|
September 01, 2008
Everyday arbitrage: car rental
Ed’s post on the car rental market reminded me of a car rental pricing anomaly I recently encountered. I had to get from St. Louis to a Liberty Fund gig in Indianapolis. (Coincidentally, Ed was there!) Out on Thursday, back on Saturday. It’s a four-hour drive each way, so driving takes no more time door-to-door and (to my taste) involves less of a hassle than flying. But should I drive my own car, or a rental? It’s about 500 miles round-trip. My neighborhood Enterprise Rent-a-Car was willing to pick me up and rent me a new car for two days for about $70 (weekend days are half-price) plus $0 per mile (“unlimited mileage”). Gas added another $75. Total expense: $145. At the current standard reimbursement rate of 50.5 cents per mile, driving my own car would have cost Liberty Fund $252.50. So how can rental car companies cover maintenance on their fleets when they charge less than standard reimbursement? Won’t the adverse-selection problem, of which my trip is an example, do them in? Neighborhood Enterprise offices used to charge by the mile. Why did they switch to the unlimited-mileage model? Comments are open. UPDATE: Comments are now closed. Posted by Lawrence H. White at 01:59 PM in Economics
Comments
"So how can rental car companies cover maintenance on their fleets when they charge less than standard reimbursement? ..." Why would the standard reimbursememt rate be a consideration for the rental car company? "Won’t the adverse-selection problem, of which my trip is an example, do them in? ..." All the rental company needs is to assure is that your rental revenue, minus the marginal costs due to your rental, exceeds the marginal value of the car sitting on the lot awaiting a last minute rental customer. "Neighborhood Enterprise offices used to charge by the mile. Why did they switch to the unlimited-mileage model?" The unlimited mileage model is not really unlimited, since it takes both gas and actual driving time. It's one thing to have unlimited free desserts, but miles are a means to the end of reaching a destination, not an end in and of themselves. While the rental company may not charge for the miles, the costs of those miles are still significant to the consumer. It seems unlikely that the service costs of a car in the first year of fleet use are much affected by the actual miles driven in unlimited mileage plans. Nor should the resale value be much affected. Note that the unlimited mileage plans are likely only offered when cars are available not rentable for higher profit rates at that time. Regards, Don
"Why would the standard reimbursememt rate be a consideration for the rental car company?" I guess I wasn't clear. I was assuming that the std. reimbursement rate reflects something genuine, beyond gas and oil expenses, namely the marginal cost of driving a car on its resale value, plus wear and tear on the tires and other parts. "All the rental company needs is to assure is that your rental revenue, minus the marginal costs due to your rental, exceeds the marginal value of the car sitting on the lot awaiting a last minute rental customer." The local Enterprise lot typically rents out all its cars by the end of the day. I reserved mine in advance. In general, to survive at any given size, a rental car company not only needs to cover not only its variable costs, but also its average costs. "The unlimited mileage model is not really unlimited, since it takes both gas and actual driving time." Okay, miles driven won't be infinite. But surely a zero price per additional mile fails to recoup the rental company's marginal cost for each additional mile the customer drives. The puzzle is, how does it manage to recoup average cost? "It seems unlikely that the service costs of a car in the first year of fleet use are much affected by the actual miles driven in unlimited mileage plans. Nor should the resale value be much affected." On the contrary, there's no question that higher mileage cars, ceteris paribus, sell for less. About 15 cents a mile less, last time I looked. Look at any rental car company's offerings of its used cars for sale, and see if the higher mileage cars of a given model and year don't go for less. Posted by: Lawrence H. White at September 1, 2008 10:39 PMThe correct approach to a problem like this would involve the inclusion of the relevant costs associated with alternative marketing arrangements. For example, the absence of prices for miles driven is consistent with market efficiency once it is recognized that the benefits for car rentals in charging for mileage may be less than the decision to forgo pricing these services.
"...On the contrary, there's no question that higher mileage cars, ceteris paribus, sell for less. About 15 cents a mile less, last time I looked. Look at any rental car company's offerings of its used cars for sale, and see if the higher mileage cars of a given model and year don't go for less." But the only mileage in question is that increased by the free unlimited miles plan. I suspect that you will only drive about 500 miles on your trip independent of whether you have an unlimited miles plan or not, assuming that either plan makes sense to contract for. Also, a given car will only serve a part of its rental life under an unlimited miles plan. So it's not at all clear that cars rented under an unlimited miles plan will actually have significantly more mileage at resale time. Regards, Don "...Okay, miles driven won't be infinite. But surely a zero price per additional mile fails to recoup the rental company's marginal cost for each additional mile the customer drives. The puzzle is, how does it manage to recoup average cost?" My assumption is that a simple price model is $X fixed cost plus $Y per mile. Y is zero for the unlimited miles plan, but there is nothing that prevents setting X high enough to make up for the fleet statistical miles actually driven under the unlimited miles plan. The choice of plans is likely necessary to remain competitive for both high and low mile customers. Regards, Don
Who sets the standard reimbursememt rate? I think it might be a government mandated minimum (first result in a google search states "The University of Toledo follows the reimbursement guidelines of the Ohio Revised Code." But this is a public institution. Anyone know if private firms are bound by this?) If the government sets the rate, there is no reason to believe it is "genuine" in a per-mile cost of use sense. Of course, this would only move the actual cost per-mile up or down and says nothing to the pricing scheme. Posted by: William Luther at September 2, 2008 04:08 AMTwo questions I would ask: 1) Do rental companies pay the same price for new cars as average consumers? 2) Are maintenance costs for fleets the same as those for average consumers? I suspect that rental companies have lower costs for both of these. Also, the average wear and tear figured into the fixed price may not have as much variance as miles driven because those driving shorter distances may be using the car to drive around town (harder on the car), and those driving longer distances may be logging more highway miles (easier on the car). Posted by: Rolo Tomasi at September 2, 2008 11:09 AMThe major rental companies all have agreements with the car manufacturers than insulate them (to some degree) from declines in the value of the used car. The manufacturers justify these "program" cars because they serve as advertisements and buffer production capacity. In effect, rentals are partly subsidized. The mileage reimbursement rate for most organizations follows the set IRS rate. I think you need complicated reasons to deviate from it. The rate is intended to capture the full lifetime cost per mile of the vehicle, including depreciation, insurance, fuel, maintenance, etc. So, between the manufacturer's subsidy and the difference between fixed and marginal pricing, you should not be surprised to see some "good deals" on rentals at times. |
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -Adam Smith
Our Bloggers
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Craig Depken Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
Blogroll
Search
Archives
By Author:
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Edward Bierhanzl Craig Depken Ralph R. Frasca Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
By Month:
July 2009June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004
Powered by
Site design by |