Leasing is a complex game. It's very based onone of two things; being psychic OR historical data.
Companies can either leave the residual high when they KNOW that the vehicle will hold it based on data OR they can lower the residual to be safe.
The problem is that the lower the residual, the more the customer is paying for in the lease which means that the payment goes up. That's one thing on a $28,000 car but the math is much bigger on a $48,000 car!
So, the only way to combat that is to guarantee their "loss" upfront with a set lease rebate that lowers the payments rather than risk bigger "losses" at lease end.
I actually wrote a long email and had some conversation with some corporate Kia big shots trying to convince them to raise the residual and lower the money factor to lower the payments instead to help keep the used values up.
Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
You would be one of those people who is too smart for your own good. Thanks for trying to bring some sense to out-of-touch corporate types that can't understand that the old patterns should not apply to a radically different product. Of course, if they had asked you how to configure the cars, I bet there wouldn't be the fiasco that exists now, either.
My insurance premium is going to go up on this car, which is significantly cheaper to buy or repair than my current car. All other conditions remain identical. I asked my broker why? Because they have no information about the car, so are lumping it in with KIA's generally, which have a high proportion of younger and newer (aka riskier) drivers purchasing cheap cars. ...Great... Another corporate machine unable to adapt quickly.
In Canada, due to the better configurations and pricing, the cars are flying off the lots. But in the US, resorting to large discounts while showing such little faith in the long-term value of the car is a 180 degree opposite strategy to what should be employed if KIA was serious about attracting buyers from brands already established as "premium."