Are LR Velars selling?
Discussion
Ares said:
No. It's totally correct.
If you want to go up the supply chain, I'm paying the lease companies overheads, labour costs, finance costs. The importers shipping fees, their overheads, labour costs, the manufacturer's overheads, raw materials costs, fixed costs, labour costs, MD's bonus, MD's wife's credit card bill, kids school fees, dog vet's fees, etc etc...
But the reality of it is, I'm paying £600/mth to use a car. How that is broken down after I pay it is of absolutely no relevance.
I pay £38/mth for Sky, same arrangement as my car. Part of that is Sky's debt, Jeremy Darroch's salary, etc etc. Do you consider me as paying the borrowing costs of Sky's Infrastructure? Or the cost of the sky kit I have in my house? No.
And what money I have or don't have outside of my car lease (or Sky contract) is irrelevant. Neither factored into my decision making process.
And for me, risk is eradicated, removed. I pay a fixed amount for a fixed service. Risk free. If the market rate value leads to a perceived depreciation figure on my car of less than £28,300, then I have paid extra to have risk-free piece of mind. If it had depreciated more than £28,300 then I have still had the same risk-free peace of mind, but paid nothing for it. Either way, with my car, I have zero risk. Regardless of any market conditions, stick market crashes, Brexit impact, republican take-over....my car will cost me exactly the same. Nails on. Zero risk.
Ares, I think I’ve now attempted to explain the finance and risk aspect of your personal situation several different ways now. I just can’t break it down to be any simpler. I’m afraid you just haven’t understood the mechanism by which you are working. If you want to go up the supply chain, I'm paying the lease companies overheads, labour costs, finance costs. The importers shipping fees, their overheads, labour costs, the manufacturer's overheads, raw materials costs, fixed costs, labour costs, MD's bonus, MD's wife's credit card bill, kids school fees, dog vet's fees, etc etc...
But the reality of it is, I'm paying £600/mth to use a car. How that is broken down after I pay it is of absolutely no relevance.
I pay £38/mth for Sky, same arrangement as my car. Part of that is Sky's debt, Jeremy Darroch's salary, etc etc. Do you consider me as paying the borrowing costs of Sky's Infrastructure? Or the cost of the sky kit I have in my house? No.
And what money I have or don't have outside of my car lease (or Sky contract) is irrelevant. Neither factored into my decision making process.
And for me, risk is eradicated, removed. I pay a fixed amount for a fixed service. Risk free. If the market rate value leads to a perceived depreciation figure on my car of less than £28,300, then I have paid extra to have risk-free piece of mind. If it had depreciated more than £28,300 then I have still had the same risk-free peace of mind, but paid nothing for it. Either way, with my car, I have zero risk. Regardless of any market conditions, stick market crashes, Brexit impact, republican take-over....my car will cost me exactly the same. Nails on. Zero risk.
All I can say again is to take some time out to work it through and you will actually realise your error of reasoning as this isn’t a particularly complex financial situation.
You have arbitraged your £65,000 of risk and will only know if your speculative play has paid off and the end of your lease deal when you have the fixed numbers to compare.
But in the meantime please don’t continue to give financial advice to other people in the same situation as you as it would be wrong. Cheers.
Ares - you’ve picked a fight with the wrong guy when it comes to finance 
Anyway, my OH and I had a good poke round a Velar a while ago and she liked it enough to be pretty keen to get one when it’s new car time, but I had reservations about using the twin touchscreens while driving and the pish take that is the basic spec. She’s not into cars but even she’d want to spend a fair bit on extras that really should be standard on this type of car. I think a Jaguar E-Pace will be more suitable as a replacement for her Evoque.
Anyway, my OH and I had a good poke round a Velar a while ago and she liked it enough to be pretty keen to get one when it’s new car time, but I had reservations about using the twin touchscreens while driving and the pish take that is the basic spec. She’s not into cars but even she’d want to spend a fair bit on extras that really should be standard on this type of car. I think a Jaguar E-Pace will be more suitable as a replacement for her Evoque.
