Skip to content

Think like a gambler: why the same novated lease can be brilliant for one person and terrible for another

The average novated lease outcome can be excellent. Whether it's excellent for you is a different question entirely — and it requires the kind of risk thinking most people only apply at a casino.

Why the casino is reliably bad

Almost everyone understands why casinos are bad for the average punter: the house wins in the long run by design.

Take roulette. There are 18 black slots, 18 red slots, and one green zero. Black and red each pay 1:1 — but the green zero ensures the house always comes out ahead. Every spin has negative expected value for the player.

A better game

Now imagine a different game.

A machine rolls a fair dice. If it lands odd, you win double your bet — a $10 bet pays $20. If it lands even, you lose your bet.

Unlike roulette, this game actually favours you:

  • Half the time you win $20
  • Half the time you lose $10
  • Average outcome per game: +$5 on a $10 bet

This has positive expected value — meaning that if you play it repeatedly, the law of large numbers will eventually deliver those gains.

But "positive expected value" does not automatically mean "everyone should play."

Two variations that change everything

Variation 1: Minimum bet of $1,000

The odds are identical — on average, you still profit $500 per game.

However:

  • If you only have $2,000 in reserve, there is a 25% chance you lose two games in a row and are completely wiped out — despite the odds being in your favour.
  • If you have $30,000 in reserve, the short-term swings are easily absorbed. You can play enough games to reliably harvest the statistical advantage.

The same game, the same odds — but very different outcomes depending on your financial cushion.

Variation 2: One play only, fixed bet of $1,000

Now suppose the rules change: you can only play once, with a fixed bet of $1,000.

For most people in comfortable financial shape, this is still an attractive offer — a 50/50 chance to turn $1,000 into $3,000, though with another 50/50 chance of losing the $1,000. Many would take it and they would be making the mathematically correct decision.

The exception: someone who only has $1,100 to their name. Even though the odds favour them, losing $1,000 would be devastating and life-disrupting. For them, risk aversion is the rational position — the potential $2,000 gain simply does not compensate for the severity of the potential $1,000 loss.

The bet hasn't changed. The rational decision has.

How this maps to novated lease

In novated lease, the expected outcome — especially for FBT-exempt EV leases at higher tax brackets — can be genuinely favourable. But it is not guaranteed, and the downside risk is real and can be large e.g. in the event of early termination.

Consider Jason:

Jason runs the numbers and finds he stands to save $25,000 over a cash purchase on a 5-year FBT-exempt EV novated lease. But when he checks Section 7 of the calculator, he discovers that if he changes jobs to an employer who doesn't support novated leasing before year 3, he will face early termination payout that fully negate any tax saving — leaving him worse off than if he had paid cash.

This is the textbook example of how a novated lease turns a financing decision into a risk analysis question.

The three dice game profiles map directly onto Jason's situation:

Jason with high job security — e.g. a doctor in a public hospital with a permanent contract, months of accrued sick leave, and no plans to go full contractor — is in a more comfortable position of taking this up. The odds are good, and the risk is well within what he can absorb.

Jason who is already eyeing a career change, or works in an industry where redundancy is common, is closer to playing the $1,000 minimum-bet game with only $2,000 in reserve. The expected value is still positive on paper — but the realistic chance of a painful outcome is high enough that the "average saving" may not negate the potential pain of possible loss.

Jason without much financial buffer faces the Variation 2 scenario. Unlike Variation 1 where the problem is sustainability across multiple rounds, here the issue is that he can only take this bet once — and if it goes wrong, the loss isn't just a number on a spreadsheet but a serious disruption to his financial stability. The identical bet that is rational for a well-cushioned Jason is irrational for him.

The uncomfortable truth compounded by a lack of disclosure

Most financial decisions do not require this kind of explicit risk-profile thinking. Buying groceries, taking out a car loan, signing a gym membership — none of these require you to model your probability of job loss over a 5-year horizon. Being asked to do so feels daunting, even when the average outcome is genuinely favourable.

What makes this worse is that most novated lease companies do not clearly disclose these risks upfront. The marketing leads with "save $20,000 in tax". The early termination consequences are hidden behind legalese in the deed of novation. Many people only discover the risk profile after a termination event — by which point it is too late.

A novated lease is not universally beneficial, even when the calculated net saving looks attractive. The right answer depends on who you are.

What to ask yourself

  • Job security — how likely is early termination in your situation?
  • Financial buffer — could you absorb a worst-case outcome without serious disruption?
  • Life flexibility — are major employment or life changes plausible in the next few years?
  • Risk tolerance — is the potential gain worth the psychological and financial exposure to the downside?

This site and calculator exist to help you understand both sides: the expected saving and the realistic downside. The goal is not to talk you into or out of a novated lease, but to help you arrive at an informed, risk-adjusted decision — not one based on a marketing brochure.

For the practical next steps, see:

Support this independent calculator & guide

This calculator and guide are built and continuously maintained as an independent project.

If it has helped you think more clearly, avoid a costly mistake, or saved you meaningful money, you're welcome to support its ongoing maintenance and improvements:

I'm backing Dr Michael Keane's fight for salary packaging transparency

Workplaces with an exclusive salary packaging provider tend to have noticeably higher effective interest rates on novated leases — yet the commercial terms behind these exclusive arrangements are rarely disclosed to employees.

Dr Michael Keane, a Melbourne anaesthetist, is taking a Victorian health service to the Victorian Supreme Court to obtain the unredacted contract between the hospital and its exclusive salary packaging provider. The unredacted version may shed light on alleged sign-on fees associated with exclusive access to hospital employees — an arrangement whose financial terms employees are rarely privy to.

To date, Dr Keane has personally spent around $15,700 pursuing this case, with further legal costs anticipated. I believe this matters to anyone in a workplace with an exclusive provider. If you agree, consider supporting his GoFundMe GoFundMe.