension and it's not looking like anyone wants to employ them.
Re the 'why not use mortgage debt?' That can be logical but it requires quite a bit of personal responsibility as well as enough equity and enough spare income multiple. So obviously the statistics make it an over 50s option rather than remotely feasible for someone in their 30s or even 40s unless income growth has outstripped the norm and they don't want to use that to fund a move to a larger home. And if you're over 50 and still have a mortgage should you really be extending it for non essential spending? And where are the savings to just pay cash?
Edited by DonkeyApple on Sunday 19th May 09:37
RayDonovan said:
Fully understand why someone would lease or PCP a brand new EV - the depreciation risk is high and financing offers you a known monthly payment.
I think a used 2/3 year old EV will be a decent buy when they've depreciated ~50% and you have the cash/bank loan to pay for it.
Surprising number of people on the Tesla forums who paid cash for a Model 3/Y and have lost a huge amount in a few years..
They're unlikely to have paid cash but instead mean they didn't use dealer finance. In the early days I'm not sure there was much PCP offering on Tesla's as Tesla were actually selling the cars rather than loading them on to their balance sheet and PCP requires knowing the value in three years time. So the typical Tesla buyer used finance that left them carrying the depreciation risk. The benefit for Tesla is that it meant they could dump used prices whenever they wanted to or needed to boost demand to prevent inventory pile up without any risk of blowing a hole in their balance sheet and instead blowing a million small holes in the owners' pockets. The brand attracted an abnormal number of image junkies who'll say they paid cash but typically just used alternate funding. I think a used 2/3 year old EV will be a decent buy when they've depreciated ~50% and you have the cash/bank loan to pay for it.
Surprising number of people on the Tesla forums who paid cash for a Model 3/Y and have lost a huge amount in a few years..
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff