A different residual value
Lifecycle competition treats residual value as evidence of preserved function, support and recoverable capital, rather than only as an estimate of the next buyer’s willingness to pay.
Part 9 left the fleet owner with a financing question that reaches beyond the current customer contract: what remains available to support the next period of service? A vehicle can lose appeal in the used-car market while retaining useful mobility, recoverable components and material. MML asks whether those routes can support a different lifecycle decision from selling the vehicle at the end of each customer contract.
That question needs a disciplined definition of value. A forecast of future use, an offer from a dismantler and the customer’s Material Capital Credit are different things. None can be substituted for another merely because they concern the same vehicle.
Nor can mobility, components and material be added as though they were three independent assets. Recovering a component usually removes it from the vehicle, and recovering its material usually ends its use as a component. The proposed hierarchy is a sequence of decisions, with alternative destinations and real costs.