I don't fully follow, or potentially I see it a bit different.
If residual is "lower than market" the consumer is paying more depreciation than really occurred (75k msrp 45k residual, 50k mkt value after 3 years, consumer pays 30k ball park). Consumer loses 5k additional they gave away over 3 years, but they get the benefit of buying for less than market (primarily because they pre-paid that already).
If residual is "higher than market" the consumer is paying less depreciation than really occurred (75k MSRP 55k residual, 50k market after 3 yrs, consumer pays 20k). Consumer pays less over 3 years, buying-out would be a losing proposition, but buying from the market is winning as value is 50k.
From a lease perspective, the highest residual possible is best for the consumer as they pay the least over the period of time. This also assumes a lease of new vehicle, instead of buying a used one at the same point in time.
for the OP, i think these costs are a bit off... on the high side. unless money owed on trade-in, that's a sizable down payment. I'd almost walk away with the cash and use a portion of it monthly to pay the lease amount. I don't like pre-paying leases. Also check your insurance, if you total it, will insurance pay the difference of what you owe, so you walk away clear. Or do they pay the value of the vehicle at that point in time. if the former, you basically lost the equity (down payment and trade-in) that you put up.
