Craigslist ad: "I owe $3000 more than my car is worth; PLEASE buy it now!!!"

[LeeH]

Updated ad:
http://phoenix.craigslist.org/car/82644372.html

"First let me say-if you're NOT seriously interested in the car PLEASE DO NOT EMAIL ME your sarcastic or insulting, judgemental comments. I mean really-who has time for that?

I know the price vs blue book is not ideal, but I have to keep trying to sell this car for the balance of my loan. If I had the means to "take a hit" or "pay the difference" I would have relieved myself of this situation 2 weeks ago! "

[Steve Carlton]

Originally posted by Dantilla
Seems to me you're renting a car for $11,760. I'm glad there are people willing to spend $40,000 $60,000 or even $88,000 on new cars. That insures a good supply of used cars for me to buy in five years. Currently there are three Porsches, one Jeep and a Chevy pick-up I can drive. All paid in full when purchased. All of them for a lot less than $88,000, and a couple of the Porsches worth more than I paid.

I will borrow money only to earn more money. I invest in real estate. I just buy & sell cars.

Renting a car like that for $280/mo seems fine to me; plenty of other cars rent for less. Most cars depreciate no matter how they're paid for, that's a given. Leasing is like paying for just the depreciation and the interest on the money borrowed. Low lease factors minimize the interest portion. Cash not invested in a car and be spent, say on real estate...

Having a new car that starts every time I turn the key, doesn't spend any time in the shop generating bills, or doesn't require a tow now and then has its charm.

If and when I get in a bad situation, I'll have ABS and four airbags to avoid or minimize the damage. So I don't have to sell my real estate to pay for the hospital or early retirement.

[89911]

I'm talking late 2000 M5's and X5's, your talking 20 year old Porsche's and pickups. It is hard to compare owning and leasing unless your talking about the same relative price of the cars. I actually own my cars except for my wife's 2005 Odyssey van. 3 years lease, $530/mo 15k a year. I have no desire to "own" a minivan.

[Dantilla]

The Jeep is a 1998. The truck is a 2001. I have air bags and anti-lock brakes. The last Porsche I sold was a 1989 944S2 with both air bags and anti-lock.

Here's my point- The truck had a original sticker of $30,000. I bought it when it was two years old, still under warrenty, for $20,000.

Maybe the discussion shouldn't be leasing vs. buying, but new vs. used.

I'm still not going to lease, and I still feel sorry for people who end up upside-down in a Saturn.

[Blanco]

Yeah... I learned my lesson a long time ago.

I have only bought used well maintained vehicles for cash as I rack up tons of miles on them making a lease or a new vehicle a bad deal.

My Lexus has 157,000
My Discovery has 175K (wrecked a week ago)

I usually get them with ~ 80K on them and I do all the oil changes and regular maintenance.

At this point the car is making me money by taking me back and forth to work with very little cost/mile

[kaisen]

LEASE BASHERS:

You are forgetting a big component of leasing. GUARANTEED FUTURE VALUE! (I'll get to it in a minute)

One of the other differences buy vs lease has been mentioned (tax savings - in most states you pay only on the payment, over time, rather than X% of purchase price UP FRONT) but remember that most all the 'evils' that come with the lease are the same if you own it.

If you whine that you put too many miles on to lease, bull. If you put 25000 miles a year on a car you bought, it still cost you to drive those miles, you just wont know how much it costs you until you trade it or sell it. If you take out a five year loan to buy it (very common) you will either end up with a 125,000 mile paid-for car, or a HUGE inequity after three years. Three years into you three year lease, you're done. At least with a lease you have (in writing) the MOST it will cost you, usually 15-18 cents per mile. I say 'most' because you always have the option of trading or selling your leased vehicle and perhaps minimizing or negating the 'penalty'.

Same goes for damage. Yes you will get penalized for turning in your leased car with significant scrapes...... but wouldn't you if you owned it? Do you think it's worth the same with or without the damage?? Again, the same is true that you may 'escape' some or all of the charges by exercising your right to trade or sell your leased vehicle.

Additionally, let's say you got into a bad accident two days after you drove your new car off the lot. It sustains several thousands in damage, but not enough to total it. It's never the same. You can even see the difference in paint. You have a CarFax that shows a major accident on record. If you own the car, you own the problem. You will get less for your car when the time comes. If you leased, you give them the keys and pick out a new one.

