Yes, this makes a lot of sense but used and CPO leasing has never been executed well. The monthly payment on the used lease needs to be comparable to the new car lease. This rarely happens because of new car incentives and RV subvention on the new car side. Plus you have dealers making as much profit on the used car which just inflates the second lease monthly payment.
The ideal scenario is when a dealer realizes that he can either sell or lease every used car on his lot. If he sells a used car for a $4k profit and it sat on his lot for 45 days, it might be more advantageous to sell that car as a lease for a $2500 profit and move it in 15-20 days. An increased sales velocity but at a lower profit margin can sometime have a much higher overall profit level. It would take some serious effort to optimize the pricing but in certain markets there are lots of opportunities.
It is very hard to convince dealers to change their behaviors. Doable but it requires excellent bulletproof data and that requires some guinea pigs.
to answer your original question (bear in mind i’m not an avid leaser), if I was to push out to a 48 month lease, it would have to cost a lot less. it would help if the bumper to bumper warranty stretched out the full 48, but even if I did, I would still be driving a more old and busted car for that last year, so my cost per month/year would have to be less.
the other thought I had? when my wife and I were shopping leases, multiple dealers mentioned that some folks lease a car for three years, then end up financing the purchase of that same used car after the lease is up. Seems weird to me, but they wanted to keep the payments lower.
Well, maybe that back end financing can be bundled up and made easier if the bank/CU is handling both the lease and the used car loan? Keep the buyer more likely to go back to the CU than to the dealer when the lease term is up.
