It's good to be informed. Suze Orman gives pretty good financial advice and does it again with this leasing article:

http://biz.yahoo.com/pfg/e16buylease/

 

Suze Orman is an idiot. Worst financial advice I'd ever heard of. (Not this article, didn't even read it, but her advice I've ever seen her give is drivel)

 

I've never read anything of hers, but I did read these and most of makes sense to me. I don't think leasing is the way to go. For me, had I leased my vehicles, I wouldn't have good daily drivers to drive and have my GTO and the new Mustang next spring as play toys.

 

Not true. Suze Orman's financial advice is right on. I watch her show sometimes and everything she says make sense. I will admit sometimes she is a bit annoying and over the top, but again, she gives good advice. Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth about finances because it means they can't always have what they want. :nono:

 

No, it is true. She is a complete and utter idiot. Maybe if you are dead broke she can help you get out of debt, but for people with money in reserve her "ideas" (I won't even call it advice) doesn't get them anywhere. I have plenty of money to my name, I'm planning on buying my car cash, and I can't imagine any of her ideas ever making me more money than I have.

In the front page of that article, she says "if you are cutting it close, buy an almost new car". That is just plain moronic.
Reasons:

1) New cars have better service agreements, if you have a problem you won't be shelling out more.
2) As she says, a car loses 20-30% of value as soon as you get it. However, you aren't going to get a 20-30% discount on an almost new car. Buying something for less than its worth = stupid. Advising lots of people to do the same = moronic.
3) She goes on to state that "its easier to disregard every scratch and ding". Excuse me? Are you a financial advisor? Then why are telling the people that listen to your advice to let their property (you are against leasing, so it would be their property) lose its value more quickly? Scratches and such take the resale value away, so the property that was "20-30%" devalued is now more like 30-40%

Need more reasons? Ask.

Edit: Welcome to the boards, and don't think I'm attacking you in any way, I'm attacking her and her horrible advice. And GO YANKS!

 

Everything she said is great in my opinion. People spend more than they have all the time. It's a chronic problem in America: Keeping up the Jones'. I'm not saying that buying with borrowed money is ALWAYS bad but it is admittedly pretty dumb with a car. Cars ALWAYS depreciate. (With the exception of rare cars that are in high demand ..) Financially, a new car is a DUMB investment. A new house is a much more sound investment, as they almost always gain value. In any case, I think paying cash for a car is the only way to go, but I know some people believe otherwise.

 

Can you explain the end of Number 2 please? And, please use some common respect, as you are NOT dealing with a moron.

 

If this is the case, why is it I went to the Corvete museum in Bowling Green the other day, saw a Vette' that sold for $3850 new, and now is worth well over 100k?

 

I bought my like new SUV with 26K on it for $13K less than what it went for new. I got what I really wanted but with a little mileage on it and didn't go into massive debt to get it.

 

If this is the case, why is it I went to the Corvete museum in Bowling Green the other day, saw a Vette' that sold for $3850 new, and now is worth well over 100k? [/b][/quote]
:notnice: What do you take me for? I own a 1964 Ford Galaxie 500 hardtop. The car has actually gained in value because the demand for them has increased. There are SOME cars that appreciate in value, but only rare cars that are in high demand. Like it or not, while the Mustang is in demand, it still suffers from depreciation.

You distorted my words by picking out just a portion of what I said. You would be a good movie promoter.

Don't get all hot and bothered, I just don't think it was necessary to take what I said out of context. The majority of us aren't going to buy NEW cars that won't depreciate. And if you're making payments on a car, it's unlikely that it's a classic.

By the way, Bob Perkins, of Wisconsin, owns a bunch of classic Mustangs and restores a bunch for his business. Most of the cars he has are original cars that have been sitting for 30-40 years already. I don't consider that owning a CAR. It's called making an investment. Those cars have about 2 - 20 miles on them. Those cars were never intended by the owner to be used as a car. They are more or less a time capsule.

 

Can you explain the end of Number 2 please? And, please use some common respect, as you are NOT dealing with a moron. [/b][/quote]
I changed the word "used" to "new" in almost new, because thats what I meant originally.

I'll explain best I can.

Orman (I'm calling her a moron, not anyone here, just to make that clear) Is saying you should buy a car at less than a year old because the value is 20-30% less when you drive a new car off the lot. She is correct in that the value does drop, thats common knowledge. However, she is incorrect in saying its a good purchase. The car won't be 20-30% off the original sticker if it doesn't have too many miles and is less than a year old. I would say more like 10%.

Therefore, the value of the car would be original - 20-30%, and you would be paying original - 10%, thus paying an extra 10-20%, which is spending more than something is worth, and thus not smart financial advice.

She advises everyone who reads this article to do this, which makes her a moron for telling the public to do something financial stupid.

