Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlbertCory | Hacker News Reader

A project in the back of my mind:

I walk the dog through a strip mall parking lot every day. There are some U-Haul rental vans that are always there. So pretty clearly, someone is doing daily rentals on a permanent basis. The prices are painted right on the vans: $19.95 / day plus mileage.

Or maybe they just bought the vans from U-Haul and never repainted them? Interesting question. But U-Haul has a box in the strip mall for dropping off your keys, so I suspect they are rentals.

I was thinking of doing a comparison between actually buying or leasing a van vs. paying the daily rental fee. Could there be an economic inefficiency where it's cheaper to rent every day than buy? I'd need to know the year of the van, for one thing.

View on HN

> Could there be an economic inefficiency where it's cheaper to rent every day than buy?

It's never going to be cheaper to rent daily than to buy. Renting daily has you paying the amortised purchase cost and a little extra for the costs of the rental provider (real-estate, offices, employees), and then a little more for the profit of the rental provider.

If the rental provider charges only what the amortised purchase cost is, they'll be out of business in a few days, if not hours.

Never let the facts get in the way of theory.

The fact is, they are doing it. You're right, there might be some good explanation, but just dismissing the fact is never a good look.

> The fact is, they are doing it. You're right, there might be some good explanation, but just dismissing the fact is never a good look.

I didn't make any statement about whether or not they are doing it, I pointed out that it costs more to do so. That's the fact in this case: the selling price of a non-loss-leader item can't be lower than the cost of providing it!

That there are people doing it is no indication that it is at all cost-effective to do. They may have some good reason for paying more (poor credit so cannot buy a vehicle, need the "daily" for only 3 months, it's a temporary solution while their own vehicle is being repaired, etc).

The fact is, it costs more to rent daily than to simply buy. The theory you have is that it must be more cost-effective to rent daily than to buy.

No, you're the one with a theory. I'm the one with an unexplained fact. Don't confused data points with theory.

> No, you're the one with a theory.

Are you seriously claiming that "U-Haul is running a profit" is just a theory?

> I'm the one with an unexplained fact.

The explanation is not going to be "It's cheaper to rent than to buy", if you're looking at periods that ownership generally runs for.

"It's unexplained" does not mean "It's cheaper".

Just stop arguing. You've lost. We're done here.

I have been doing this for 5 years. EV for daily commutes, rentals for hauling stuff for my landscaping hobby and ICE rentals for roadtrips. I must have rented close to 100 cars for those roadtrips. Ended up getting a large ICE wagon in the end:

- rentals for the roadtrips cost a lot (about 1.5-2k p/w for a SUV like an X5), and those cars are still poorly equipped. It ruins the fun of a roadtrip if the car audio sucks or the windshield is made of cheapest, thinnest glass. I never knew car companies sell premium vehicles with such low trims. Its a hassle too as the rental companies around where I live examine the car like they were buying it from me. One has to interact with various people and spend the time, and its not always an enjoyable experience, - rentals for hauling stuff are perfectly ok even for weekly use. I'd still love the luxury of owning a toyota proace full time, but there is less of a reason to own sth like this for me.

> Or maybe they just bought the vans from U-Haul and never repainted them?

I believe that when U-Haul (and other rental companies) sell their old vehicles, they remove or paint over the business-related markings first.

Van rentals are basically the cheapest vehicle to rent.

Another guy said the "purchase" theory is wrong, because U-Haul would have painted over the van.

It would be some effort to figure out why they're doing it, so I haven't done so.

Wait! I've got it: U-Haul is just parking their rental vans there instead of their own lot. So the vans are actually NOT rented at the moment?

Stay tuned.

I think that's it.

Today I saw a sign above the dropbox: "please park your returned trucks <in the lot>"

So I think what's happening is: U-Haul keeps the vans in the strip mall parking lot. (Do they have to pay the mall for that? Who knows?)

Possibly some of the mall tenants rent it occasionally, and this lets them get the van right at their place of business, instead of having to go somewhere and pick it up.

Maybe the keys are always left in the van! I could test that, but I don't want to get in trouble for car theft. Maybe U-Haul doesn't have to worry about someone stealing it, since they could have a locator device in it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com