In a previous post, I stated that the forklift market is rapidly evolving into a battery-powered energy market. Electrification, lithium technology, and global value chains are fundamentally reshaping the playing field.
But that shift has a less visible consequence.
The faster battery technology evolves, the greater the question becomes whether traditional ownership is still the most logical way to deal with it.
That's the paradox.
Technological advances promise efficiency and cost savings.
But anyone who invests in assets today may find themselves stuck tomorrow in a technological framework that becomes outdated faster than the depreciation tables anticipate.
In a stable market, ownership is a form of security.
In an accelerating market it can become a form of immobility.
For the Belgian entrepreneur, the discussion therefore shifts from:
“How much does this forklift cost?”
Unpleasant:
“How quickly can my capital structure move with technological change?”
That is not an accounting nuance.
That's strategic positioning.
1. Technical lifespan versus economic obsolescence
Traditionally, a forklift truck was assessed on its technical lifespan.
Will it last eight years? Ten years? Then the investment was justified.
But in a market where battery technology, charging systems and energy efficiency are developing at an accelerating pace, another phenomenon is emerging: economic obsolescence .
A machine can function technically perfectly, but become less competitive economically.
What if within four years:
- charging cycles become significantly shorter,
- energy consumption decreases per pallet moved,
- battery management systems are becoming smarter,
- data integration becoming standard?
Then the question shifts from:
“How long will this machine last?”
Unpleasant:
“How quickly does the technology standard change?”
That is a fundamental change in thinking.
2. Property as stability — but also as fixation
Ownership provides clarity:
- You activate the investment.
- You depreciate on a straight-line basis.
- The machine becomes completely yours.
For stable markets, that is a logical model.
But as technology accelerates, ownership also creates a certain fixity. Capital is tied up in an asset whose market value and technological relevance can shift.
That doesn't have to be a problem — as long as the technology cycle is slower than the financial depreciation.
The question is whether this is still the case today.
3. Leasing as a flexibility mechanism
Operating leasing is often viewed from the perspective of cash flow or tax optimization. But in an accelerating market, it takes on a different meaning: it becomes a flexibility mechanism.
It is not ownership that is central, but availability.
Instead of investing in long-term assets (CAPEX), the focus shifts to operational readiness (OPEX). This can enable entrepreneurs to:
- to respond more quickly to technological developments
- to limit the risk of residual value shifting
- to periodically reposition their fleet
This does not make leasing a “cheaper” model, but a model that can better connect with technological dynamics.
4. The invisible costs of aging
A fully written-off forklift seems cheap.
But not all costs are shown on the balance sheet.
As machines get older:
- increases maintenance intensity,
- battery degradation increases,
- decreases energy efficiency,
- sometimes lacks modern connectivity.
In an environment where uptime, energy price and data insight are becoming increasingly important, obsolescence can create indirect costs.
That doesn't mean the purchase is wrong.
However, the total cost of ownership (TCO) must be viewed more broadly than just the initial investment.
5. The 3- to 5-year cycle as a strategic framework
In many sectors, a three- to five-year replacement cycle has become common, precisely because technology is accelerating.
What if we also look at the forklift market from that perspective?
Not from:
“How long can this machine physically function?”
but from:
“How long will this technology remain competitive within my logistics process?”
This question affects not only the technical department, but also the financial strategy.
Conclusion: Capital structure as a competitive advantage
The global rebalancing of the forklift market—driven by battery technology, scale shifts, and energy logic—may also require a financial recalibration.
Perhaps the fundamental question is no longer:
“Is leasing cheaper than purchasing?”
but:
“Which model keeps my company technologically and financially agile?”
Ownership remains a legitimate choice.
Leasing too.
But in a market where technology evolves faster than depreciation tables, flexibility becomes a form of strategic capital.
It's not the strongest or the largest fleet that wins, but the fleet that can adapt most quickly to the next wave of technology. Are you ready for the shift?