How Much I Paid for My Bolt

[devbolt]

I've also been given a tentative Target Production Week of 11/28/16 as well, but the car has not been specifically scheduled for production yet. The event status code for my order is 3000, which means it's been accepted for production scheduling. Last week the event status code was 2000.

You can go on Chevrolet's website and chat with an agent to get the status of your order (should be a 6-digit alphanumeric code). Ask for the event status code to determine where you are in the process. The typical codes are:

1100, Preliminary order accepted
2000, Order accepted by GM
2030, Order re-edited (if necessary)
2051, Order changed thru Web
2500, Order preferenced
3000, Order accepted by production control
3100, Order available to sequence
3300, Order scheduled for production
3400, Order broadcast
3800, Order produced
4000, Available to ship
4104, Bailment Invoice
4200, Shipped
4300, Intermediate Delivery
4B00, Bayed
5000, Delivered to the dealer
6000, Delivered to the customer
9000, Order Cancelled

Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/topic/bu...#ixzz4O1rCykCL

 

[ssspinball]

What leasing company?

BMW FS.

 

[ssspinball]

unless the manufacturer is willing to effectively subsidize the cost of the car through an artificially high residual. I'm thinking that's unlikely at least at this stage of the game.

It's not just likely, we know with 100% certainty that many EVs are sold with artificially high residual. I own one of them!

But having never leased before or purchased an EV I have no data to lean on, just a guess.

Gathering the data doesn't require leasing yourself, just a wiliness to learn from others and that's as simple as a google search and a lease calculator.

It seems to me that you are being willfully obtuse on this. If you don't want to lease, don't, but don't pretend it's an unsolvable mystery.

 

[DaveN007]

It has been common practice for EV leases to be based upon absurd residual values. I have had 3 Fiat 500e leases. All with residuals that were DOUBLE or MORE the actual value of the vehicles at the end of the lease. After 24 months, my first car had a residual of $24,000. The car was worth $8000 on the wholesale market, and dealers are trying to get $12k to $13k for them.

This reduces the capital depreciation that forms the basis for your lease payments.

If this fuzzy math is applied to a Bolt lease, you would have a residual value after 36 months of .65 of the original MSRP.

That means a car that is $43k would have a residual of $27950. Despite the fact that the lease was based upon $35,500 (after $7500 from feds)

So... a zero down, $210 per month for 36 months lease would be possible.

It will be interesting to see if they apply boondoggleconomics like other EV peddlers have done. Probably not as it isn't strictly a "compliance car".

My Current Fiat is $78 per month. That is net of all rebates and costs.

 

[DaveN007]

I take your point but obviously tax, title and registration costs aren't unique to leasing. Some of the others are, though, and those are the ones that scare me off leasing, unless the manufacturer is willing to effectively subsidize the cost of the car through an artificially high residual. I'm thinking that's unlikely at least at this stage of the game. But having never leased before or purchased an EV I have no data to lean on, just a guess.

I have leased three EVs, and have insight into about a dozen others leased by friends, and you are completely wrong regarding leasing EVs.

This isn't directed at you. You are free to make whatever financial mistakes you would like to make based upon whatever rationalization you care to make. I have watched others waste thousands of dollars.

It's for others that might be confused by your confusion.

Without an attractive lease program, the Bolt will fail. Chevy knows this.

 

[SparkE]

I take your point but obviously tax, title and registration costs aren't unique to leasing. Some of the others are, though, and those are the ones that scare me off leasing, unless the manufacturer is willing to effectively subsidize the cost of the car through an artificially high residual. I'm thinking that's unlikely at least at this stage of the game. But having never leased before or purchased an EV I have no data to lean on, just a guess.

I have leased three EVs, and have insight into about a dozen others leased by friends, and you are completely wrong regarding leasing EVs.

This isn't directed at you. You are free to make whatever financial mistakes you would like to make based upon whatever rationalization you care to make. I have watched others waste thousands of dollars.

It's for others that might be confused by your confusion.

Without an attractive lease program, the Bolt will fail. Chevy knows this.

IF GM is losing a significant amount of money on each Bolt shipped (just COGS, ignoring development costs), then if I were GM, I'd look at the initial demand for vehicles and if it were high, I would sell as many of my production as possible instead of playing tricks with leasing (i.e., inflating the residual) and losing even more per car. My rationale is that they should try and get as much as possible for each vehicle sold to minimize losses. (This is presuming that GM, or a subsidiary, is the leasing institution. If they aren't, then a lease is the same as a sale to GM. If GM *is* the leasee, then they should try and minimize the amount lost.)

