Agreed.
I think Scotty is probably right about the used care "pricing guides" being skewed to favor the sellers now that the companies producing them are owened by sellers.
Also, cars are more useful for longer. 25 years ago, a 100,000 mile car was pretty well used up. Now, a 100,000 mile car probably has another 100,000 miles in it. For some cars, 150,000-200,000. Don't we think that this will affect used car prices?
Thanks to all of you who buy new vehicles and trade often. My bank account account appreciates you taking the biggest depreciation hit. I am perfectly content buying vehicles with 20,000 to 30,000 miles and driving them for another 100,00 to 150,000 miles.
This is so true, and I think it is the way to do business. This is how my wife and I got our last three "new to us" cars. The teenager is still driving our 2003 Tahoe with 188,000 miles on it.
And, as for Cash for Clunkers, I agree that it skewed the market, but that was so long ago. Also, the most frequently turned in car was the Ford Explorer. These were the years that the Explorer had the hard-to-recreate instability problem when equipped with certain tires. Given all the bad press, I would think they wouldn't have been particularly attractive used cars.
However, although I'm not an economist, I would think that Cash for Clunkers hurt those of lesser means, by removing all those what would have been more reasonably priced vehicles from the used car market at the time. Obama, man of the people (so long as your people include the UAW)!