Okay, now GUARANTEED FUTURE VALUE. Every manufacturer's lease has a residual value on which the lease is based. Your options at the end of the lease revolve around this $$ amount. You can buy out your lease, you can sell or trade it, or you can always give the car back (try doing that with a loan -- it's called a repo). If the residual is $17000 and you like your car enough, then you can buy it for $17000. If you don't like your car, you can always trade it in or sell it, although you wouldn't do that unless it was worth more than $17000.... you can extract your equity. It does happen, although not that often, that they guessed low when they set the residual. Happens with imports more often.

However, let's say their $17000 guess is wrong the other way, and it's really worth $15000. GIVE THEM THE KEYS and walk away. You just escaped $2000 of the real cost of ownership by leasing. If you owned it, you would have gotten $12000, instead you had a guaranteed buyer for $17000. Think it doesn't happen? Ask people who leased Suburbans, TrailBlazers, and Explorers three years ago when they were reasonably hot. Now that gas is $2.00+ they are dirt cheap. (02 Trailblazer LS 4x4's with 40K are $10.5-11.0 wholesale). So if you bought that $30K Trailblazer three years ago and paid cash, it cost you $19K in depreciation. The lease residuals were $17500. It cost you $12.5K in depreciation/principle AND you only paid part of the sales tax. GMAC lost the bet, and ate the extra $6-7K.

There are very few scenarios for the average new car buyer where leasing isn't equal or better than taking out a conventional five year loan.

E

[Z-man]

Ok, lemme take a crack at this:

Originally posted by kaisen
LEASE BASHERS: . . .
One of the other differences buy vs lease has been mentioned (tax savings - in most states you pay only on the payment, over time, rather than X% of purchase price UP FRONT) but remember that most all the 'evils' that come with the lease are the same if you own it.

Yeah, but remember my main premise is that I plan on owning my car for a longer period of time. That way, those 'evils' get 'amortized' over time. The longer you own a car, the cheaper it costs to own it per mile.

If you whine that you put too many miles on to lease, bull. If you put 25000 miles a year on a car you bought, it still cost you to drive those miles, you just wont know how much it costs you until you trade it or sell it. If you take out a five year loan to buy it (very common) you will either end up with a 125,000 mile paid-for car, or a HUGE inequity after three years. Three years into you three year lease, you're done. At least with a lease you have (in writing) the MOST it will cost you, usually 15-18 cents per mile. I say 'most' because you always have the option of trading or selling your leased vehicle and perhaps minimizing or negating the 'penalty'.

Stretch that high mileage anaolgy a bit further -- in my case, I have 150,000 miles on a car I've owned for nearly 12 year (1995 Subaru Legacy). I paid $18k for it back in 1994. If you wish, I can come up with how much I paid in interest on my $5000.00 loan, and how much I've paid in maintenance and repairs. (Note: interest and maintenance costs are also part of a leased car) That said, I highly doubt that leasing 4 cars over the same amount of time would have cost me less.

Same goes for damage. Yes you will get penalized for turning in your leased car with significant scrapes...... but wouldn't you if you owned it? Do you think it's worth the same with or without the damage?? Again, the same is true that you may 'escape' some or all of the charges by exercising your right to trade or sell your leased vehicle.

My car has already depreciated to the point where a few scratches won't really effect its resale value. Besides, when I buy a car, I am not buying it as an investment opportunity -- I am buying it to use it. And I will use it as long as I can. My daily driver has ABS, Dual airbags, and side impact beams. The only thing I wish I had was a CD player (it was available as an option, but I didn't opt for it). With AWD, I've got plenty of traction. With my 4cyl motor, I get close to 30mpg. What more do I want? (Ok, a sunroof would have been nice to get too! ) Say my car's worth $2000.00. A buyer just doesn't have as much leverage in negociating down on the price due to blemishes as he would have on the purchase of a $20,000.00 used car.

Additionally, let's say you got into a bad accident two days after you drove your new car off the lot. It sustains several thousands in damage, but not enough to total it. It's never the same. You can even see the difference in paint. You have a CarFax that shows a major accident on record. If you own the car, you own the problem. You will get less for your car when the time comes. If you leased, you give them the keys and pick out a new one.

