Car manufacturers don’t just sell their customers a transportation solution. They sell an ambitious lifestyle. So it should come as no surprise that many have become worried about the impact of autonomous driving technology on their profits if and when those ambitions become meaningless. Some industry experts believe that when autonomous vehicle travel becomes the norm, there will be almost no incentive to own a car. Instead, fleet managers or ride-sharing networks will lease cars to the public when demand calls for it, undermining the ability of manufacturers to increase their margins with custom extras.

The industry’s answer is that change should not be a problem for profitability. People will still need cars, and business models will have to fit. Instead of selling cars to individuals, manufacturers will need to be better at marketing than professional fleet networks or operators.

This view neglects the role that private car ownership plays in the pricing of vehicle transport as a whole. Network operators like Uber and Lyft do not necessarily want to own rental vehicles. Asset ownership can be burdensome and these businesses understand that tying their balance sheets to fixed assets can impede growth.

It can also expose owners to any adverse risks and costs, such as liability for accidents and damage, maintenance costs and refuelling. For private owners, the utility and convenience derived from exclusive ownership make these costs and risks seem justified.

This has prompted speculation that the sector may follow the “operating company – property company” model used in retail and accommodation. The business is split into two companies, with the operating party involved in the sale and leaseback of the ownership company in a way that improves the overall credit status of the duo and lowers financing costs. A property company can be organized as a type of investment trust, opening the door to low-risk mutual property.

The problem is that the fleet investors would be at much greater risk than conventional real estate investment trusts since the degree of depreciation of autonomous vehicles is an unknown variable in a world where private property has been overturned.

In conventional vehicle securitisations, the cost-effectiveness of leasing payments is related to how well the vehicles retain their value in the second-hand market. If the market is expected to be strong, car insurance can be used to discount effective rental costs. However, without private buyers for former fleet cars, it is difficult to imagine how residual values ​​can be inflated. Resale values ​​may only need to be determined by the value of the scrap, which increases leasing costs everywhere.

This is the paradox of the autonomous market. If the private property becomes a demode, fees will lose an important source of subsidy through the residual value channel. Ironically, rental rates can then rise to levels that make the private property look more attractive.

Some say the solution lies in collective autonomous membership schemes where a one-time investment (less than the cost of buying a car directly) entitles members to use any available vehicle. The problem becomes one of managing liquidity and ensuring that members do not require to use the vehicles of the scheme at the same time.

The only way to overcome this difficulty is to ensure that the fleet has at least one member vehicle, which makes membership costs fully interchangeable with private property. The key benefit then becomes the ability to quickly call a vehicle instead of having to wait for someone’s car to arrive from across the city.

Whatever the industry hopes, this benefit may not be enough to offset the burden of not being able to keep personal items on alert. They may need to think again.