>buy cars
>sell them at a loss
>blame EVs
Didn't anyone tell Hertz that cars are inherently depreciating assets?
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
>buy cars. >sell them at a loss. >blame EVs
>buy cars
>sell them at a loss
>blame EVs
Didn't anyone tell Hertz that cars are inherently depreciating assets?
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
~~*Exploding Vehicles*~~ are a humiliation ritual to prove allegiance with The Message™
Teslas are about fighting The Message
>sell 30k EVs
>lose $440M
So they're losing $15k per vehicle.
Assuming these were all the absolute cheapest Model 3s at $40k, that's 37% depreciation.
Which is completely and utterly normal.
Who is behind this "EV bad" propaganda, and why?
Is it because Musk said frick off to DEI blackmail?
>Who is behind this "EV bad" propaganda, and why?
We both know the answer to that. Pretty crazy how these articles are getting published more frequently and are more outrageous despite their claims of "people losing interest in EVs"
They didn't depreciate 37%. They depreciate 37% on top of what hertz already accounted for
The article quite literally says it's vehicle depreciation.
Yes moron. Hertz made this estimation but evs lost so much value they had to make an asset fair value write down on top of that.
Their balance sheet and earning release is public.
The article says nothing about this being "additional" depreciation, so source it up.
The article does say depreciation per unit increased, but the 440 million number still refers to OVERALL depreciation. Which boils down to 37% in the worst possible case of 40k per EV.
You know nothing about accounting and you have no idea about how they reached this 440 figure.
https://ir.hertz.com/financial/financials
It's literally in the article: 245M for the initial batch of 20k vehicles, and 195M for the subsequent batch of 10k vehicles.
Put them together and you get 440M.
Pic is another source for these numbers being NET depreciation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/14/hertz-makes-agile-decision-to-shift-strategy-and-sell-evs-teslas.html
The article is correct. You are the clueless one on the relationship between accounting losses and ev market price drops.
>The article is correct.
Right.
So 440M depreciation expense for 30k vehicles comes to $15 per vehicle according to my calculations.
By the way, Hertz themselves said it was about $12k per vehicle in the last Q of 2023.
Here's an excerpt from the SEC filing for that first batch of 20k EVs by the way.
These depreciation numbers are "related to the sale", so clearly this is a one-time deal with zero mention of this being a supplementary depreciation. Or of any supposed "original" depreciation number.
The only thing this depreciation expense was "in addition to" was the depreciation expense of the remainder of Hertz's fleet.
You are close to the answer. Rub two and two together and you will reach the answer.
Translation: "I was wrong but I won't admit it".
The answer was literally posted above and you still can't understand it. It is like trying to teach a dog how to count.
Just admit you were wrong. You're anonymous, it's not a big deal.
you're basing your entire argument on grade school math out of sheer ignorance and it's hilarious to watch.
I can buy a model 3 performance for $19k in my area.
Hertz epxtcs them depreciate but it also expects to rent them and make more money than they depreciate.
In this case they didn’t realize nobody wouldn want to rent an EV and that nobody wants used EVs.
>Didn't anyone tell Hertz that cars are inherently depreciating assets?
reselling used cars is a major pillar of how rental companies can be profitable. they know depreciation better than anyone.
they took a gamble on EVs at a point where they had insanely good resale value, and it didn't work out, in part for obvious reasons (who the frick wants to have range anxiety and wait to charge a rental car) and in part because the market for EVs got turned onto its head right after they bought those.
Tons of cars had insanely good resale value at the tail end of covid.
It doesn't change the fact that hotels and airbnbs normally don't have charging stations fir EVs. So renting an EV is dumb.
>hotels and airbnbs normally don't have charging stations fir EVs
Not only is that not true, but they all have regular wall sockets.
Charging is not the reason Hertz is selling their EVs, they claim it's because of "collision and damage" costs.
Which sounds like a bold-faced lie, unless they don't have insurance.
>Not only is that not true, but they all have regular wall sockets.
You can't depend on hotels or Airbnbs to have level two charges. And wall outlets get you maybe 2 miles of an hour of charging.
>You can't depend on hotels or Airbnbs to have level two charges.