Unexpected Item In The Bagging Area said:
Ares - you’ve picked a fight with the wrong guy when it comes to finance
Anyway, my OH and I had a good poke round a Velar a while ago and she liked it enough to be pretty keen to get one when it’s new car time, but I had reservations about using the twin touchscreens while driving and the pish take that is the basic spec. She’s not into cars but even she’d want to spend a fair bit on extras that really should be standard on this type of car. I think a Jaguar E-Pace will be more suitable as a replacement for her Evoque.
What about the latest Volvo XC60? They look great, would she consider one of those? Anyway, my OH and I had a good poke round a Velar a while ago and she liked it enough to be pretty keen to get one when it’s new car time, but I had reservations about using the twin touchscreens while driving and the pish take that is the basic spec. She’s not into cars but even she’d want to spend a fair bit on extras that really should be standard on this type of car. I think a Jaguar E-Pace will be more suitable as a replacement for her Evoque.
Old man’s cars apparently... I’ve tried to persuade her, but even pointing out that our neighbour who’s in her early thirties has one doesn’t help! She’s not usually bothered about badges but makes an exception for Volvo, but I understand they’re good cars so maybe I’ll try to get her to sit in one some time.
FN2TypeR said:
Do so! Their current interiors are pretty lovely, the seats are great and the whole set up looks smart.
I'm 29 and I have owned three Volvos, but I'm about as miserable and grumpy as the average 83 year old so I fit the OAP image in spirit, if not in body
I think Volvos have become the most subtle of the mid-premium cars, more so than Jaguar and a different league to the German marques. As you say they have lovely interiors and the current models are very elegant. I particularly like the new big estate. I'm 29 and I have owned three Volvos, but I'm about as miserable and grumpy as the average 83 year old so I fit the OAP image in spirit, if not in body
In terms of image, I never thought of them as old man cars like Jags but for the champagne socialist who had the money to not have to drive a Peugeot of the plebiscite lentalist and without the butplug and polo neck fetishes of the Saab driver.
The old 70s/80s estates are apparently cool surfer cars now that trendy dad’s have decimated the VW Van scene.
DonkeyApple said:
I think Volvos have become the most subtle of the mid-premium cars, more so than Jaguar and a different league to the German marques. As you say they have lovely interiors and the current models are very elegant. I particularly like the new big estate.
In terms of image, I never thought of them as old man cars like Jags but for the champagne socialist who had the money to not have to drive a Peugeot of the plebiscite lentalist and without the butplug and polo neck fetishes of the Saab driver.
The old 70s/80s estates are apparently cool surfer cars now that trendy dad’s have decimated the VW Van scene.
In terms of image, I never thought of them as old man cars like Jags but for the champagne socialist who had the money to not have to drive a Peugeot of the plebiscite lentalist and without the butplug and polo neck fetishes of the Saab driver.
The old 70s/80s estates are apparently cool surfer cars now that trendy dad’s have decimated the VW Van scene.
I had a Volvo 850 T5R at the tender age of 23, it was bloody brilliant
saw one in a light blue shade. As suv's go, this one is lovey.DonkeyApple said:
Ares said:
No. It's totally correct.
If you want to go up the supply chain, I'm paying the lease companies overheads, labour costs, finance costs. The importers shipping fees, their overheads, labour costs, the manufacturer's overheads, raw materials costs, fixed costs, labour costs, MD's bonus, MD's wife's credit card bill, kids school fees, dog vet's fees, etc etc...
But the reality of it is, I'm paying £600/mth to use a car. How that is broken down after I pay it is of absolutely no relevance.
I pay £38/mth for Sky, same arrangement as my car. Part of that is Sky's debt, Jeremy Darroch's salary, etc etc. Do you consider me as paying the borrowing costs of Sky's Infrastructure? Or the cost of the sky kit I have in my house? No.