My car did get side swiped a few years ago - damage to the two driver's side doors. But that's what I have insurance for! If I'm no longer happy with the car, I can sell it, since I own it: whenever I want -- I don't have to wait until my lease is up to turn it in (or suffer early return penalties). So call it a wash -- selling a damaged car for less that it's book value vs. turning in a damaged & repaired lease car and paying a penalty for early return.

Okay, now GUARANTEED FUTURE VALUE. Every manufacturer's lease has a residual value on which the lease is based. Your options at the end of the lease revolve around this $$ amount. You can buy out your lease, you can sell or trade it, or you can always give the car back (try doing that with a loan -- it's called a repo). If the residual is $17000 and you like your car enough, then you can buy it for $17000. If you don't like your car, you can always trade it in or sell it, although you wouldn't do that unless it was worth more than $17000.... you can extract your equity. It does happen, although not that often, that they guessed low when they set the residual. Happens with imports more often.

However, let's say their $17000 guess is wrong the other way, and it's really worth $15000. GIVE THEM THE KEYS and walk away. You just escaped $2000 of the real cost of ownership by leasing. If you owned it, you would have gotten $12000, instead you had a guaranteed buyer for $17000. Think it doesn't happen? Ask people who leased Suburbans, TrailBlazers, and Explorers three years ago when they were reasonably hot. Now that gas is $2.00+ they are dirt cheap. (02 Trailblazer LS 4x4's with 40K are $10.5-11.0 wholesale). So if you bought that $30K Trailblazer three years ago and paid cash, it cost you $19K in depreciation. The lease residuals were $17500. It cost you $12.5K in depreciation/principle AND you only paid part of the sales tax. GMAC lost the bet, and ate the extra $6-7K.

Residual value -- it's just a game -- an opinion or a prediction of what the leasing company thinks your car will be worth in a few years. Highly speculative, and highly volitile. No one can accurately predict the future -- sometimes you win, sometimes you loose. And 'residual value' can also apply to a purchased vehicle -- I may think I can sell my car for $X, but I may only get $X - $Y. THAT SAID -- IMHO - the best way to guarantee that you will get the most value out of a car is to own/drive it for more than 5 years. After five years, the depreciation curve flattens out a bit, and the car loan is paid off. Every day you drive that car and don't need to pay for a loan on it is putting money in the bank.

There are very few scenarios for the average new car buyer where leasing isn't equal or better than taking out a conventional five year loan.
E

There is one definate scenario where buying a car is far better than leasing -- and that's simply keeping a bought car for longer than 5 years. I understand that some people can't bear the thought of owning a car for longer than 3-4 years: I don't have a problem with that.

I challenge you to show me a way that I would have saved money since 1995 if I would have leased cars instead of owning my 1995 Subaru Legacy. Remember - since 1998, I have not had a loan to pay, and my insurance has gone down consistently over the years. I have not had any major work done on the car -- only regularly scheduled maintenance and the occasional repair work (starter motor, shock absorber...etc). The car has 150,000 on the clock, still runs like a champ, and will actually get me through snow far better than some of the newer cars out there (traction control has it's disadvantages in the snow...). The car is straight - a few dings and scratches here and there. According to Kelly Blue Book, my car is worth about $2570 (fair condition) to $3065 (good condition). Figure I can sell it for about $2000.00.

So -- is there a leasing alternative that would match my financial output? Show me!

Bottom line:
1. If you turn over your car every 2-3 years, then leasing MAY work out - but you need to 'run the numbers' and compare leasing a given car vs. buying one.
2. If you plan on keeping your car for longer than 5 years, buying a car is a better alternative from a financial point of view.

-Z.

[kaisen]

Okay Z

You seem to be pointing out differences between owning a car for several years, not changing every 3-4 years more than you are making valid points about buying versus leasing. The fact is, the average American DOES switch cars every 3 years. To keep a car 12 years, as you suggest, is BRILLIANT but unlikely and atypical. You have driven your car well past where the 'average' consumer would feel comfortable keeping the car as their sole means of transportation. I agree that the 'millionaire next door' gets that way by living like that.

My point was that EVEN if you may keep your car forever, leasing may give you options (like a balloon note) towards your long term ownership.

A 3 year lease then 2 year loan = 5 years to ownership may not be a penny more than a 5 year loan, but gives you all the benefits (less tax up front, guaranteed value) and more options (what if I don't like it, market/gas changes, family changes, etc.)

