lexus LFA way too overpriced?

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by bigearl

I don't know about that, I'd say the odds of being able to recover your money for the NM Camaro is very high. I'd say it's very high in the LFA as well IF they don't decide to up production and they allow a buyout at lease end.

If you can afford these as toys, then a 'value' is going to be based upon either the ability to recover your money or the worth of exclusivity.

I agree that it will be a collectible that will hold value.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by gm2376

I read there is only one LFA's in the entire country, and you can't buy them, only lease them....are you sure what you saw?

They changed the lease only policy. You can buy them now.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by bigearl

Well like I said on the NM Camaro- it wasn't overpriced because it sold out in 3 minutes. The first convertible in that price range that comes to mind is the Jaguar XK. Pretty clear that exclusivity has it's own intrinsic value that you can't compare by simply looking at the performance numbers and deciding what YOU as an individual would rather have.

I don't think I made my point well earlier. If the market decided the price then I think you could prove that the LFA and the NM Camaro are underpriced because demand was extremely higher than supply. I don't care how much it cost to produce. I could demonstrate that other cars near and dear to your hearts are overpriced in the market no matter how good of a value you think it is (yes, I am referring to Corvettes).

I'm not just making stuff up- it's sort of the underpinning of free world economics....

I don't understand the 'exclusivity' mindset. Ultimately, everything is unique in some way or another. No matter how much you try, no two parts are ever perfectly identical. When it comes to cars, if you're ever concerned about your car not being unique enough, there are countless ways you can make more unique and better suited to your own personal taste. So I place 0 additional value on how rare a new car may be. To me, a cars worth is determined by what it is. If you want to pay more just to be 'special' then you're paying too much. People were paying an extra $10k for a new Camaro little more than a year ago. Does that mean the Camaro was underpriced too? Of course not. It means there were people foolish enough to pay way more than it was worth.

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

If you want to pay more just to be 'special' then you're paying too much.

That's a personal values judgment, not an economic value judgment.

People were paying an extra $10k for a new Camaro little more than a year ago. Does that mean the Camaro was underpriced too? Of course not. It means there were people foolish enough to pay way more than it was worth.

It absolutely meant Camaros were underpriced for a short period of time, Camaros were underpriced until supply met demand. Now arguably Camaros are the most correctly priced car in GM's stable.

Hehe, sorry- I'll cut out now. I'm just having fun channeling my economics Professor (I'm sort of surprised I'm the only one who remembers econ 101 though). I'll cut out now

[LOWDOWN]

THE most basic "economics" principle:

Something is worth what someone will pay for it...as little...or as much... OK?

A "story"...that happens to be true, involving Camaros:

Late-'68. Fred Gibb/Dick Harrell get Vince Piggins to create a COPO number for a '69 plain-Jane Camaro (9560) with a ZL1 engine. Sanctioning bodies say, "Gotta be 50 made"; Piggins says, "Ditto"; Gibb orders 50, variously, on the assurance from Piggins that "the price will be right". First few land; others hear about it, and 19 more are ordered as well by "others". THEN the invoices start arriving...a vanilla Camaro with an all-aluminum 427 costs over $7-freakin'-GRAND!! Some were shipped back; some dealers got "unavailable" inventory to "support" their support; some got converted to other engines just to move 'em at any price; some languished...for up to two years...

Wanna buy a scrap 9560, serial number/documentation intact, like the one Reggie Jackson had burn in his garage fire a few years' back? SCRAP...well into $IX FIGURES, today...

A Buick "story", more recently: 1987 Regal GNX...540-odd made...$29,995, new. Today? Choice ones go for $IX FIGURES...

"They're only worth what someone will pay..."

As to the "concerns" about "2-year leases", this is a repeat of what Ferrari has done several times in the past...the Enzo being a recent example. There is precedent.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by bigearl

Hehe, sorry- I'll cut out now. I'm just having fun channeling my economics Professor (I'm sort of surprised I'm the only one who remembers econ 101 though). I'll cut out now

But not everyone paid that much. Even back then, most were essentially paying MSRP for their cars.

I never took Econ 101, but I did take ENGR 3360U: Engineering Economics. Based on the content, I imagine it covers most of the same topics as other introductory economics courses.

[Masta T]

Originally Posted by gm2376

I read there is only one LFA's in the entire country, and you can't buy them, only lease them....are you sure what you saw?

nevermind my minds gone bad (considering i saw a video of the only lfa in america on youtube) lol what i saw was a gunmetal gray GTR but who ever was driving it was pushing to the limit.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

But not everyone paid that much. Even back then, most were essentially paying MSRP for their cars.

I never took Econ 101, but I did take ENGR 3360U: Engineering Economics. Based on the content, I imagine it covers most of the same topics as other introductory economics courses.

Taking a sort-of economics class, and using statistics here, leads me to assume that you were being taught by a Keynesian, considering this is the most commonly held belief; but economic principles, such as simple supply and demand, are applied to every aspect of economic, which includes the most basic aspects such as labor, capital, and even money. Frankly, what most Keynesians teach you is crap.

Subjectivity is logically undeniable in economics, unless you're a socialist or in some cases a Keynesian. The point here being that a sale can not happen in a market economy without both parties feeling they are exchanging for an item of greater value to them; the person(s) who paid $350K for an LFA felt that the LFA was worth that much, thus the exact reason why they bought the LFA. To me, however, the LFA isn't worth $350K, yet this doesn't give me some logical backing to say it isn't worth that much to someone else.