Is GM committed to manufacturing the Bolt in the Trump Era

[michael]

That's pretty much what I wrote, except that you seem to discount the significance of leasing. In the case of EV's it's actually pretty important, both because of the higher vehicle prices and because of the rapidly changing technology. So if GM makes leasing unappealing (and they've just about done that already), then the "sales" of the Bolt (the "sales" figures usually include leases) will drop substantially, Add to that the addition drop from the loss of the rebate, and...well I already wrote that, didn't I? ;-)

Sort of, except that you as many others seem to believe that lease math is some sort of special magic that has little or no relationship to the net price of the car, when in fact it is exactly related. If leasing is "unappealing" then it's because the car is expensive. If leasing is appealing, it's because the car is inexpensive.

It's not as simple as that.

Wall Street looks at this quarter and next quarter. That's what American business worries about. Making your numbers. People don't worry about next year or three years from now. If they don't make their numbers today, they won't be around in three years. If they make their numbers, they will be promoted and the time bomb they planted will be someone else's headache.

If a company reduces selling price, it goes straight to the bottom line and become today's problem.

If a company establishes artificially high residuals on a lease, the problem won't surface for three years, becomes someone else's problem.

So a company has more flexibility to reduce lease price than it does to reduce selling price.

 

[roundpeg]

Product planning by the auto industry is a difficult task, because it takes 5 or so years for a new product or the next generation of a current product to reach the market. 5 or so years is an eternity in terms of oil price fluctuations. Reconfiguring factories and changing orders from suppliers in response to changing market demand can also require non-trivial effort and cost.

When gasoline hit $4 per gallon in 2008, most of the auto industry was caught with a product mix designed for cheaper gasoline (and Toyota sold Priuses quickly). So new development went into improving fuel economy improvements and EVs. These new more fuel efficient models were hitting the market around 2014, when the fracking boom drove crude oil and hence gasoline prices down, reducing market demand for fuel efficiency.

If gasoline prices stay low for the time being, auto companies may still want to keep EVs and PHEVs around as a hedge in case gasoline prices go up, even if sales are not particularly high.

Note that an article in Barron's claims that oil prices are likely to rise this year. Whether or not this will come true will not be known until later this year.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/oil-prices-headed-higher-in-2017-1486186051

You kind of make my point for me. The auto industry has been "caught" many times by spikes in gasoline prices, and they always went back to making more land yachts as quickly as they could after the market absorbed the shock. The only force operating in the other direction is government policy to increase fleet efficiency. Take that away or relax that force significantly and the automakers will be delighted to go back to building large, profitable vehicles and not hedging their bets.

 

[roundpeg]

So a company has more flexibility to reduce lease price than it does to reduce selling price.

Actually, no. I've looked at the leasing math from all directions. Leasers are not getting any special deals, though I agree leasers are helping the automakers' bottom lines by signing over their federal tax credit and only getting part of it back.

 

[boltage]

You kind of make my point for me. The auto industry has been "caught" many times by spikes in gasoline prices, and they always went back to making more land yachts as quickly as they could after the market absorbed the shock. The only force operating in the other direction is government policy to increase fleet efficiency. Take that away or relax that force significantly and the automakers will be delighted to go back to building large, profitable vehicles and not hedging their bets.

Gasoline prices are a much stronger force since they cause buyer preferences to change. Smaller more fuel efficient vehicles were more popular while gasoline was $4 per gallon. When gasoline fell to $2.whatever per gallon after 2014, larger vehicles increased in popularity.

Of course, the fact that buyers think in very short time frames when considering gasoline prices in their vehicle choices is another matter. It appears that most buyers fail to consider potential fluctuations in gasoline prices over the time that they keep their vehicles.

 

[michael]

So a company has more flexibility to reduce lease price than it does to reduce selling price.

Actually, no. I've looked at the leasing math from all directions. Leasers are not getting any special deals, though I agree leasers are helping the automakers' bottom lines by signing over their federal tax credit and only getting part of it back.

Actually, yes. The residuals are inappropriately high. This artificially reduces the lease payment.

Example: my Focus Electric had $17K residual. Actual FMV was less than half that. Ford, unlike GM, did not keep any part of the $7500 as a buffer against this, they applied the full amount as cap reduction. Ford ate maybe $8K - $10K on the lease which I would have eaten had I bought.