In 1998 I leased a Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer 4x4. It stickered for $41400 and I paid about $37000. Bank One set 36 month residual at $29900. My payments were $347/mo. As the 36 month mark approached, it was clear that $29900 was WAY high. I turned it back in at the end (June 2001, when gas hit $2), no penalties, no damage, no miles over .... just gave them the keys. They took it to the auction where my local Ford dealership bought it for $22K.

Compared to my buddy that believed that cash was king, I came out about $7000 ahead, without counting the $2000 in tax he paid up front, and the difference in cash flow/liquidity. He shelled out a total of $39K and had an 'asset' worth $22k .... $17K loss not counting 'opportunity cost' of his money tied up in a hunk of iron. I paid 36 x $347 = $12.5K and tied up nothing.

Had I wanted to keep my Expedition until the wheels fell off, I would have bought my own (or someone elses) for $23K or so from the Ford dealer and still come out ahead compared to my cash buddy.

By the way, you cannot 'lose' some of the time on residual. It is a price 'floor'. If it is worth more, you'd buy it for the lower amount and sell/trade to extract your equity. It just doesn't happen very often. Usually, the lease companies are the ones who lose.

Another reason to lease: Liability. Your leased vehicle is not your asset, and you cannot be sued for it. It is owned by the lease company. For some businesses, this is an important difference.

All this said, I own my toys, and lease my 'every-day' vehicles. I shell out about $9000 a year to stay in new vehicles with no maintenance (included), no repairs (warranty), no cash tied-up, no worries. If both of us wanted to drive a $2000 *****box, I realize that we could have bought a 930 Turbo with the savings over the years. But getting to work on time, being presentable at work, having safety features (like airbags, side airbags, stability management, etc.), and having kids in the cars make the *****box approach unworkable.

If you ARE like most Americans, leasing isn't a bad way to go.

If you have the discipline to buy a two year old Camry and drive it ten years, your kids will love their inheritance. And they'll blow it on new cars.

E

[911boost]

When my wife got pregnant in 2002, we owned a 1995 Honda Accord with 110,000 miles. The car would have most likely gone another 100K easily. I was worried about her drive, and the snow, etc. I wanted a station wagon, she refused, saying she wanted to wait until we had more than one child. I agreed, and we leased a new Vovlo S60 with AWD. Its been a great car, has been under warranty since day one, and hasn't given us any problems. My wife and daughter were in it when she got in an accident, causing both front air bags to go off. They both were uninjured. In August 2006 we will walk away from it, since it has been wrecked (even though the repair was done very well).

Leasing made sense to me at the time so I could invest the $$ we got from selling the Honda, and put the minimum down on the Volvo, plus I knew she would change her mind about the wagon.

I own the Tahoe, along with all of my toys. When the time comes, I will buy a V70 wagon (an R if she will let me, smile).

I think that both Z-man and E have very valid arguments. Z-man is like my father, he buys a car, pays it off, then drives it for a long time (he just recently sold an old Acura Integra and bought a one year old 330 ci with the sport package, that I am sure he will drive forever). On the other hand, if I had bought the S60, I would have had to go through the pain of selling it, now that my wife has seen the light.

Bill

[Z-man]

Originally posted by kaisen
Okay Z

You seem to be pointing out differences between owning a car for several years, not changing every 3-4 years more than you are making valid points about buying versus leasing.

But time is a MAJOR factor when it comes to buying vs. leasing!

The fact is, the average American DOES switch cars every 3 years. To keep a car 12 years, as you suggest, is BRILLIANT but unlikely and atypical.

Can you provide a source for your statistic?

But getting to work on time, being presentable at work, having safety features (like airbags, side airbags, stability management, etc.), and having kids in the cars make the *****box approach unworkable.

Pardon me, but my 12 year old Subaru is no sh**box by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, it isn't as pretty as a Mercedes, or as popular as the honkin' big SUV's, but it is a safe, reliable source of transportation for me. Are there safer cars? You betcha. But there are far less safe cars out on the road today as well. I can't believe how many cars get stuck in the snow, while my little Subbie keeps on going! Rainy day? My car drives like it's dry out! In terms of being presentable at work - I work for Mercedes Benz USA home office. I suppose if I want to be presentable in my parking lot, I'd need to lease a CLK, SLK, E, S, or SL. Even with my employee discount, I still can't justify the lease of these fine cars!

