Thanks. Reluctantly I did not. I would have had to sell my F50. To be clear, I was not offered an allocation first time round, which was absolutely fine, there are much heavier hitters. My dealer subsequently suggested it. I thought it unfair to push harder, although I was surprised I wasn’t asked to see the actual car, just informed by the dealer how much I would have to pay as a deposit and by when. Which put me off.
Maybe... but not being able to drive it on US roads is really going to hurt it in the long run. Its like buying a great meal at a fantastic restaurant --- and then only looking at it.
I also declined the allocation I was offered. Tough decision though. I decided to invest a similar amount in a 250 gt lusso instead... Not sure if I’ll regret this choice one day, anyway I cannot go wrong with a lusso...
Agreed. It is a tough decision because the Monza is automotive art at the highest level. The SP2 in particular; IMO just beautiful. However, yes, it's impossible to go wrong with a Lusso; the pictures of McQueen with his is off-the-charts cool. Enjoy.
If the Stirling Moss Mercedes SLR received a “Show and Display Waiver” from the NHTSA why wouldn’t the Monza? I suggest you look up the list of all eligible cars currently approved for Show and Display on the NHTSA web site and it will convince you that the Monza will be able to be driven (a maximum of) 2500 miles a year in the US. The only real criteria for concern is that it passes the EPA standard. Being that the drive train is from an EPA certified 812 Superfast it should pass. As long as Ferrari will certify that they have not built more than 500 of either the SP1 or SP2, and that production has been completed the Monza should be exempt and be able be driven on the street. I would be kicking myself if I had been offered a Monza and passed, not for missing the financial appreciation but for missing the fun driving experience and it’s uniqueness.
Very interesting points about Icona pricing. I agree that pricing it at the hypercar level is a lot of $$$ for the company today, and there is no question of them leaving money on the table, so shareholders are happy. But I am also old enough to remember back in 1989 when the flagship testarossa was selling at 5 x list price, at over €500k. In the next years the bubble burst, and you could by a testarossa for €100k. Imagine if Ferrari had priced the next testrossa version at €500k at the height of the bubble rather than €150k as they did. It would have destroyed a big chunk of their franchise. That's where short term shareholder gains don't always translate to long term gains for the company. What we are seeing with the Icona pricing is a less extreme version of that.
I think this is the key strategic question for Ferrari over the long term. They have significantly increased output and product lines and upped the price as well. It's easy to pay deposits and rotate cars when you lose minimal amounts and the limited series typically make up for your losses and you are net zero to slightly positive but have experienced some of the greatest cars produced. I am not convinced that customers will continue to line up when the net return will be -10% to -30%. I personally side with the strategy of a CEO who was a Ferrari lifer, was invested in the brand (not share price) and made it into the prestigious brand that it is today vs. that of someone who was meant to lead Ferrari (according to his own timetable) for 5-6 years and had every incentive to maximise the short/medium term share price (which based on history of luxury brands has always come at the cost of the long term brand value) of the company.
You are obviously referring to Luca, as opposed to Sergio -- and my personal opinion is that your comments are spot on. The recent shift to shorter-term horizons is typical of post-IPO corporation, and will NOT bode well longer term. Same ol' story.... (except this time it is our beloved Ferrari, so we ALL say ouch)
Less extreme because Ferrari produced nearly 10,000 Testarossas unlike the 499 limited production Monsanto. Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat
I was referring to: "but I am also old enough to remember back in 1989 when the flagship testarossa was selling at 5 x list price, at over €500k"
While I understand the nostalgia around Luca’s strategy (I loved his passion too), there is no way a car manufacturer can grow and have enough money to invest in R&D and regulatory compliance by producing limited edition cars that people can buy without ever putting money at risk, as they double in value the day they are produced. Production & profit will be too small in absolute terms. One can either go down the VW/Audi path and offer you the same platform as a Q7, a Cayenne, a Bentayga or an Urus changing clothes and trim to suit your taste (while you drive essentially the same car), produce a low-price model in 250,000 copies a year and halo cars every now and then, or make truly unique driving machines and sell them at a substantial margin to production cost. All three strategies are sound from a business perspective and have worked for different manufacturers. Which one do you prefer for our favourite brand? At the end of the day we all have to question if we like the Prancing Horse because of the cars or because the cost of ownership in the last 5 years has been negligible Sent from my iPad using FerrariChat
Disagree. Ferrari was investing enough to launch a series of spectacular cars starting from the mid-90s to the LaFerrari in 2013. Furthermore, if you look at the pre-IPO filings data from 2015, the company was profitable and was earning a return on equity that compared favourably with its automative peers. In other words they were doing just fine. The post-IP change of strategy was targeting financial ratios similar that of a luxury handbag manufacturer. So now we have the focus on all the cosmetic options, loro piana bits for the Icona buyer etc. This may make money for the shareholders in the short term, but possibly at the expense of longer term as discussed above. To suggest Ferrari had to change to this new model because the old one wasn't profitable just doesn't hold up to scrutiny
One of the appeals to all these super-exotic super-high-performance machines is the "promise" of performance. When people admire one of my Ferrari's they very often ask, "how fast does it go?" (As in, almost every time.) I might respond, depending upon the model in question, "205" or "211." Which usually draws looks of wonder and whistling sounds, laughter, and sometimes even a good 'ol fashioned, "whoooodooggiieee...that is fast!" (Though once when admiring my Speciale at a car show and answered that question to a 6 year old boy he responded with, "A Bugatti is faster.") The point being even if we don't drive our cars that fast, we know the car will go that fast; the idea of shelling out $500K for an 812SF limited to a top speed of 100mph would certainly reduce its appeal. Now....take the Monza.....you can't even driven that "car" on either the road or the track. So it really isn't a "car" at all, it is a very pretty vase. That must be a large reason why people are passing on it.
except how is that different than the buyer who eventually sells his Pista or 812 with delivery miles? The Monza owner simply has a better excuse for why he didn't drive the car on the street.