I never understood why people care about "resale value" of a car. I buy a car to drive it until it's done. I don't buy a gaming PC and worry about resale value, or a polo, or sneakers, or a nice mop. I buy stuff to use it.

For a lot of people cars are less a way to get from point A to point B and more of a status symbol, so they like to drive a new or at least newer car.

Personally I'm with you. I love my car because its exactly enough car for my needs. I bought it new (in 2016) and I never want to sell it. I'd get so much less (or more to the point I can't buy a new car) for the same money I spent on it.

I don’t know that you have to agree with typical consumer behavior to accept it as a reality, though. And resale value does matter to people who don’t drive cars into the ground, because trade-in value affects your purchasing power when you do decide to get a new one.

And even if you do keep cars indefinitely, it can still be an important consideration because it affects how things work out when you need to make an insurance claim. It means your car is both more likely to be declared a total loss and more likely to be worth less than what you still owe for it when it does get totaled.

Because if you desperately need cash, you can trade in the $80,000 luxury suv for a $20,000 subcompact, and use that cash to pay rent and for food. It's a depreciating asset and sometimes a money sink, sure, but if you live somewhere you need a car anyway, some people choose the more expensive ones.

That's... Financially irresponsible. You build your cushion in non-depreciating assets. If you are approaching situation where you would desperately need cash, you prepare for in some way different from buying luxurious suvs.

There are some situations that can wipe your savings - even large ones - really quickly (e.g. cancer).

Wouldn't healthcare cover a large portion of these kinds of expenses? At least they do in quite a few parts of the world.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. Most parts of the world yes. Somehow in the US, no. My sister had cancer for 7 years and I think I probably paid close to $50k on her treatments because the treatments her insurance covered weren't sufficient so we had to take her to an out of network clinic (Mayo).

The "most parts of the world yes" is absolutely not true. Unless you consider G20 countries to be most of the world. In most parts of the world if you want actual state of the art treatment, you've got to pay from your own pocket.

I get your point. In my case, I wanted to switch cars as the warranty was ending. Fixing a Tesla outside of that is expensive and you’re pretty much stuck getting them repaired by Tesla.

But look at this from Tesla’s point of view. They want to sell as many cars as possible. If they sell me a car, that’s just one sale. However, every marketing book will tell you that it’s easier to sell to an existing customer.

If my car (an asset) has more resale value, I’m more likely to sell it to buy a new one. They should be trying to protect my resale value — if they want me as a repeat customer.

Or, what I’m leasing the car (reasonable for an EV and used to have better tax incentives)… if the end of lease value is low, I have to spend more on the depreciation over the lease. That makes my monthly payment higher. Instead, if the end of lease value is higher, I have a lower monthly payment and I’m more likely to buy the car.

Either way, Tesla was good at selling one car. They need to get better at selling the second or third one.

If Tesla is dropping the price of their cars, then that means you can buy a new car for less. It makes no sense to want to overpay for a consumable item at time t+1, regardless of what you paid at time t.

If cost(t) >> cost(t+1), then I'm not going to be able to afford to buy that new car. I'm going to be underwater on that deal. That also means that Tesla has one fewer possible sale. I'm not overpaying for a new car, which means that if Tesla would like to have more sales, they should try to keep their prices more constant.

Remember, this is from the Tesla point of view... and it's a long time-horizon perspective. It's a much easier decision from the customer's point of view.

(And there are other ways for companies to incentivize sales with discounts and promotions that don't obviously impact the "value" of the car).

Because an old car often costs more in maintenance. It's best to re-sale it before it gives you too much trouble. Basically, you can have a more reliable car with no extra cost. And some people like modern and new cars and upgrade every few years.

It seems strange to me not to. Because if you don't sell it, you're basically the kind of person who drives a new car one day, but ten years later, you're a person who drives a ten year old car?

Speaking as someone who mostly drives 20 year old cars.

Not that you’re the only one deciding when you’re done with the car. I’ve had the misfortune of getting in an accident and having a car totaled, at which time the insurance company will give you something like the value of the car at that time. If all else is equal and you’re choosing between two cars, you might want to opt for the one that retains value better.

pretty sure they average out to holding their value better or at worst in line with other brands