Those who got early Spider or Coupe had a chance to do well. Flippers quicker they get in n out the quicker Ferrari cuts em. Imagine how many are kicking themselves as they did not get an XX
Imagine how many kicking themselves because they bought the SF90 assuming that premiums would be great, then got a late delivery and are now distressed sellers hoping to reduce their loss to 50-100k below MSRP, what they paid for the car.....
SF90 is not a limited number car. For me it was clear from the beginning that there was little chance for value to increase. Should it be the case would be a bonus. But purchasing a SF90 as an investment sounds very weird to me. XX is definitely a different story... And now SF90 is a prerequisite (amongst others) to get one. Nothing new in the Ferrari world, no surprise there...
I don't know about limited but my dealer received very few SF90's and even fewer spiders. Spider AF - thought it would be a great car long term. Voila came the XX - received coupe allocation and doubt let Spider go - maybe vice versa in time. Guys who own less than a year or few thousand miles - are unable to enjoy the brand let alone the car.
My car is somewhere in the US between the port and the dealer, and I am likewise considering passing on the car. Struggling with the decision to go forward, is maybe a more accurate take... I'm at least going to have a conversation with my dealer to see what my options are. In the worst case, walking away from my deposit seems like it could be argued to be +EV at this stage... I've spoken directly with one of the largest wholesalers on the planet and he's confirmed that he's seeing the SF90 moving under MSRP in his world. Personally i believe it's a lot more tied to the economy and the interest rates, more so than any actual market problems with the car. Maybe an over correction to the insane growth / speculation during covid - more aggressive depreciation than normal times, in other words. I'm tremendously excited about the specific car and the performance and the design, the few i've seen in person have been extremely impressive - i prefer it to the F8, but stack it behind the Pista (i have a lot of preference for the track-focused editions apparently). But at the end of the day, it is a non-limited car and it's been exceptionally rare for the modern non-limited Ferrari models to materially appreciate (other than the insane covid-19 driven shortage + demand, which appears to be more of an aberration than a long term trend). I personally believe it will follow the same general curve of the lower production modern models, e.g. initial drop off and then a bottom and appreciation (e.g. what I think will happen to the F12, 812, etc). While I hoped for appreciation - more of a situation like the Pista, where the car basically almost never moved for less than MSRP - my hope for a "worst case" was more for a gentle depreciation curve, where a couple years of ownership with low mileage would result in reasonably low total cost of ownership. My concern now is that the combination of insane interest rates and uncertainty in the world economy for the next couple years may lead to an ownership experience more like a standard 488 / standard 458, where the prices seem to be coming off MSRP around 20%-25% across the first few years. 25% of the SF90 sticker price feels like more than I'm willing to pay for the ownership experience, at least in the current climate and interest rates... the latest Fourwheel Trader has some good analysis on the total market and market demand in his newest video. Bonus point: the 360 is the top of his list of appreciating "supercars" which is hard to argue with. Basically everything else in the top of the list of stable prices are the GT3 / GT4 Porsches, as well as the 458 Speciale, 599 GTB, F12...
I would never buy an exotic car/toy unless I am prepared to lose the entire amount and have the means to let it rot in a corner no disrespect intended to the present audience but so many people buy these cars by stretching way beyond their means.
Different risk calculations for sure. Zero is a pretty big jump. the risk profile of an asset (or a commodity if you prefer) where you’re seriously contemplating it could go to zero vs one where you expect to retain 75% or 50% of value as a reasonable floor in a given time period. is a very different one. At least for me.
I don’t consider toys assets, privately owned, I can’t borrow against them, there are no tax advantages of owning them, they aren’t generating income, etc they are just toys which are purely for fun, if losing money on a depreciating superfluous “asset” is an issue of concern and stress I wouldn’t buy it, it is not worth stress IMO.
Yes, it is a Ferrari, but in the end, it is a car. Cars are meant to be driven and 99% of the time, they depreciate. I didn’t buy mine to look at it. Anyone who buys them on a hope and a dream to not lose any money is just kidding themselves. And if that is your main focus, you would probably be better off doing something else with your money.
