Originally posted by bobspud
View Post
Not sure of that logic. The punter would have to pay the overall amount regardless of how it was broken down across the two loan cycles if they wanted to keep it after the first cycle. The financiers would argue that by giving high GFV they're helping those who are not interested in entering second cycle, only want a new vehicle every 2/3 years so only ever go through the first cycle.
As for toxic debt problem, maybe the manufacturers who are also offering in house finance, know the true cost of manufacture and their profit margin is within tolerance of the seeming poor residual value. After all they're mostly robot built so only costs are the materials and leccy.
Leave a comment: