| JBHorner |
10-24-2007 11:22 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty04
I don't believe that is necessarily true. Whether one would get paid by their insurance company would depend on the value of the vehicle at the time of the totaled/stolen vehicle. If the value exceeds that amount owed to the leasing company, you would get the difference back.
|
I believe that would be an extremely rare case. Leases are designed to have the "rent" closely follow the depreciation (plus interest, of course). That keeps the payments as low as possible, while ensuring that the leasing company isn't taking a hit when the vehicle is returned. (If the depreciation is under-estimated, they take the hit on resale. If it is over-estimated, the payments are too high for the buyer. The "sweet spot" is what leasing companies desire.)
The scenario you paint would most likely only be relevant in the last six to eight months of the lease on average. That means that, from a risk perspective, the lessee is exposed for a majority of the lease, if money was put down. The reverse (little/no cap reduction), however, the lessee is not exposed---the gap insurance company is. (In the likely event the vehicle is "upside-down," [more is owed than the vehicle is worth] they make up the difference in the negative equity.)
Further any decent financial management of the money that would have been used for cap reduction would likely erode any gain from positive equity that may have been present---inclusive of interest charges. ING Direct, for example, has very good rates for plain savings accounts that often eclipse what one would pay in interest on an automotive loan. (Presuming a good credit rating.)
Joel
|