Device Valuation: Leaving Nothing on the Table

Part two of six. What a retired device is actually worth, why that figure is harder to pin down than it looks, and why getting it right is important for digital inclusion outcomes.

Recap on the series

Reconome is one of the first four recipients of the Material Focus Circular Electricals Fund, building a system in five stages that gives every device we handle a considered decision about its future rather than a fast one, so that more devices reach people in digital poverty and fewer get recycled. Part one dealt with locked devices, and how we have built a closed loop that puts those devices in front of the customer the moment we find them, so a whole collection can be cleared in one go rather than chased by email. This part is about the number that everything after it depends on.

Why this stage matters

We collect retired devices from enterprise partners. Most working, viable devices are sold on, and the proceeds fund digital inclusion, after a small portion is retained to cover logistics and device processing costs (collection, secure data erasure, grading, repair and refurbishment).

If devices are underpriced, the result can negatively affect digital inclusion outcomes. Price a batch accurately and that remainder grows.

Why the number is hard to pin down

Pricing a retired device is harder than it sounds. Practice across the industry is usually two-stage: an indicative figure from the customer’s asset list, then a firmer one once the device has been inspected and graded. That second figure turns on make, model, age, specification, cosmetic condition, functional status and what the market is paying that week.

And any reference point goes stale quickly. Industry estimates put the drop at roughly 1 to 3% a month as newer models arrive in the channel, so last quarter’s figure is already out of date.

There is no single benchmark to fall back on either. Published guides put what a three year old business laptop retains at 20 to 40% of its original cost in one place, 40 to 60% in another, and a flat $150 to $400 in a third. They are describing different fleets, which is the point. A percentage cannot price a specific machine.

Grading adds its own pull. The difference between Good and Excellent can be a meaningful price gap, and a cautious call made at speed tends to land low. Consistently low, across tens of thousands of devices, is a lot of value that never gets recovered.

What we have built

The second stage of the Reuse Project is a valuation engine.

It runs at the point of inspection and works out what the device in front of us is worth now, priced against live market data rather than an average of what similar machines made last year.

It does not decide anything. It produces the figure that the decisions after it will need. Minimum margins and channel rules are enforced, our team can adjust or reject any recommendation, and every override is recorded and fed back so the engine improves on the calls it got wrong.

The system prices. People decide.

The models are built and tested against our own sales history: what the engine would have priced devices at, measured against what those devices actually achieved.

What it changes

Less value left on the table, batch by batch. That is the part that feeds straight back into digital inclusion, and it is why this stage came before the cleverer work that follows it.

Consistency, and speed. The same device gets the same price wherever it lands and whoever is holding it, and shaving time off each pricing decision compounds across tens of thousands of devices a year.

A recorded reason behind every price, which a client can put into a social value or ESG report and stand behind. And a clearer view of what is coming, so the commitments we make to the National Device Bank and to clients’ chosen causes rest on something firmer than an estimate.

If more of the industry priced this way, more value would be recovered from the same devices. In our model, that means more devices reaching the people who need them. That is the argument for doing it.

Next in The Reuse Project, part three: what that number makes possible. What a device would be worth repaired, whether that gap is bigger than the cost of closing it, and the rule we are building that will not let a device go to recycling until something better has been ruled out and the reason written down. That one is coming later this month.

One thing worth asking in the meantime. If your end-of-life IT is priced as a flat rate per device, ask what happens to the value recovered above that rate. In our model, that is the part that funds the digital inclusion work.