Where the frick do you even live lmao
>wall outlets get you maybe 2 miles of an hour
Easily double that
And again, this is not the reason Hertz themselves stated.
>Easily double that
Okay genius so suppose you leave it charging overnight, you get a whopping 32 miles
Charging is a non issue.
The problem is that customers are moronic and hertz corporate is moronic.
It would take the customer 25 minutes to charge from 10% to 75% at a charging station and another 30 minutes to go from 75% to full.
All we have to do is let the cars be returned with 75% and then explain to new customers some bullshit about don't charge it over 75 unless you have a destination charger or something.
But no, the customer gets in the car, sees it's not full, and wants a refund or a different car
>charging is a non issue
>here is a detailed explanation on how you have to gaslight customers to fix this "non-issue"
>it's because of more expensive "collision and damage" costs
>Teslas in particular being notoriously poorly made and expensive to fix
These two statements are not contradictory. It's a widely-known fact that Teslas are specifically designed to have as few parts as possible, to speed up construction.
This is a poor design. Few parts = large parts, which have to be swapped en-bloc in case of damage. This means they are more expensive to buy as replacements compared to smaller parts, they take up more storage space than smaller parts, they take longer to ship, and they are often not available, since Elmo has ordered that priority be given to building new cars, over stocking spares for existing ones.
>This is a poor design. Few parts = large parts, which have to be swapped en-bloc in case of damage.
Megacasting and other features which only benefit the manufacturer are examples that easily total vehicles which are rarely designed for easy repair since that's irrelevant to manufacturers.
Imagine being a large car rental service and not having damage insurance.
Just imagine.
>you should just have le heckin insurance for a car thats known to insurance companies as being irrepairable.
Pro tip: insurance wont give it or will demand rates to match the high likelyhood of a total loss
You'd think they'd mention anything like that instead of taking the blame face first.
>You'd think they'd mention anything like that instead of taking the blame face first.
It's a well-known issue in the auto insurance world, but companies don't want to speak up, lest they incur the wrath of Elmo and his horde of groupies.
IIRC it's so bad that the man himself was thinking about opening an insurance company exclusively for his own cars.
>There actually aren't any, Hertz is that incompetent
That's really dumb, a rental service which offers electric cars, but doesn't have its own fleet chargers, is a rather shoddily run affair.
>the man himself was thinking about opening an insurance company exclusively for his own cars
Thinking of? Tesla Insurance is already a thing. This has nothing to do with EVs mind you, it's literally because of how Teslas and only Teslas are built
>Tesla Insurance is already a thing.
Kek, tesloids get locked into an environment harder than iphone users.
>This has nothing to do with EVs mind you, it's literally because of how Teslas and only Teslas are built
Yes, the construction process of Teslas is utterly shittacular. It's intended to speed up manufacturing, at the expense of literally everything else.
I'm not in the US but I assume Hertz has a lot of branches. Building EV infra at each one will be very expensive, no?
Not like they had to build petrol pumps at each branch.
Charging stations are way cheaper to build compared to a gas station.
Even in the US, with its historically poor electrical infrastructure, it wouldn't cost a large amount of money to plop down a bunch of 240-volt (combined phase) chargers. Six wall chargers (plus associated wiring/panels/boxes/breakers/etc.) would be less than $30k in total (incl. labor cost for installation), not a very high expenditure for a commercial location like a Hertz lot (which would already have a good portion of the base installation already present, unlike a private home). And, even if AC charging speed tops out at 11 kW, you could just keep them plugged in with charge hold at 90%, and switch them out of the charging bay as needed (ex. if a car with low battery comes back in).
>Charging stations are way cheaper to build compared to a gas station.
kek this
If Hertz truly did not have any on-site chargers, then they just fricked up, simple as.
2909 x $30,000 = $87,270,000
I don't think all their locations have electric cars on offer.
Besides, nobody is forcing them to go all in at once. They could install 4, then wait a while and install the other 2 later. Plus, the ballparked prices are for a ground-up home installation. Hertz likely already have ample 240-volt combined-phase wiring at their locations (so it would be cheaper), unlike a regular home where the only place you can find it is the trunk going to the kitchen/laundry closet. They just don't give enough of a shit.
