Renting a Dog | Hacker News Reader

Renting a Dog

bloomberg.com

41 pointsantigizmo50 comments

Would this not have been avoided if companies were mandated by law to advertise the full cost of their installment plans in their ads? In Denmark (and presumably in many other countries), this is the case for anything from cell phone plans to dish washers. I.e., you can't just say how little you have to pay each month and over how many months and hope that people don't multiply the numbers.

Loan agreements generally have to have this spelled out very clearly - even in my experience to the point that it's pointed out and initialed during contract signing.

The issue is that the dirtbag in barge here has structures these as closed end leases, not loans. Leases have very different sets of laws, and lessors can get away with a LOT more.

It's an issue of state law. I believe every loan I've signed included a section saying how much I was borrowing, and how much it would cost to pay it back following the payment schedule.

(EDIT):

I don't know if similar laws apply to leases, although car lease commercials usually have a similar section in the fine print. Usually that means at least one state requires the disclosure.

There are federal laws covering that.

Which is ALSO why they're very clear this is a lease and they seem to be trying to ensure it is seen that way. They don't want to fall under those laws.

That's a good idea and really not an imposition, but then again we are all now walking around with calculators in our phones and I would hope anyone over 18 knows how to multiply...

Some people are too trusting. I know I still am. People like us are sooner or later taught some hard lessons by life. The problem is, for many people, falling prey to this kind of scheme can completely derail their life.

Ultimately, dealing with businesses is an acquired immunity, based on heuristics. For example, I wouldn't come anywhere near that business from the article, because it smells off for me. On the other hand, I often skim the agreements with known, legitimate companies (like cellphone providers) when taking standard contracts, because if they were putting something fishy in them, there would be a huge shitstorm in the media already.

This particular problem can be solved by going to a pound or a rescue. You get a nice dog for free. There is no need for ever going to a breeder.

For me, the most startling part of the article wasn't the insane lease financing, it was the up front "sticker price". $2,400 for a dog, $1,700 for a cat. I've generally known that some people pay a lot of money to buy a certain type of dog from a breeder, but I was thinking it was more in the mid 3-figure ranges (I think I've seen ads for dogs around $400 - $600). I have considered that a ridiculously expensive price. I'm speaking someone who makes pretty good money, owns two houses, three vehicles (for two adults). But seeing that people pay thousands for a pet. It's like this whole other world of exorbitance. They're not paying for a pet, they're paying for something to brag about.

> A good breeder will also want to keep track of the pup and will also offer you a contract to protect you both and make sure your dog is healthy or will explain its conditions. Bulldogs are very special dogs and people who own them are just as special. [1]

Generally, if you go to a pound/rescue, your costs will be around $100, most of which are to pay for things like de-worming and stuff you would incur in a visit to the veterinarian.

1: https://www.suburbanbullies.com/whydobulldogscostsomuch.html

It depends on the breed and what you're looking for. My parents have always been huge dog people, and they've had a number of dogs over the year. Some were from registered breeders; others were rescue dogs, including two that they rescued. One was a wonderful dog whose bastard owners tossed him out of car going 30 miles an hour on a highway where one of their employees saw it and brought him to their workplace. At the other end of the scale, they paid something like $1500 and $1000, respectively, for mother and son Cavalier King Charles Spaniels from a licensed breeder a good ~18 years ago. The price would be higher nowadays. An Alaskan Klee Kai (think small dog resembling a Siberian Husky, but responsibly bred and without the ethical and health problems of a so-called 'Pomsky') will run a good $2-3000.

Is it worth it? Again, it depends on what you're looking for and whether you're able to afford the dog in question. People purchase particular purebred dogs for a lot of reasons; there's a far greater degree of predictability when it comes to genetic risks, life span, size, temperament, etc. due to a lot of collective knowledge. Reputable breeders socialize their dogs from the beginning, provide care, and they usually have already started the training process well before it's time for placement. With rescues or mixes in general, there are more unknowns though good shelters do their best to isolate those unknowns and help find the right home based on what they do know about the dog's background and have observed regarding its temperament. The unknowns might be scary at times, but it doesn't make the dog lesser. I'm typing this with a rescued mixed-breed terrier sitting beside me.

What really pisses me off about this story is the cruelty of the threat of repossessing an animal for both the animal and the family. No dog deserves to be ripped from a loving home and tossed into a shelter (even a good one); or worse, a pet store. Especially the kind that would suggest a freaking lease to a potential pet owner. It fits right in with the worst excesses of puppy mills. Plus, I have my doubts about the quality of care a company like this would provide to repossessed animals. It seems more like a disgusting effort to cash in on spur of the moment purchases, taking advantage of a lack of knowledge about both the finance agreement and owning a pet in general. Wunderlich even admits as much in the article: "We like niches where we’re dealing with emotional borrowers."

If you can't afford to pay cash to adopt the pet, or use a credit card you can pay off quickly without negatively affecting your overall finances, you shouldn't jump on long-term financing or this lease BS as an alternative. It isn't a smart option, financially or emotionally. There are a ton of wonderful rescues of all sorts who can be adopted at very minimal cost. You have the added benefit of supporting some very respectable organizations that often struggle to fund their operations. And if you're looking for a particular breed of dog, there are often purebred rescue organizations that focus on specific breeds and often work closely with their respective breed clubs.

> “We like niches where we’re dealing with emotional borrowers,” Wunderlich said.

Jesus Christ, what an exploitative asshole.

This is the canonical definition of a predatory scumbag. He's deliberately targeting people at a highly emotional point, to rope them into a exploitative contract. Plus, who has even heard of "renting" a dog?

I'd bet the great majority of the people involved assumed the paperwork was just for vet bills and such relating to the dog. By targeting a niche where such a loan practice is rare/nonexistant, they probably expect much less scrutiny of the underlying contracts.

I bet his buisness would vanish if they forced him to put "Dog Lease Contract" or something similar in 70 point text on the paperwork people have to sign.

> He’s drawn to the rugged individualism expressed in the novels of Ayn Rand and the blog Cowboy Ethics

Surprise level: zero.

> He is, he writes in a mission statement on his personal website, “living in a Postmodern culture while maintaining my old American West roots and Christian values.”

"Christian", but apparently having never read the bible at any point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple).

What a thoroughly unpleasant person.

Sociopath. The word you're looking for is sociopath.

> "he struck up a golf-course friendship with a financier named Alfred Villalobos ... Villalobos took Wunderlich under his wing, hired him in 2006, and sent him around the globe in search of investors for deals in the new energy sector ... Villalobos later was criminally charged with bribing the former head of CalPERS and pleaded not guilty. He committed suicide in 2015."

> “We like niches where we’re dealing with emotional borrowers,” Wunderlich said.

Next: coffin leasing sold to relatives at funeral homes.

Funeral leases were literally in the article. It was a throwaway line of something that he tried that didn't work, but the guy ACTUALLY TRIED THAT.

Calling him disgusting is an insult to disgusting people..

Heh, touché. Point taken.

> He's deliberately targeting people at a highly emotional point, to rope them into a exploitative contract.

I assume you mean it's exploitative on the customer? If two parties voluntarily enter an exchange, who are you to say that it's exploitative? I'm genuinely curious.

If one party leaves the store not realizing they'd signed a lease agreement, then two parties have not voluntarily entered an exchange.

If one party has to make monthly payments, then what else do they think it is? And how can adults in this world not understand how interest rates work.

A loan. That's that standard way you'd get a loan. And a loan would make more sense too since it's (theoretically) a good you keep forever.

Sorry, my bad. For some reason I thought these were loans and not actually renting.

And what kind of adult doesn't read a contract before they sign? Isn't that just common knowledge now?

One party is at the pet store buying a dog. The puppy is so cute!

The other party has a team of lawyers drafting 20 page contracts and working out how skirt laws on predatory lending (i.e, structure it as a lease).

It's basically "ambush finance".

I can think of a few voluntary exchanges that are exploitative. For instance, if I offer someone a life-saving drug if they give me their house - they can voluntarily enter the agreement, or not.

I think we can safely say that in at least in some cases we can clearly judge that a voluntary exchange is exploitative. Do you feel like this is not one of those cases? Why?

The worst part of this is the implied threat that failure to make payments will result in your beloved dog being taken away from you. They didn't say it in the article, but I would bet almost anything that the company that gave them a $75 million credit line believed, probably correctly, that default rates will be lower than average because of this threat.

The repossession of a car might result in some inconvenience. The reposession of a dog will almost certainly result in severe emotional distress, especially since many people consider their pets to be their children. Not cool.

Even people that just rent them? I'm thinking that's a self-selecting demographic, that operates a little differently. They lack commitment for instance. Probably not terribly uncool after all.

