Is $4k over sticker worth it? Originally they wanted $10k…

[RapVillin]

Congrats amigo paid 5k over at lamarq in Metairie

Sponsored

 

[medocbiga]

if you are in rush, paying it fine.
Have a 19 raptor and plenty of time to watch the market!
But if tomorrow i crash the truck, I will be willing paying more to get a new vehicule.

 

[Antigguan]

I had to pay 5000 over sticker price , they call it a demand cost

 

[RaptorJoe]

I wouldn't do it, I only pay MSRP, but i don't fault people for doing it. It seems to be the norm for dealers, i got sick of the games and went a different direction.

 

[LoneStarCaviar]

I paid 3k over for mine in Azure Gray. I have a relationship with my dealer, I’ve bought my 2018 Shelby Raptor, 2017 platinum F350 dually, 2012 F250, 2021 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2021 platinum f250, 2019 platinum f150 diesel, and my 2021 gt350r Heritage carbon through them, and they still wouldn’t give it to me at Msrp. They are in the business of making money, and I did get my Shelby raptor for $85k when they were asking $100k, so I’ll consider $3k over a win, especially knowing that Ford will raise prices next year, considering after they lost so much money this year through the union thugs.

 

[Bash1990]

I'm against it on principle, but a few grand for the top trim is not that excessive.

I don't think anyone should pay a 10 or 20k markup even if they can afford it.

 

[Jab]

I'm against it on principle, but a few grand for the top trim is not that excessive.

I don't think anyone should pay a 10 or 20k markup even if they can afford it.

I'm against it on principle as well. That said, if you really want a truck and have the extra money to help you get there quicker(or in some cases at all), well I can't fault the buyer. The dealers are scum however, and to some extent the manufacturers are as well for not doing more to stop it.

 

[Wayfaring Ranger]

I'm against it on principle as well. That said, if you really want a truck and have the extra money to help you get there quicker(or in some cases at all), well I can't fault the buyer. The dealers are scum however, and to some extent the manufacturers are as well for not doing more to stop it.

Aren't dealers just taking advantage of regulatory capture?

If anything I think the state and existing laws that exist to prevent a good alternative (aka direct-to-consumer sales) are what is mostly to blame here.

 

[LFRR13]

A local dealer here in SoCal originally quoted me $10k above sticker. I managed to bring it down to $4k.

Thoughts?

I was willing to spend $5k over sticker. I say $4k is fair. I was offered one at $10k and passed.
Ultimately, their willingness to move the unit NOW should be greater, as all inventory is starting to pile up.

I see you posted this is May, so who knows if you're still here and/or willing/able to spend the $4k ADM.

Aren't dealers just taking advantage of regulatory capture?

If anything I think the state and existing laws that exist to prevent a good alternative (aka direct-to-consumer sales) are what is mostly to blame here.

You're right vis-a-vis Franchise Laws. They were originally created when the OEM was massive and the dealer was tiny. It was done to protect the dealer from direct-to-consumer sales. Since then, dealers have become hugely powerful and influential, with some even being massive public companies. Unless Franchise Laws are walked back at the state or national level, the OEM is powerless against ADMs. Ultimately, it is the perfect example of a free-market economy - the consumer is under no obligation to buy any car from any dealer, especially one applying ADM.

Some states were looking into this during the middle off this year, but the response lagged behind its peak during COVID. As the economy slows and inventory begins to grow on dealer lots, the prevalence of ADMs will slowly revert back to pre-COVID levels and so too will the spotlight from news agencies...and thus being on the government radar.

In reality, it is no different than the used car space. Why have certain Porsches doubled or tripled in market value? Because there are folks willing pay it. Simple as that. You'll always have wealthier individuals willing spend whatever to get whatever. If ADMs didn't work, dealers would not have them.

 

[goalieThreeOne]

I was willing to spend $5k over sticker. I say $4k is fair. I was offered one at $10k and passed.
Ultimately, their willingness to move the unit NOW should be greater, as all inventory is starting to pile up.