And what money I have or don't have outside of my car lease (or Sky contract) is irrelevant. Neither factored into my decision making process.
And for me, risk is eradicated, removed. I pay a fixed amount for a fixed service. Risk free. If the market rate value leads to a perceived depreciation figure on my car of less than £28,300, then I have paid extra to have risk-free piece of mind. If it had depreciated more than £28,300 then I have still had the same risk-free peace of mind, but paid nothing for it. Either way, with my car, I have zero risk. Regardless of any market conditions, stick market crashes, Brexit impact, republican take-over....my car will cost me exactly the same. Nails on. Zero risk.
Ares, I think I’ve now attempted to explain the finance and risk aspect of your personal situation several different ways now. I just can’t break it down to be any simpler. I’m afraid you just haven’t understood the mechanism by which you are working. If you want to go up the supply chain, I'm paying the lease companies overheads, labour costs, finance costs. The importers shipping fees, their overheads, labour costs, the manufacturer's overheads, raw materials costs, fixed costs, labour costs, MD's bonus, MD's wife's credit card bill, kids school fees, dog vet's fees, etc etc...
But the reality of it is, I'm paying £600/mth to use a car. How that is broken down after I pay it is of absolutely no relevance.
I pay £38/mth for Sky, same arrangement as my car. Part of that is Sky's debt, Jeremy Darroch's salary, etc etc. Do you consider me as paying the borrowing costs of Sky's Infrastructure? Or the cost of the sky kit I have in my house? No.
And what money I have or don't have outside of my car lease (or Sky contract) is irrelevant. Neither factored into my decision making process.
And for me, risk is eradicated, removed. I pay a fixed amount for a fixed service. Risk free. If the market rate value leads to a perceived depreciation figure on my car of less than £28,300, then I have paid extra to have risk-free piece of mind. If it had depreciated more than £28,300 then I have still had the same risk-free peace of mind, but paid nothing for it. Either way, with my car, I have zero risk. Regardless of any market conditions, stick market crashes, Brexit impact, republican take-over....my car will cost me exactly the same. Nails on. Zero risk.
All I can say again is to take some time out to work it through and you will actually realise your error of reasoning as this isn’t a particularly complex financial situation.
You have arbitraged your £65,000 of risk and will only know if your speculative play has paid off and the end of your lease deal when you have the fixed numbers to compare.
But in the meantime please don’t continue to give financial advice to other people in the same situation as you as it would be wrong. Cheers.
TooMany2cvs said:
Ares said:
I pay £38/mth for Sky, same arrangement as my car. Part of that is Sky's debt, Jeremy Darroch's salary, etc etc. Do you consider me as paying the borrowing costs of Sky's Infrastructure? Or the cost of the sky kit I have in my house? No.
Because you're not comparing purchasing methods for your satellite TV access to a certain set of channels. You get it that way, or you don't get it.Ares said:
And what money I have or don't have outside of my car lease (or Sky contract) is irrelevant. Neither factored into my decision making process.
Isn't that the point? It IS relevant. You are choosing not to use your available capital to fund the car's availability to you. You are choosing to do something different with it...Ares said:
And for me, risk is eradicated, removed. I pay a fixed amount for a fixed service. Risk free.
No, the risk has been moved, not removed... You're just looking at one part of your entire financial position, and using that for the man maths.Ares said:
If the market rate value leads to a perceived depreciation figure on my car of less than £28,300, then I have paid extra to have risk-free piece of mind. If it had depreciated more than £28,300 then I have still had the same risk-free peace of mind, but paid nothing for it. Either way, with my car, I have zero risk. Regardless of any market conditions, stick market crashes, Brexit impact, republican take-over....my car will cost me exactly the same. Nails on. Zero risk.
But what you're doing with the money INSTEAD of buying the car does carry risk.Now: You have £x.
Four years time: You have had four years in an Alfa, and you have £y.