 

26K isn't what I would call little mileage, especially if its less than a year old. You are almost through the factory warranty.

 

to save $13,000 it's worth it in my opinion. If tomorrow, you buy a car new and something happens and you need to sell it, you are screwed. You will take a huge hit. No one is going to buy a used car for a little less than what they can get it for new even if the mileage is low. If I had to sell my suv, right after I bought it,I would have easily been able to get what I owed and then some. For the kind of vehicle I wanted, I didn't want to go into the kind of debt necessary when buying it new. 26K is less than 2 years mileage and it came off a lease so it had to be kept in good shape by the leasee.


Go Sawx!!!!

 

I think she is doing very well for herself, for a moron! Just because you don't feel you need her advice,doesn't make it bad advice. She follows the basic ideas of good money management.

 

Ok, thats fine for you. However, it isn't following her advice, which is what I was commenting on. All I am saying is her advice is plain stupid, and shouldn't be followed. Your advice, on the other hand, is much more sensible.

Yanks over twins 5-4
DRays over red sox 6-3

 

If you call not spending more than you have (within reason) idiotic, then I'll debate you all day long. The main problem is that people get taken advantage of by going into leases without having all the information first. It seems like a good deal at first, but then it ends up costing them more than getting a loan and purchasing a vehicle.

If you had money in reserve, why would you lease or finance? Unless it was cutting into your savings or retirement? [Please don't come back with the late 90's argument that you can invest the money and make 20%]

1.) M'kay.......the dealership has service agreements to protect THEIR vehicle. This cost is factored into the lease.

2.) New cars do lose 20-30% of their value. You might not get 20-30% off from a dealer used car lot, but you do from buying from private individuals. The best "almost new" cars to buy are people that are over their heads on the lease/loan and have to off load the car quickly. ie lost their job or had a baby.

3.) The scratch and ding thing means that you aren't going to be overly penalized for abnormal wear and tear at the end of the lease.


No offense taken. I don't feel bad for anyone who makes an informed decision. There is no one-size-fits-all financial advice. Your mileage may vary. I've personally known several people that have gotten extremely bad leases.

 

I already explained why it was bad advice, did you not read that part of the thread? One last time, buying anything for more money than its worth its not a wise purchase decision, and thats what she tells you to do in that article. Whether or not I need her advice either way is irrelevant, I'm commenting on the advice she gave.

 

Replying to 351 Stang (I don't want to quote because the post is so long):

As I said, I'm only commenting on her advice, not leasing/buying/financing in general.

As for the points:

1) She is talking purchasing, not leasing. Either way though, the service agreement would add to the cost of the "like new" car.

2) I agree with you on the point that you may save 20-30% buying from an individual. However, in that case, you can throw any kind of maintanience agreement out the window, which adds more cost.

3) I also agree with you here. However, she is saying buy and ignore the scratches and dings, nothing about leasing.

 

Grant,

I think you are in the minority here. You also said, if we need any more reasons to ask.

I don't think the article suggested that you buy something for more than it's worth. I'm not following your logic.

It may take some looking to get a car that has less than 12,000 miles and has a 30% depreciation, but those deals are out there. If you don't believe me, go pick up a couple Kelly Blue Books and compare them to last years MSRP. I believe you are comparing dealer used car prices to new car prices. The difference you see is their profit.

This is my last post on the thread. It's a little to heated and I just wanted to inform some people not make them angry.

[EDIT] It appears that I was posting while Grant was posting [/EDIT]

 

:notnice: What do you take me for? I own a 1964 Ford Galaxie 500 hardtop. The car has actually gained in value because the demand for them has increased. There are SOME cars that appreciate in value, but only rare cars that are in high demand. Like it or not, while the Mustang is in demand, it still suffers from depreciation.

You distorted my words by picking out just a portion of what I said. You would be a good movie promoter.

Don't get all hot and bothered, I just don't think it was necessary to take what I said out of context. The majority of us aren't going to buy NEW cars that won't depreciate. And if you're making payments on a car, it's unlikely that it's a classic.

By the way, Bob Perkins, of Wisconsin, owns a bunch of classic Mustangs and restores a bunch for his business. Most of the cars he has are original cars that have been sitting for 30-40 years already. I don't consider that owning a CAR. It's called making an investment. Those cars have about 2 - 20 miles on them. Those cars were never intended by the owner to be used as a car. They are more or less a time capsule. [/b][/quote]
First and foremost, nobody is hot and bothered by your statement.... As for the '64, nice ride. I myself have an original 70 Camaro RS/Z28, with around 115K on it. I bought it in California back in '89 while with the Marine Corps 1/9 for 8K. Simple fixes here and there, estimated around 21,500. Not bad for a DRIVER. But I get what you mean.