>They just don't give enough of a shit.
thats right, because EVs are gay as frick and nobody wants them lmao
i'm pretty sure rentals do their own service and maintenance
>have no damage insurance
>have no on-site chargers
>but it's the EV's fault
Correct.
Herts went to the DA school of finance and bought and ass load of Teslas at the very top, then tried to sell them after Elmo slashed prices by like $20k overnight
Other factors include
>not having any charging stations on site and expecting people to bring back cars at 100% charge
>Teslas in particular being notoriously poorly made and expensive to fix
>not explaining to customers how to drive an EV
It honestly shouldn't have gone as bad as it did, but results like this are often due to incompetence a the top. There's a reason why Amazon jumped on using Rivians for last mile delivery, it saves them a frick ton of money in the long run
>Herts went to the DA school of finance and bought and ass load of Teslas at the very top, then tried to sell them after Elmo slashed prices by like $20k overnight
It's not the money.
The depreciation is a perfectly acceptable 37%, even assuming they only bought the cheapest Teslas they could.
>>not having any charging stations on site and expecting people to bring back cars at 100% charge
lmao, source?
>Teslas in particular being notoriously poorly made and expensive to fix
>not explaining to customers how to drive an EV
These are bs.
By the way, Hertz themselves say it's because of more expensive "collision and damage" costs, see
Almost like they don't have insurance.
>source
Literally any owner experience about renting a Tesla at Hertz, this isn't even news anymore
Dumb ass blasted Telsa fangirl
>fangirl
lmao you're the one spouting anti-EV fanfic.
For some reason I read it as Hertz loses another $200mil they didn't even know they had.
>>buy cars
>>sell them at a loss
yes. thats just what i do.
getting ready to sell an old pick-up right now for at least a $4000 loss. Fight me!
Doesn’t depreciation turn taxes to their favor?
Depends on several factors and it is not like you can just say you had x in depreciation and you will pay x less in taxes.
It's lost value due to things like wear and market conditions, and you don't have to pay taxes on it.
In this particular case, the lost value seems very reasonable but it's being portrayed as a catastrophic failure for some reason. It makes no sense.
They're probably counting on people just reading the headline and going "number big, EV go bad-bad".
The problem is not vehicle depreciation
The problem is low utilization and pulling the plug early, combined with a very high crash and damage probability.
The cars never even made back the initial purchase price from what it sounds like.
There was too much damage and nitpicking because almost all of their customers wanted to just "try" a Tesla, so they would rent one for literally a day, do tons of hpd, and bring it back at like 2%
this basically.
I work for Hertz, here's how the rental normally goes down.
>dudebro calls in to reserve a tesla for 1 (one) day
>the day comes and it gets picked up at 90ish% battery
>brings it back an hour later and complains about bullshit
>65% battery
>full refund.
if that doesnt happen, then they bring it back fricking empty or less than 70% the next day pretty much every time.
worse case they crash it because most people renting a tesla are going to go floor it multiple times and crash it.
my store had two crashes, one was driver error and the car sat for 6 months and was then totaled because it could not be repaired within that time. the other was sitting for 4 months in our lot with a damaged bumper before the repair shop finally got the part.
Basically, when the cars come in not over 90% battery, an employee has to go drive the car to a charger and fill it up. this usually takes them 1-2 hours. any other car we would just fill it up with a can when its pulled in to be cleaned.
it is for this reason that almost every rental was not profitable.
sometimes we would get long term rentals but I think about half of them we would have to tell the customer no because some dudebro rented the car for 1 day already somewhere in the span.
we also have three volvos and they almost always go out because we are out of smaller cars. Every renter has no idea what an EV is and often doesnt even speak english, so naturally that goes over well.
we've had to dispatch a tow truck 7 times this year to go collect one that was driven till empty.
it's a mess and there is a bunch of rules around them from corporate saying what we can and cannot do, what we have to do in case of a complaint, ect ect.
I think the rules are partially to blame, like corporate almost wants it to fail, but also the shear amount of complaints we get are probably why.
>an employee has to go drive the car to a charger and fill it up. this usually takes them 1-2 hours.
Aren't there any on-site chargers?