Excellent point. Whereas I wouldn’t be financially impacted one iota if the SF90 was worthless when I sold it, the thought would still give me pain. I guess it’s my financially conservative viewpoint. My wife is surprised how much money I have spent on Ferraris yet I’m so tight with almost everything else
No issues with spending 7 figures on a bunch of cars I don't really have time to drive but when the phone company want to increase my monthly phone bill I will be damned! LOL
Crazy isn’t it? I got all torqued when we took a cab to and from dinner when the trip back to the hotel was 3x the fare to dinner! It was still cheap but seriously? And yet I bout the titanium lugs because they just fit the look better than chrome… Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat
The thing about the investment question is that everyone talks from the point of view of the cars they purchase and their use case. We are fortunate enough to have a mix. But some are bought with an eye to value retention and some are bought knowing that we will use them more. There is also the question of being a good customer so that the cars you would like to buy but are limited become possible. We do a lot of ‘Ferrari miles’ each year but some cars don’t move much, others do. I still enjoy owning the ones that are used rarely but if they are rare themselves, you have to plan mileage carefully if you don’t want to destroy value. Our garage plan is to be able to own cars that are a blend, including some of the rare stuff that will inevitably do lower mileage. If you have a blend and your objective (like ours) is to retain the value of what you paid overall in your garage, you need to own some cars that will be used less and possibly appreciate over the long term - always being mindful that may not happen. The maintenance and upkeep then becomes your real cost to drive. So yes, some cars can be bought with an eye to appreciation but your way to enjoy them is different to something like a 296 or SF90 where you buy them to drive because you know they won’t appreciate. So is purely buying cars as an investment crazy? Probably. But does that apply to every purchase? I don’t think so. If you consider there are various ways to derive value including both finance and enjoyment, that is usually a better way to look at it. And who’s to say that what gives one pleasure should be the same as another?
The Ferrari SF 90 is and remains a thoroughbred hypercar with a breathtaking driving experience. Without a battery in the ground, the market price would certainly be 150k higher. The same scenario happened once with the Porsche 918, no one wanted to buy the last examples produced, because no one wanted an electric motor in a sports car, but now the wind completely changed and it is worth several times its original price.
My wife is so tight with my Amex I feel like she wants me to go back to work at Burger King! 50k a month in credit card
If you want to drive an SF90 for 10k miles, is it more cost effective to: Buy a good spec SF90 drive it for 5k miles, then sell it, then buy another SF90, drive it for 5k miles then sell it or Buy a good spec SF90 drive it for 10k miles, then sell it?
Does this also apply to the US market, as the SF90 in the UK is quite cheap! What about the follow scenario? If you want to drive an SF90 for 20k miles, is it more cost effective to: Buy a good spec SF90 drive it for 10k miles, then sell it, then buy another SF90, drive it for 10k miles then sell it or Buy a good spec SF90 drive it for 20k miles, then sell it? My dealer told me that anything above 10k miles would have minimal market value and only the 'exotic rental agencies' would have any interest, if true, very sad!
Nothing about owning or putting miles on an SF90 (or any non VS) should be construed as cost effective. Those two words generally aren’t associated with driving most cars let alone exotics. Though some Ferrari’s can fair better than other brands. TBH, there are too many variables at play to really answer the question. My advice is prepare to lose value, enjoy at your leisure and buy the one you want.
Imagine you buy a no/low mile car at 90% of value second hand (zero miles SF90 would be even less than 90% in the UK). Same car with 10k on it is probably at 70%. With 20k it probably isn’t at 50%. Plus you lose two sets of dealer commission instead of one. In the UK market on SF90 coupe, they were around £530k new for a nice spec. A 10k car would now be well in the ‘3’s’, probably £320k to £350k range, say £335k sold. You would have bought that car at no miles for about £450k. Multiply that by 2 and your total cost is £230k. A 20k mile car is probably mid to high ‘2’s’ at which there is a definite market for that car. Remember, so few hit that mileage it only needs one person who simply has to have an SF90 and doesn’t have £300k plus in the bank. And why wouldn’t they buy it? If that third owner put 5k miles on the car does it get into the mid ‘1’s’? I don’t think so, they probably go from something like £250k to £200k. It makes for a much better buy than the guy who bought it new. He or she would not be excluded from a potential drift upwards if one comes either. The third guy does the cheapest mileage in what is still a £530k, 1,000hp Ferrari hybrid. The cheapest Ferraris I ever owned (save for the appreciators like Comp) were cars I bought at 10k and sold at 20k. Why is that? Because I never bought one at 20k and sold it at 25k miles. The market for those cars is petrolheads who want the car at the cheapest possible holding price. In this case, your cost from zero to 20k miles would be something like £450k down to £275k - total depreciation £175k instead of £230k. This is all based on the current high depreciation SF90 has experienced in the UK. I think in a couple of years it could all look a bit different. The principle must work in the US market too, although the numbers are different because the car seems to have held up better there. Basically two trades will attract two sets of dealer margin, plus putting high miles on a zero mile car is always the most expensive.