Another way to say it is that GM should decide what level of 'shipments' is their ideal goal, and to try and sell as many of that number as possible, and only put up the remainder for lease. If they think that 30K units the first year is a perfect number for them, and they can sell 2500/month, then they wouldn't need to lease any at all.

 

[roundpeg]

I am asking completely fair questions. But thanks for the hostility for those who offer little else.

 

[roundpeg]

IF GM is losing a significant amount of money on each Bolt shipped (just COGS, ignoring development costs), then if I were GM, I'd look at the initial demand for vehicles and if it were high, I would sell as many of my production as possible instead of playing tricks with leasing (i.e., inflating the residual) and losing even more per car. My rationale is that they should try and get as much as possible for each vehicle sold to minimize losses. (This is presuming that GM, or a subsidiary, is the leasing institution. If they aren't, then a lease is the same as a sale to GM. If GM *is* the leasee, then they should try and minimize the amount lost.)

Another way to say it is that GM should decide what level of 'shipments' is their ideal goal, and to try and sell as many of that number as possible, and only put up the remainder for lease. If they think that 30K units the first year is a perfect number for them, and they can sell 2500/month, then they wouldn't need to lease any at all.

This is my point, and my question. If the Bolt is already a loss-leader at the selling price, why would GM be willing to deliberately increase that loss through leasing terms that they know in advance will lose them even more? "Just because" isn't the answer. The only scenario that makes sense is the one you suggest. Even for a compliance car, the buyers of the first Bolts that roll off the assembly line are not likely to get any sweetheart deals, in terms of an artificially high residual on a lease, cash, or subsidized financing. Incentives may come later if and when GM feels the need to move more units in order to meet whatever internal sales goals they've set for the car. We'll know when we start to see some actual terms on actual leases for actual Bolts.

 

[Schnort]

CARB credits or advertising cost to gain mindshare.

There's got to be a reason, because every EV manufacturer has been doing it.

 

[DucRider]

1) 75% of all EV's are leased
2) $450-$500 per month lease payments won't move many cars

AFIK. no one has seen any lease offers/quotes on the Bolt yet, so it's all specutalion.

I can renew my Fit EV lease for another 2 years at $199/m. That is for unlimited miles, all maintenance, and includes comp & collision insurance (with a $0 deductible). This deal is also available to the public if they want to lease a used Fit EV - with the added bonus of a Leviton 32A EVSE thrown in for them to keep.

At $500/m to lease the Bolt, I'm out. At $350/m with a $4K cap reduction payment, I'm out

GM knows that a $30K (after tax credit) price point is great for press releases, but also knows that what will move Bolts off dealer lots is an attractive lease. How they get there doesn't matter (at least not to me). The only question is if they will come out of the gate with it or wait until sales stall (and risk having the Bolt deemed a flop).

 

[roundpeg]

The manufacturers have basically three ways to move their vehicles: (1) cash credits, (2) below market rate financing, and (3) favorable lease terms. The latter two have a cash value roughly equivalent to the first, but are paid on the back end instead of up front. When the manufacturers are offering incentives, they normally offer buyers a choice of one on this menu. We see these offerings in ads all the time. What the EV buyers who've received favorable lease terms aren't saying (assuming they know) is what other incentives the manufacturer was offering at the time they signed the lease. I am betting it was either cash back or below-market financing of roughly the same value as their artificially high residual.

EVs might be somewhat different in that they are sold as compliance cars, but not completely different. We don't know what will happen with the Bolt yet, but if they go with incentives, it still makes no sense for GM to offer only favorable lease terms.

 

[DucRider]

By offering the incentives only on a lease, they are essentially hidden and they can maintain the illusion that the vehicle is selling at or near MSRP.

 

[DaveN007]

I am asking completely fair questions. But thanks for the hostility for those who offer little else.

No hostility intended.

It just gets old arguing with people who can't get their heads around the fact that "EVs are different".

I save $250 a month on my electric bill because I have a $78 a month EV in my garage. I have had many, many people argue with me about how this can't be true. "I don't rent my cars." is what I hear a lot from people who are about 1/10th as financially secure as I am.

"That's impossible."

"Why don't you lease 10 of them and pay your mortgage."