You know that the Alfa has cost you £28,300, but you do not know that the difference between £x and £y is £28,300 - because the one thing you can say for sure is that it isn't. If the way you've invested the money that would have been parked in the drive if you'd bought that car has outperformed the finance costs, then the difference is less. If they haven't, then it's more.
You guys are talking about an entire financial position.
I'm talking about a funding a car, and only a car. You can look to bring in an entire life, business, investments, pensions, and sky TV (which is the similar - the equipment is leased with Sky Q), I'm just looking at the 'ownership' cost.
On that car, there is no risk. I was never going to liquidate any investments, re-mortgage, anything. Those elements carry risk. Paying a fixed amount for a fixed service doesn't. The risk on having that car is the same whether I have £60k in savings, £6m in savings or nothing in savings. It is a means to an end.
If I thought a 60,000 miles/4yr old Alfa might hold even 50% of its value, then I might have looked more holistically, but when there is no way a 60k/4yr old Alfa will hold more than 57% of it's value, its a no-brainer. Man maths or otherwise.
Ares said:
On that car, there is no risk. I was never going to liquidate any investments, re-mortgage, anything. Those elements carry risk. Paying a fixed amount for a fixed service doesn't.
.
It’s only been discussed because you stated it. Exactly as you just have done there, again. .
. You laid out the premise that you chose not to buy the car but rent it and keep the money invested. This is why the discussion is specific to you and is based on what you said. You’ve even highlighted the risk you’ve accepted so you clearly do understand that for you it is not zero risk. Especially as you have repeatedly stated that you decided it made better sense to not liquidate investments but keep them in the market.
Leasing is the ‘risk free’ option for most people as they are not making any related investment decisions as they don’t have the funds to buy the vehicle or make the arguably correct financial decision that the small amount of cash that they do have is better held as cash as a safety net for their family and life commitments but for you it is not and you even know this so why you keep contradicting yourself with baffling man maths just seems strange.
You’ve got this a little arse about face but most people do when it comes to domestic finances and understanding the implications of their actions but it’s well worth just sitting there until you do see what it is that you’re repeatedly saying that is factually incorrect.
Also, I’m aware that I am not the greatest at explaining these things as it’s what I’ve done for a living for 25 years but your IFA will have a research dept they contract with and in there will be a risk analyst and it might be worth having a chat with him/her.
swisstoni said:
The real winner is the person who buys the depreciated car in a few years.
The real winner is the person after that person. The real winner is the person who buys it three owners after them, and runs it for six months before it has to be scrapped.
The real winner is the person who can walk to work and doesn’t have a car at all.
I love these threads - so many people not realising that they’re just blindly supporting their personal viewpoint as the ONLY sensible one, with no regard for the fact that other people have entirely differing priorities to them.
To me if I want a new car for reliability for example, then a four year old car isn’t even in the running unless it is so cheap I could afford to just throw it away at the first hint of trouble. It’s irrelevant.
To someone else who’s looking for a particular balance of newness vs cost, the four year old used model is the obvious choice and a new car isn’t in the running.
To someone else who’s looking for the cheapest possible motoring then the only sensible answer is a £100 1992 Fiesta and a four year old car is also irrelevant.
Venturist said:
swisstoni said:
The real winner is the person who buys the depreciated car in a few years.
The real winner is the person after that person. The real winner is the person who buys it three owners after them, and runs it for six months before it has to be scrapped.
The real winner is the person who can walk to work and doesn’t have a car at all.
I love these threads - so many people not realising that they’re just blindly supporting their personal viewpoint as the ONLY sensible one, with no regard for the fact that other people have entirely differing priorities to them.
To me if I want a new car for reliability for example, then a four year old car isn’t even in the running unless it is so cheap I could afford to just throw it away at the first hint of trouble. It’s irrelevant.
To someone else who’s looking for a particular balance of newness vs cost, the four year old used model is the obvious choice and a new car isn’t in the running.
To someone else who’s looking for the cheapest possible motoring then the only sensible answer is a £100 1992 Fiesta and a four year old car is also irrelevant.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff