I was in Atlanta last weekend to view a black and a red 599. Both beautiful cars, indeed. I asked two of the people in the dealership if I could put my name on the list for a 599? They said they didnt know how many were going to be allocated, so the answer was no. Hmmmmm...doesnt sound right to me. Anyone know of any dealers taking names?
Daniel: What is "market" price currently? How large of a difference is there depending on delivery date?
If you don't know the answer to your own question then you have zero probability of getting one at MSRP.
My dealer has promised mine at MSRP. Of course, it helped to put my name down sight-unseen (at the time it was rumored to be called the 600 Imola or something) 2+ years ago. The dealer has stated that they do not currently have plans to go to the "market price" model, but if *every* Ferrari dealer in the country goes that route, I can't see them standing on an ethics-island in solitary forever... At the least, and from what I understand is common, existing orders will be honored at MSRP. I'd hate to see a return to the old days of dealership-cum-scalpers that generated such customer ill-will....
I think FOA is doing some kind of a buy back arrangement if you try to flip but will sell at MSRP. I think you must own a year before you are free to sell to the world.
A: Flipper never gets another new Ferrari from auth dealer. Ever. B: Flipper's dealer loses car out of allocation. Dealer and others on list now pissed at flipper. C: How is anyone going to show harm or cause? Claim will get laughed out of court in any restraint of trade action. D: They enforce dealers selling out of zone pretty well, and to non-US countries...big flip venues. Warranty VIN flags car. All above unofficial, doesn't exist, YMMV. But 2 local 430 flippers can tell you it is a good rumor.
Wrong. It's a wholly actional restraint of trade at minimum not to mention a substantial violation of most states business and ethics codes as well as many other claims on the federal and state level. All of the other points may be the case, but that in no way justifies illegal business practices. And don't think Ferrai dealer's practices will go on like this forever. They won't!
A specific contract that gives a dealer the right of first refusal is absolutely binding. What would not be binding would be a requirement to sell back to the dealer at a a lower price then the price you could receive from another buyer. This doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a flipper would be "blackballed" by the dealer on future business, so long as there were other customers. If the situation arose, and it did, in the early nineties, where there were less customers then there were cars available, the dealer would most likey sell to the devil himself if it meant moving a unit off the floor. The market is the final determinant of what actions can be taken by the dealers regarding choosing their customers. Regarding the original question, dealers already have their 599 lists full through the end of production. This is a V12. Of the 5,500 cars Ferraris produces per annum, less than 1000 will be 599's. The US will receive approx 30% of those, so around 300 for the US per annum or around 15 per dealer times 5 years = 75 cars total over the life of the car. Most dealers have over 100 interested buyers and deposits already. Good luck getting a new car from a dealer. These numbers may be lower in future years. Ferrari is planning 11 dealerships in China over the next five years and no increase in total production of the current lineup. US dealers are already being allocated less than 75% of the cars in 2007 than they got in 2006.
"Restraint of Trade" is not, per se, illegal -- it is only when the trust is broken in a way that is *detrimental* to consumers. Since the only intent of this contract is for the *benefit* of customers to be able to purchase cars *lower* that market price, clearly the contract would not fall under any anti-trust doctrine. It also clearly does not stifle competition since any customer can cross the street to the local Lamborghini store and purchase a car for less and with no contract. I suppose, at a real long stretch you could say that market interference prevents a customer from selling a car in the first year at a profit, but good luck arguing in a court of law that this is unreasonable. I doubt you'd find an attorney to take that case on a contingency basis, and the pro-bono route gives the attorney a fool for a client, IMO. In any event, it's a moot point. I doubt it's Ferrari's intent to aggressively enforce this contract in the courts anyway. Any transgression would simply result in that customer never seeing another car. A flagrant abuse would probably see it settled out-of-court with neither party wanting to see it go to litigation, which would easily rack up costs way in excess of the car's value -- MSRP or otherwise...
The mystery to me is this. There is more demand than supply. Why doesn't Ferrari simply price at market price? 5000 cars over the 599 run underpriced what 75K? under market add up to a lot of $ left on the table...
Maybe this is true for the dealer in your area, but I can assure you it's not true for all dealers. See the premium thread for an example.
Because the reason the demand is so high is in part due to the insane premiums the cars are fetching. A lot of people who can't afford 430s can get away with buying one and selling it back for cost. If they were buying 430s and loosing 30k a year the demand for these cars would go way down. Look at the LP640, great car brand new but priced so high compared to the resale values people don't want them. There was a great article about this in some magazine maybe somebody remembers which one I think it might have been CAR or something. Long Story short: The reason the demand is high is because the price is low. If you raise the price the demand will go way down. It's an interesting predicament.
The probable answer is: they don't expect the demand overhang to last forever. The (extreme) supply shortage seems to be a US problem only. In Europe cars are available within 12-18 months at MSRP. In essence, the Ferrari US pricing policy likely follows a mid- to long-term strategy.
Talk to FoW. Speak with Augi, he will bend over backwards for you, I've had good experiences with him. In my recent search, I spoke with him about locating one (ended up finding one abroad) though was very pleased with his effort. He turned up a car that hadnt been built yet, one that could be spec'ed by the owner. (This was one month or so ago) He told me that this particular car would be ordered when I gave the 'Okay' and built through late March or early, early April. As I said, I found a quicker way to get the car, so I took it, though highly recomend talking to him about this one. Im not sure if its still floating out there, but it lasted these couple years without an owner's hand...so Id imagine it to last this last month! Best of luck! Regards
FNA went this route with the Testarossa - priced at launch in the USA in 85 at approx. $90k, priced in '91 at $175k. We saw two price increases per year as they tried to recoup some of that missed profit. You get to the end of production and are left with a car priced way to high and no buyers willing to pay for it. If FNA priced the car at current market prices then were do we go from there? The replacement would have to be even higher priced. At some point the demand drops sharply and you are left with a car that is way overpriced. It is a tricky line to walk for the manufacturer. A nice position for them to be in, but nothing lasts forever.
A tricky line indeed,in addition trying to balance prices vs demand in different geographical zones ,with different economies and purchasing powers. It's very easy to kill a "Golden Goose" and even much easier to "play a Quarterback after the Game". Overall,I think Ferrari is doing quite a masterful job in this balancing act.
All true except on the TR they did it backwards. It seems to me they should mark to market and adjust price to fit demand and downwards as demand slackens. IMO they are under market now on the 430 and the 599. When that changes they could/should act accordingly. I do realize they're smart guys and must have reasons for why they do what they do and no question the Company is Strong and in Good hands with great product. Best
I'm not sure there is a difference for at least a year from now. The trend seems to be between 150k and 160k although more has been paid. We have to see what happens with Jan. and after cars with CCMD as standard equipment as the MSRP's will all be at least 300k. This adds another 15k or so to the cars available right now which may not be that much of a factor. I have two cars on the ground that range from 155k over to 175k over. It's all over the board right now and until there are a few more cars on the ground it will be hard to put an actual "market value" on them. My builds are 150k over and those are 1st 1/4 cars. I can say that I have dealers that will pay more than 150k right now but they need specific colors/options/cars on the ground now. I am sorry for not having a definitive answer to the question but all I can relay is what I personally experience.
Jim, I think *the* most important thing to Ferrari is avoiding customer disenfranchisement. Making the customer happy is most definitely the #1 priority, to build upon the brand loyalty that is already extremely strong. This is a long-term goal that eschews some short-term gains that could be had. A simple analogy would be the local hardware store that has a good reputation. Let's say a heatwave comes and they jack up the price by 50% on all fans and AC units because demand is strong (ignoring any legal ramifications for sake of argument). They'd probably still sell their stock and they'd realize excellent profits for a while ... but the customer dissastisfaction with that store would hurt them dearly in the long-run. It would build resentment and a refusal to repeat business with them. FNA are acutely aware of this and want to ensure brand loyalty and customer satisfaction remains strong with their repeat customers. They do *not* care about those profiteers that try to abuse that goodwill -- it must really chafe them, and their dealers, to see someone walk off with the profit by a no-risk speculation with a refundable deposit ... Such speculators are bad for Ferrari, their dealers and the enthusiasts that desire to own the cars. I think that playing with higher prices would simply cause enormous customer dissatisfaction -- they'd have to pay more up-front to get in the car, then face the big depreciation associated with paying market pricing when selling the car a couple of years later...
I think the pricing could be seen as they keep loyal customers. There are many hoops to jump through to qualify for a build spot, which gets the MSRP price. I believe that they see it as making a profit twice on each car. When they sell a car at MSRP, they pretty much know the customer will, 95% of the time, sell it back to Ferrari, or a Ferrari authorized dealer. The dealer can then mark up the price to market value, sell it and make a very large profit. Since I dont quite know how exactly this works out profit wise, it could be a dealer thing to do this, or a FNA thing. Either way, profits stay great for the dealer, and everyone stays happy it seems.
