Why though? What if renting makes more sense for my use case? Why not leave the dealer/bank on the hook for the depreciation and maintenance?

> Why though? What if renting makes more sense for my use case? Why not leave the dealer/bank on the hook for the depreciation and maintenance?

They aren't on the hook for anything - those costs are billed to you in the standard lease so you're paying the cost of the vehicle, plus the cost of the expected maintenance, plus a profit for the bank.

Trust me, no bank is leasing assets at a loss.

Expected repairs and actual repairs are very different. The expected repairs are exactly that, expected. I know what they are up front. There’s value in that predictability.

If it makes sense for you, do it. The question isn't who pays the depreciation or maintenance (this is explicitly factored into leases) -- the question is, who can predict it more accurately?

The question is how much utility I get per dollar.

The dealer/bank are running a profitable business. They are not on the hook for anything, you are paying for it all.

When I lease a new car repairs happen under the warranty. The manufacturer is “on the hook” for fixing the car. Not necessarily because it is leased but because it is under warranty. Leases are a way to always have a car that is under warranty.

You are replying to a counter argument to the claim that leases are always a bad idea.

The article this thread is on is a strong counterexample to your assertion. You may very well end up on the hook for a repair that isn't covered by the warranty.

They're on the hook for the finance, if you're leasing.

If you're talking about a short-term rental to pootle around in for a while: they're on the hook for the car itself, because that's now a car they can't rent to someone else.

If they weren't on the hook for anything, there wouldn't be much of a business.