There actually aren't any, Hertz is that incompetent
Hey that's some great anecdotal headcanon you got there.
People who work with autos professionally see much more than plebshits.
>headcanon
Tumblr is in your other browser tab. Perhaps you meant to post there.
Elon such a good grifter
The issue is that hertz expected the vehicles to turn a profit greater than their depreciation. That's how they make money but for whatever reason EVs don't seem to be compatible with that business model
Ex-rentals usually sell for a lot at the auctions because they're still pretty new with relatively low miles. EV's depreciate like a motherfricker due to their batteries.
Because battery degradation is not a linear curve. Whenever you buy a used EV you risk a 5 figure pack replacement.
how come every EV I see with over 100,000 miles is so cheap?
it's always 100K and the price gets cut in 1/2
When I rent a car (petrol manual), I dump the clutch and also ride it at red lights - shit I don't do with my own car. In other words, it's not my problem. I'm not surprised EVs - or Teslas at least - are far too delicate to be trusted to different strangers each week.
>I'm not surprised EVs - or Teslas at least - are far too delicate to be trusted to different strangers each week.
The problem is, Teslas are basically unrepairable for practical purposes. What would, in any other brand, be a minor fender-bender, is a "replace a whole fricking 1/4 of the car" in a Tesla. And, even if somebody were willing to front the cash and work-hours for the job, you can't find the part. Elmo has strongly disincentivized his wageslaves (read: threatened firing them) from stocking up parts as spares for existing vehicles. The Hertz guy from earlier in the thread can confirm that waiting lists for Tesla spares (especially bodywork) go several months.
That's not surprising. Even when I see model 3s going for 15K or less, the only thing in my mind is how fast the battery is going to die completely. I can always go fix problems in my shitbox, but I'm out of luck if a tesla battery dies.
>the only thing in my mind is how fast the battery is going to die completely
Is that why you don't own a laptop or phone?
lmao who do you think you're going to convince to buy an EV with moronic gotchas like this
Hey sorry for the late reply, my phone battery just died out of nowhere and I had to get behind my computer.
Phone batteries die in three years and they're made unrepairable. Why would I want that in a car?
>Phone batteries die in three years
Never owned a phone have you? Lucky bastard.
Would unironically be amazing to see a fuel-cell powered phone with a weeklong battery with liquid hydrogen or something.
>Never owned a phone have you?
My current phone 5 years old. Battery still lasts two whole days, just like when I first got it pretty much.
Let me guess, just jump through these hoops that are completely incompatible with everyone else's life? My work phone's battery lasts a whole week actually, since it's display is never on and radio is off with no apps. That's not really your average usecase though. I don't want to buy a 40K smartphone with similar lifespan.
>just jump through these hoops that are completely incompatible with everyone else's life?
No, it's an iphone.
The same manufacturer that intentionally slows down phones to sell new ones? When am I going to get limited to 30mph to 'safeguard my battery'?
We were talking about batteries.
Come to think of it, I have an Asus laptop from 2015 and the battery still lasts four hours or something.
The reason Apple claimed to slow down their phones was because of failing batteries. An hour is not much when you compare it to modern laptops that can do 8 or more. Similarly a Tesla with 50mile range would be of little use, and battery capacity drop isn't linear it's a cliff.
There's also the completely different but arguably even more important factor in buying modern cars, which is the insanely invasive datamining. Batteries are just my first thought that comes into mind, I'd never accept the terms on tracking everything I do. This tracking isn't unique to EVs of course
>An hour is not much
Who said anything about "an hour"?
>not much when you compare it to modern laptops
I'm not comparing to 'modern laptops', I'm comparing the same laptop against itself across 9 years.
>battery capacity drop isn't linear it's a cliff
kek you're thinking about battery discharge from full to empty, i.e. a single cycle.
Battery capacity lifetime over many cycles shows a linear decline. See pic.
Pull up a battery lifetime chart. That 80% capacity isn't pretty when you compare it to what's coming next. Not using your laptop doesen't really make it a valid point when a car would actually be. These arguments have made me even less likely to consider an EV in the future.
>That 80% capacity isn't pretty when you compare it to what's coming next.
What do you mean "what's coming next"?
>Not using your laptop
What? I use it pretty much every single night, it's my sofa laptop.