I see you posted this is May, so who knows if you're still here and/or willing/able to spend the $4k ADM.





You're right vis-a-vis Franchise Laws. They were originally created when the OEM was massive and the dealer was tiny. It was done to protect the dealer from direct-to-consumer sales. Since then, dealers have become hugely powerful and influential, with some even being massive public companies. Unless Franchise Laws are walked back at the state or national level, the OEM is powerless against ADMs. Ultimately, it is the perfect example of a free-market economy - the consumer is under no obligation to buy any car from any dealer, especially one applying ADM.

Some states were looking into this during the middle off this year, but the response lagged behind its peak during COVID. As the economy slows and inventory begins to grow on dealer lots, the prevalence of ADMs will slowly revert back to pre-COVID levels and so too will the spotlight from news agencies...and thus being on the government radar.

In reality, it is no different than the used car space. Why have certain Porsches doubled or tripled in market value? Because there are folks willing pay it. Simple as that. You'll always have wealthier individuals willing spend whatever to get whatever. If ADMs didn't work, dealers would not have them.

Well it isn’t free market because there are laws to prevent direct to consumer sales in many states. A perfect free market would give us a choice to buy from dealers or direct from manufacturer.

 

[LFRR13]

Well it isn’t free market because there are laws to prevent direct to consumer sales in many states. A perfect free market would give us a choice to buy from dealers or direct from manufacturer.

Vis-a-vis the dealer, it is a free market economy. While many people within the industry have applauded Tesla, and a handful of vocal consumers have done the same, if UAW was striking for more share of the billions earned by the Big Three...what do you think happens if OEMs are allowed to sell direct to consumer?

The existing free market economy as it relates to automotive works well; you have you pick off the litter from hundreds or thousands of dealers for nearly all brands. Ford has 3,000+ dealers. Not all will market-up, not all will discount. But you need not purchase from one only.

If Ford was able to sell direct, the demise of the dealer would follow in short order. And you can bet the selling price would increase significantly over a short period of time. If not that, the subscription-services model would roll out very quickly. I imagine the OEMs are on the consumer side of the ADM argument simply because they want a piece of the pie, not because their suddenly altruistic.

 

[Wayfaring Ranger]

You're right vis-a-vis Franchise Laws. They were originally created when the OEM was massive and the dealer was tiny. It was done to protect the dealer from direct-to-consumer sales. Since then, dealers have become hugely powerful and influential, with some even being massive public companies. Unless Franchise Laws are walked back at the state or national level, the OEM is powerless against ADMs. Ultimately, it is the perfect example of a free-market economy - the consumer is under no obligation to buy any car from any dealer, especially one applying ADM.

Some states were looking into this during the middle off this year, but the response lagged behind its peak during COVID. As the economy slows and inventory begins to grow on dealer lots, the prevalence of ADMs will slowly revert back to pre-COVID levels and so too will the spotlight from news agencies...and thus being on the government radar.

In reality, it is no different than the used car space. Why have certain Porsches doubled or tripled in market value? Because there are folks willing pay it. Simple as that. You'll always have wealthier individuals willing spend whatever to get whatever. If ADMs didn't work, dealers would not have them.

I appreciate your insight and agree with everything except this statement:

"Ultimately, it is the perfect example of a free-market economy"

By definition a "free-market" economy cannot co-exist with a state that creates laws which facilitate regulatory capture and aid in creating monopolies via legislation. This is one of the furthest examples of a "free market economy" that you could cite, in my opinion. There's nothing free about politicians using coercion to control voluntarily transactions between consenting adults.

 

[goalieThreeOne]

Vis-a-vis the dealer, it is a free market economy. While many people within the industry have applauded Tesla, and a handful of vocal consumers have done the same, if UAW was striking for more share of the billions earned by the Big Three...what do you think happens if OEMs are allowed to sell direct to consumer?