They aren't "renting" them on purpose - as the article says, most people don't understand that they are signing a lease. In fact the only reason these transactions are structured as leases is to get around usury laws. It is effectively a loan with a very high interest rate - so high that it would be illegal in most states if it were called a "loan".

People do get attached with time though. Especially when the emotions are high, which seems something the company selects customers for.

I remember when I was a teenager and my mother bought us a cat. Until she came home with it, my reaction was "why don't we spend cat food money on a better Internet connection instead?". After it started living with us, I attached to it very quickly and couldn't imagine it not being there.

(In fact, that cat died recently. It was a hard emotional moment for myself and my whole immediate family.)

I'm so not surprised about the internet part. Just from what I can learn from posts on HN.

We also have had cats. The boys are long grown and off, and there is a row of stones in the orchard representing valued family members Frekls, Salm and Francis.

The dog will have serious distress. Renting out dogs and repossessing them is plain animal cruelty. The people have a choice but the animal doesn't.

Good point! I'm convinced.

>In another idea that never reached the market, he explored lease financing for funerals.

>“We like niches where we’re dealing with emotional borrowers,” Wunderlich said.

Well, fuck this guy. There is a clear difference in power and knowledge in the people offering, and the people taking, these loans.

Yeah, I read that and immediately said "yuck." to myself. What a way to prey on people. Yish.

Dog leases, targeting "emotional borrowers", lease financing for funerals? What the hell did I just read?

That is literally the weirdest thing I found on HN this year...

Man. On one hand, I like the idea of loans and leases, to help people who can't currently buy something get something they want. It gives greater access to products, which seems like a good thing.

On the otherhand, it seems like people just aren't responsible enough to deal with it. They're no the rational actors that my free-market economic paradise needs. :-/

Your free-market economic paradise could work without perfectly rational consumers if there weren't so many "entrepreneurs" out to exploit them :/.

tldr; read and understand what you're signing before you sign it.

Then, too, they would swindle you with the contract--and how was a poor man to understand anything about a contract? It was all nothing but robbery, and there was no safety but in keeping out of it. And pay rent? ...

So long as they paid, however, they had nothing to fear ... -- Upton Sinclair, The Jungle, 1906

I'm not at all surprised that the person behind this is a fan of Ayn Rand.

This sort of predatory behaviour should be illegal.

Every state I've lived in has laws requiring certain disclosures for leases and other disclosures for loans. Those disclosures include things like "you're entering into a lease" or "you're borrowing money."

What a scumbag business.

On the scale of scumbag such as payday loans and auto title pawn and buy here pay here car sales and check cashing services, not really. There are dogs at the pound up for adoption as a market place alternative to pure bread puppies. There are not alternatives to food and potable water and heat and prescription drugs.

This is a very different kind of scumbag. This one is preying on customers in emotional distress (he actually says so himself!), and of course the threat of having your dog taken away if you don't pay up is a lot more emotional than most other forms of repossession.

I know. I must admit, I'm somewhat envious... it's brilliant in its depravity. Sometimes I hate this moral compass I've been saddled with. Without it, I could be like this guy, taking advantage of folks' stupidity to enrich myself. c'est la vie

Yeah. Last time I was so "impressed" was when I read about that guy who managed to sell fake bomb detectors to bunch of militaries[0]. It's absolutely brilliant... if your moral compass fell out of your pocket and got driven over by an Uber car.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651

Is it significantly more immoral then selling weapons that kill people to militaries?

What about selling weapons to the people fighting those militaries? Or two militaries fighting eachother?

Morality of militaries is a complex topic. In the real world as it is today, militaries are necessary to maintain peace, so one could argue that providing weapons to soldiers may not always be morally wrong - especially that most of the time, those weapons are never fired against a human target.

On the other hand, selling fake bomb equipment directly endangers lives of the operators of such devices, as well as lives of people they're tasked to protect.

If that's not pure evil, then at least it's a highly refined form of evil.

What about selling defective weapons? Guns that don't fire? Bombs that don't explode? Is it only evil because 'your guys' will be on the losing end of that transaction? Would selling them to the enemy, instead, be moral? What if you believe the war itself is immoral?

Selling non-working bomb detectors can't possibly be worse then being the guy who works on weaponizing mustard gas, or Willy Pete. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions

“Also this cat is ruining my credit score.”

As all cats do one way or another :)

I don't want to say it but I really want to slap Wunderlich's smug face.

This is disgusting.

Wow, I think this is super crazy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com