There's a reason marketing stops at 80%, because the cliff is usually right behind them. You won't be getting a steady descent anywhere.
>What? I use it pretty much every single night, it's my sofa laptop.
Right, your four year old laptop has over 1000 cycles and still retains almost all of it's capacity. You should contact a battery maker somewhere, you'll be a millionaire. These kinds of intellectually dishonest mental gymnastics are going against your point. Or maybe you are secretly against EVs and I'm just falling for it.
>There's a reason marketing stops at 80%
Because most people don't reach that number during the ownership of their car.
See pic, even after many thousands of cycles, lithium-ion batteries tend to still have 80% capacity, and the degradation curve is still exactly as linear.
2500 cycles in pic is the worst performer, and that number represents 14 years of owning an EV (assuming you do a full cycle every 2 days).
>because the cliff is usually right behind them
source pls
>Right, your four year old laptop has over 1000 cycles and still retains almost all of it's capacity
According to reviews, the original battery life was 6-7 hours under real life conditions.
>source pls
How about you source yours. I can make graphs too. That doesen't represent what I've seen in real life at all, noe apparently yours if 1000 cycles has nearly halved the battery. Keep in mind we're talking about buying used EVs, so the cars being sold are 5-7 years old _right now_. Surviving 5 years would make them extinct now. I don't buy them surviving for 14 years, unless you'll buy me a new one when it inevitably fails sooner. Will you? No need to answer that.
Even still, let's assume we live in a magic world where batteries just last for 14 years. See
for absolute nightmare fuel.
>How about you source yours. I can make graphs too.
kek
https://www.lithiumbatterytech.com/lithium-battery-life-cycle/
>That doesen't represent what I've seen in real life at all
Nobody gives a shit about your anecdotal expertise.
>Nobody gives a shit about your anecdotal expertise.
Yet you immediately referred to your laptop and your phone? Use them instead then, because it doesen't seem like they're at 80% after 2500 cycles. Also, nothing on the privacy front? Any concern at all for your wellbeing?
>Yet you immediately referred to your laptop and your phone?
I also posted charts reflecting my experience with my laptop and phone.
You didn't think how they'd be in conflict with each other? The image says it should last way longer, yet you're not seeing it in your daily life. What does that tell you about their promises? Buying a used EV seems way bigger risk than use ICE car, and it would seem that's the general sentiment in car owners as reflected in their prices, as OP is displaying
>The image says it should last way longer, yet you're not seeing it in your daily life.
lol what?
That image perfectly reflects my personal experience with my laptop and phone.
>lithiumbatterytech.com
might as well just use tesla.com or libtardpropaganda.com kek
It's the same in every test and study.
You need to get to the 4k cycles mark to drop below 80% capacity.
Pic is a dynamic study across a variety of cycling behaviors.
>teslas are awesome
>source: elonmusk.com
kek
And in every single case, the degradation curve remains linear the entire way.
By the way, do you guys know just how much and what kind of data is being gathered? Reading Mozilla's findings is pretty terrifying:
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/categories/cars/
I'd not come near one if I didn't have a way to disable that kind of spying outright. Luckily they couldn't manage such systems in 2000s.
No one wants to rent EVs, imagine having to drive around find a charger, pay, and then wait thirty minutes to charge instead of filling up in one minute at any gas station.
That applies to EVs in general, not just renting them.
And people cope just fine.
You normally rent a vehicle because you're far from home and need a readily available one. If you're renting for a few days you'll need a hotel that provides you charging if you don't have the time to plan your schedule around charging. If you rent for less time than required to need a recharge, then the full recharge is on Hertz. Meaning there's a perverse incentive to rent in a devil customer fashion.
>drive 80K miles for 4 years fleet vehicles
>car depreciates 80K miles
>WOOOOAAAAHHHH
wtf why didn't they just buy cars that don't depreciate? then they could buy them, make money renting them out, and then after years of abuse and aging, sell them for what they paid for them initially??
fricking evs suck so much bros
No one wanted to rent them so they couldn't keep them. If they had gotten rented it wouldn't be a loss because they would have made a profit.
Rental income isn't subtracted from depreciation, anon.