"Do they let men drive those cars?" (This requires that I show a picture of my two Supercars)

I'd be happy to answer any questions on the subject, but understand that California is a specific case. We are punished by utilities with tiered rates, so some numbers will vary outside of California.

Respectfully,

Dave

 

[oilerlord]

1) 75% of all EV's are leased
2) $450-$500 per month lease payments won't move many cars

AFIK. no one has seen any lease offers/quotes on the Bolt yet, so it's all specutalion.

I can renew my Fit EV lease for another 2 years at $199/m. That is for unlimited miles, all maintenance, and includes comp & collision insurance (with a $0 deductible). This deal is also available to the public if they want to lease a used Fit EV - with the added bonus of a Leviton 32A EVSE thrown in for them to keep.

At $500/m to lease the Bolt, I'm out. At $350/m with a $4K cap reduction payment, I'm out

GM knows that a $30K (after tax credit) price point is great for press releases, but also knows that what will move Bolts off dealer lots is an attractive lease. How they get there doesn't matter (at least not to me). The only question is if they will come out of the gate with it or wait until sales stall (and risk having the Bolt deemed a flop).

^^^ So totally this. I'd add that if sales stall, GM will be offering sweetheart leases to grab credits. I'm guessing that those who wait a year or two may be rewarded with very low lease payments.

 

[michael]

I'm hoping and expecting the lease payments to be only slightly higher than a comparably equipped Volt. I'm currently paying $340 plus tax for a 15,000 mile/year, zero driveaway lease on a Volt. My California $1500 effectively lowers this to about $300 plus tax.
I'm hoping the Bolt will come under $400 zero driveaway as well, and with the California $2500, about $330 plus tax

 

[roundpeg]

^^^ So totally this. I'd add that if sales stall, GM will be offering sweetheart leases to grab credits. I'm guessing that those who wait a year or two may be rewarded with very low lease payments.

This doesn't disagree with anything I'd already said, but I'd add GM would very likely also employ the other two incentive tools every manufacturer uses to goose sales if that is their goal, if only because they always do, and it makes no sense for them to use only the one. Note that the value of a residual increased 10% above a real-world resale value, zero-interest financing, and $3,000 cash back on a $30k car are roughly equal. This is not a coincidence.

I have no problem wrapping my head around any of this. As I said before, if GM really does offer an incentive only via leasing, then I'd be surprised, but for sure I'd look at the terms.

 

[DucRider]

I'd add that if sales stall, GM will be offering sweetheart leases to grab credits. I'm guessing that those who wait a year or two may be rewarded with very low lease payments.

Not to mention the Model 3 and LEAF 2.0 - GM should want the Bolt to come out of the gate strong and bank some good numbers to take advantage of the short window they have of the lone ~$40K 200+ mile EV.
Doesn't mean it'll happen as it's both tempting and customary to take every dime the early adopters are willing to pay for the privilege. Brands like Apple can milk quite a bit this way - GM not so much, but they may try anyway.

 

[michael]

I can see waiting a few months for the initial flurry of buying to die down, but in my opinion those who wait a year or two will have lost a year or two.

I think the better plan is to lease a Bolt after things have stabilized (I'm guessing just a few months after introduction) and then making good use of the car for three years. Then, decide between another Bolt, a Leaf, a Tesla, or something altogether else...whatever is best at that time.

 

[roundpeg]

Brands like Apple can milk quite a bit this way - GM not so much, but they may try anyway.

FWIW, Apple has only ever charged early adopters more than later buyers of a product one time in their entire history that I can recall (the first iPhone). As a rule they make a notable practice of never offering incentives or any other benefit for later adopters of any given product. I mention this only because the auto industry is so completely different. They make constant use of a variety of incentive programs, often of short duration, which they also advertise prominently. This contributes to the carnival atmosphere associated with auto buying, which has been around for so long I guess we are used to it. But for sure it isn't like any other industry.

 

[devbolt]

I save $250 a month on my electric bill because I have a $78 a month EV in my garage. I have had many, many people argue with me about how this can't be true. "I don't rent my cars." is what I hear a lot from people who are about 1/10th as financially secure as I am.

How exactly do you save on your electric bill because you have an EV in your garage? Solar on the roof? Time of Use EV rate schedule? Cost shifting of monthly car payment to electric bill?

For me, a lease never makes financial sense because of the high mileage I put on my cars (20K or more per year). I'd rather own the car, keep it for 7 to 12 years, and then sell it.