The existing free market economy as it relates to automotive works well; you have you pick off the litter from hundreds or thousands of dealers for nearly all brands. Ford has 3,000+ dealers. Not all will market-up, not all will discount. But you need not purchase from one only.

If Ford was able to sell direct, the demise of the dealer would follow in short order. And you can bet the selling price would increase significantly over a short period of time. If not that, the subscription-services model would roll out very quickly. I imagine the OEMs are on the consumer side of the ADM argument simply because they want a piece of the pie, not because their suddenly altruistic.

When I go to buy a TV, I can buy it from the manufacturer’s website, from Amazon, from Best Buy, or from a sketchy unofficial eBay store. I have choices as the consumer.

This would not be any different than how it would and should work with cars. It’s absurd to say that prices go UP because there are more players in the market. More players put downward pressure on pricing, not upward. What it does is force each seller to sharpen their business model to compete. Ranger markups are a perfect example. If I know I can order a Raptor from Ford’s website at their MSRP, dealers won’t be able to charge ADM. It puts pressure on dealers to either lower prices, expand service, or offer incentives.

Further, even if you wanted to claim that the dealer network was a free market, it’s not. Because there are only a limited number that can exist with a customer given willingness to travel.

 

[LFRR13]

I appreciate your insight and agree with everything except this statement:

"Ultimately, it is the perfect example of a free-market economy"

By definition a "free-market" economy cannot co-exist with a state that creates laws which facilitate regulatory capture and aid in creating monopolies via legislation. This is one of the furthest examples of a "free market economy" that you could cite, in my opinion. There's nothing free about politicians using coercion to control voluntarily transactions between consenting adults.

I'll grant you that and agree. A better statement would be "it is as close to free market economy as we can get within the automotive space."

 

[LFRR13]

When I go to buy a TV, I can buy it from the manufacturer’s website, from Amazon, from Best Buy, or from a sketchy unofficial eBay store. I have choices as the consumer.

This would not be any different than how it would and should work with cars. It’s absurd to say that prices go UP because there are more players in the market. More players put downward pressure on pricing, not upward. What it does is force each seller to sharpen their business model to compete. Ranger markups are a perfect example. If I know I can order a Raptor from Ford’s website at their MSRP, dealers won’t be able to charge ADM. It puts pressure on dealers to either lower prices, expand service, or offer incentives.

Further, even if you wanted to claim that the dealer network was a free market, it’s not. Because there are only a limited number that can exist with a customer given willingness to travel.

Comparing TVs and the volume therein to the automotive space doesn't track. The volume discrepancies as they relate to price are MASSIVELY different. Example: Globally, LG sold 27.3 million TVs in 2022. Ford sold 4.2 million vehicles in the same year. The largest auto OEM in the world, Toyota, sold 10.5 million vehicles in 2022. Volkswagen Group (No.2 in the world) sold 8.3 million vehicles. So, Toyota + Volkswagen + Ford = 23 million vehicles. Still 4 million shy of LG's TVs. Add in Samsung and the discrepancy balloons!!

Within automotive, the MSRP no longer becomes "Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price", but rather "Retail Price," entirely determined by them and their agreements with retail outlets. If you think that Ford et all would not increase the retail/selling price of their vehicles, essentially to match what dealers do now with ADM, you're kidding yourself. The OEMs would have even more control of the market. Just look at Tesla - they single-handedly control the EV market vis-à-vis pricing.

First, Tesla was the first to the wider EV market...and they had nearly 100% "premium EV" market share. Once the established OEMs began to produce more and take market share, they cut prices by 20% to maintain share. All the OEMs essentially followed suit. But Tesla & EVs are a unique case right now. If and when they become mainstream, and if cars were sold direct to consumer, we're at the liberty of whatever pricing they dictate....more so than we already are.

Ultimately, who do you want to control your pricing? The manufacturer or the retailer? In the TV space, it is a combination. Walmart/BJs/Costco has more buying power than BestBuy/PC Richards, so they buy more volume, thus receiving a lower wholesale price, generally speaking.

Sponsored