If you have the discipline to buy a two year old Camry and drive it ten years, your kids will love their inheritance. And they'll blow it on new cars.
E

Now that's funny!!!

BTW: Last year, we bought my wife a New Beetle Turbo. 2003 left over (bought in June) Sticker was over $23000.00, and we paid $18,500.00 for it. Put down $5k, financed the rest to the tune of ~ $300 a month (4 year loan, IIRC). I hope she likes the car after 5 years....

-Z.

[Steve Carlton]

Originally posted by Z-man

Stretch that high mileage anaolgy a bit further -- in my case, I have 150,000 miles on a car I've owned for nearly 12 year (1995 Subaru Legacy). I paid $18k for it back in 1994. If you wish, I can come up with how much I paid in interest on my $5000.00 loan, and how much I've paid in maintenance and repairs. (Note: interest and maintenance costs are also part of a leased car) That said, I highly doubt that leasing 4 cars over the same amount of time would have cost me less.

What's $18K in 1994 dollars worth now? At 5% per year, $30,786? Interest on $5K was minimal, but you lost income/opportunity on the $13K (plus tax?). Most people don't get 150-200,000 miles out of a car without a big hit or two on repairs. A leased car is likely to need a set of tires, but not much else outside of minimal, routine maintenence. Probably no brakes, clutches, batteries, alternators, or shocks.

Originally posted by Z-man

If I'm no longer happy with the car, I can sell it, since I own it: whenever I want -- I don't have to wait until my lease is up to turn it in (or suffer early return penalties). So call it a wash -- selling a damaged car for less that it's book value vs. turning in a damaged & repaired lease car and paying a penalty for early return.

Early termination penalties usually only apply during the first year of a lease. After that, sell it, trade it, and pay the payoff. If I had purchased my car, I would have paid around $2K in tax up front. On the lease, I'm paying $23/month. If I get out early, the more tax I saved. At termination, 42 x $23 = $966.

Originally posted by Z-man

Residual value -- it's just a game -- an opinion or a prediction of what the leasing company thinks your car will be worth in a few years. Highly speculative, and highly volitile. No one can accurately predict the future -- sometimes you win, sometimes you loose.

It's a game only the lender can lose. If they set the residual too high, that's less depreciation you paid than the market reality. In kaisen's example, he paid his car down to $30K when it was really worth $22K. Many lenders will let the original lessee buy their own car for or close to it's current wholesale value. So kaisen potentially could have bought his own car for $22-23K (skipping $7-8K in principal). Seen it happen a hundred times. Or, kaisen could have negotiated to buy it for say $23K and sold it himself for say $26K, lowering his effective depreciation for 3 years to $4K (about the same rate of depreciation as your Legacy). If the residual was set too low, you can recoup some of your outlay. Where do you lose?

Originally posted by Z-man

There is one definate scenario where buying a car is far better than leasing -- and that's simply keeping a bought car for longer than 5 years. I understand that some people can't bear the thought of owning a car for longer than 3-4 years: I don't have a problem with that.

What's wrong with leasing and buying at the end for the residual, or perhaps less? If the car's a turd or has been wrecked, reshuffle the deck. You got to date her before you decide to marry her.

Bottom line: a smart lease makes the cost of ownership competitive with running the wheels of a car, well worth the delta, IMHO.

[Z-man]

Originally posted by Steve Carlton
What's $18K in 1994 dollars worth now? At 5% per year, $30,786? Interest on $5K was minimal, but you lost income/opportunity on the $13K (plus tax?).

I don't understand the relevance of calculating the value of 1994's $18K vs. today.

How about this concept instead: let's assume that the average car lease payment is ~ $300 a month. Since I've owed nothing on the car since 1998, that means I've been able to pocket ~ $300 a month for the past 6 years or so. That adds up to $21,600.00! Even if I did lose income/opportunity because of the money I put into the car, I've more than made it up in the years that I haven't had a car payment - lease or loan!

I suppose I'm a "yesterday's child." I'd rather settle all my depts sooner than later. I'm not a big fan of revolving dept.

Side note: The mortgage on my house matures in 2008 (thanks to a nice down-payment gift from my parents!) Now, many 'tax advisers' have told me that I should refinance so I get a better tax break every year, since my mortgage payment goes more towards the prinipal, and less towards the interest. But why? So I get back pennies to the dollar? When my mortgage is paid off in 2008, I can take the whole mortgage payment and invest that!

Originally posted by kaisen
I agree that the 'millionaire next door' gets that way by living like that.

Make no mistake, I am no millonaire. If anything, as long as I own my 944S2, I am assured that my Porsche mechanic will be a millionaire sooner than I will!

-Z.

[Steve Carlton]

My point was $18K back in 1994 was worth a lot more then than it is now, so illustrating your costs in 2005 with 1994 money is misleading. Same goes for those who say their car is worth the same now as when they got it. Not true from the perspective of real buying power (or value). Although I would usually be ecstatic if any depreciable asset I owned was still worth the same number of dollars I paid for it.

Think of this analogy- buying a house in 1994 for $300K and financing $240K for 30 years at 6%. You're paying back the 1994 debt with cheaper dollars. Even though a lease is usually 3-5 years, the payments are "cheaper" over time because of inflation and one's income increasing.

Or how about this- your $13K (?) down payment could have gone into some investment, say real estate (if you were lucky), or whatever opportunity you have knowledge or expertise in. What do you suppose your extra income/net worth would be on that money instead of going into your Subaru? A true analysis would include the evaluation of the lost opportunity.

In today's dollars, $300/month is a lot of bang for the buck if it leases you a nice car. The value of avoiding major maintenence events or breakdowns could be deducted from that cost in comparing it to cars purchased and held long-term. Although it hasn't happened to you, many who keep cars 200,000 miles experience major bills to keep their cars running. My point is if you add all this up, I don't think it costs that much more to lease and be free of all the aggravation.

I'm no fan of debts, either (although you wouldn't know it looking at my bills). But driving a car is going to cost money, no matter how you slice it.

Having a house free-and-clear is a wonderful thing, and you should be congratulated. If you did refinance your house, it could be worthwhile if you invested the proceeds into an investment with a certain return. If you borrowed the money at 6%, after-taxes your net cost might be 4%. Put the money down, on say an apartment building. You could be a millionaire before your Porsche mechanic!

[Dantilla]

I'm with Z-man.

I sold my last truck with well over 200,000 miles, to a friend (He had been bugging me for quite while to sell it to him). It's still running strong. Maybe I should have kept it longer! Never failed to get me where I was going. Once or twice a year I spent something for maintenance- new alternator, U-joints, battery, changed all the belts and hoses at 100,000, and again at 200,000. I don't think I ever spent 300 in one month. So to eliminate the possibility of spending money now and then the answer is to spend it every month? Doesn't make sense to me.....

My mortgage is at only 4-3/4%, but I still want to eliminate it early. I owe very little in relation to the value of the house, but when it's paid off, it's like getting a monthly raise the same amount as I'm currently paying.

I will refinance my investment property to invest in more property. BTDT, and will continue. But I will only borrow money to make more money.

I guess I don't have a problem with leasing as much as I refuse to pay for a new car at all- Leasing, financing, paying cash, not worth it to take the heavy depreciation.

[Steve Carlton]

Heavy depreciation is not a given. Cars that are hot on the market or have high resale value track histories have high residuals. The 911 was historically a good example of this.

These days with amazing incentives and discounts, it's not uncommon to drive down the initial purchase price (cap cost), and combined with a high residual, generate a small depreciation amount to be amortized over the lease term.

Kaisen's Expedition example applies. When you're only paying $7,000 over 3 years on a vehicle like that, that's not "heavy depreciation." Combine that with a low-rate lease factor, and viola!

When the New Beetle was hot, I saw 2, 3, 4, and 5 year leases all coming out around $125/mo. In 1995, GE Capital offered a stupid 2 year lease on Grand Cherokees where if you added a CD changer & head unit, the residuals were within $3,000 of the cap cost! And with multiple deposits, the rate factor was bought down really low. I put friends into loaded 4WD Laredos for $257/month, including tax. BTW, GE Capital was losing a million dollars a month two years later when those puppies started returning...

[Dantilla]

Originally posted by Steve Carlton
I put friends into loaded 4WD Laredos for $257/month, including tax.

I was beginning to think you were in the car leasing business.

[Steve Carlton]

Not anymore. But I was in the car biz 19 years.