 

[roundpeg]

Gasoline prices are a much stronger force since they cause buyer preferences to change. Smaller more fuel efficient vehicles were more popular while gasoline was $4 per gallon. When gasoline fell to $2.whatever per gallon after 2014, larger vehicles increased in popularity.

Of course, the fact that buyers think in very short time frames when considering gasoline prices in their vehicle choices is another matter. It appears that most buyers fail to consider potential fluctuations in gasoline prices over the time that they keep their vehicles.

Sure, and what I am saying besides is the U.S. auto industry is perpetually out of sync with the cost of fuel and unprepared to address shifts in consumer preference. This has happened at least three times that I can remember. If it wasn't for the CAFE standards the industry would be even less prepared.

 

[roundpeg]

Actually, yes. The residuals are inappropriately high. This artificially reduces the lease payment.

Example: my Focus Electric had $17K residual. Actual FMV was less than half that. Ford, unlike GM, did not keep any part of the $7500 as a buffer against this, they applied the full amount as cap reduction. Ford ate maybe $8K - $10K on the lease which I would have eaten had I bought.

Actually, no, because those residuals are a function of the federal tax credits and any other incentives they may be offering at that time. You sign your tax credit of $7500 over to the leasing company, in full. They then use however much of it they feel they need to inflate the residual and make you say yes to a monthly payment, and keep the rest as profit. They may also very well be offering cash incentives for buyers that the leasers don't know about, because they don't ask.

An artificially high residual is no bargain, either, unless you are almost certain that you won't want the car in three years, or really like the process of bargaining with car dealers.

 

[michael]

Actually, yes. The residuals are inappropriately high. This artificially reduces the lease payment.

Example: my Focus Electric had $17K residual. Actual FMV was less than half that. Ford, unlike GM, did not keep any part of the $7500 as a buffer against this, they applied the full amount as cap reduction. Ford ate maybe $8K - $10K on the lease which I would have eaten had I bought.

Actually, no, because those residuals are a function of the federal tax credits and any other incentives they may be offering at that time. You sign your tax credit of $7500 over to the leasing company, in full. They then use however much of it they feel they need to inflate the residual and make you say yes to a monthly payment, and keep the rest as profit. They may also very well be offering cash incentives for buyers that the leasers don't know about, because they don't ask.

An artificially high residual is no bargain, either, unless you are almost certain that you won't want the car in three years, or really like the process of bargaining with car dealers.

An artificially high residual is a terrific bargain because it makes no sense to buy a three year old EV out of a lease unless the leasing company in effect throws up its hands and says "take this piece of junk from me for a very low price". For exactly the reasons I stated above, the lease payments are small compared to the huge hit one takes being stuck with a three year old EV.

Yes, it's true that some companies (GM, US Bank, etc) apply the $7500 toward an inflated residual, but it flies in the face of history to suggest that they "keep the rest as profit" in the long run. They get killed at the end of the lease when they own cars that have very low FMV.

Let me ask others on this board who have previously leased an EV: when it came time to return the car, would it even occur to you to keep the car for the residual? EV prices keep dropping and capability keeps increasing. It's not the same as with a conventional car.

I couldn't wait to get rid of my Focus so I would have the opportunity to replace it with something newer. Ditto for my Gen 1 Volts.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Let me ask others on this board who have previously leased an EV: when it came time to return the car, would it even occur to you to keep the car for the residual?

Yes, it did. Fortunately, I didn't have to worry about it because Nissan handed me $5k off my residual before my lease even ended. But I think that pretty much proves your point.

Needless to say, I jumped on the offer. Now I own an EV, and can upgrade whenever the right EV comes along at the right price. Fortunately for me, my 2012 Leaf will still suit my needs just fine for many years, even with continued battery degradation (currently down to about 80% from new).

 

[LeftieBiker]

Let me ask others on this board who have previously leased an EV: when it came time to return the car, would it even occur to you to keep the car for the residual? EV prices keep dropping and capability keeps increasing. It's not the same as with a conventional car.

My lease payment was ridiculously low ($149 on the original lease) so my residual was insanely high ($20k+). One of the discount offers would have allowed me to buy my Leaf for $9k (plus tax) but the lack of QC and the decreasing range made me decide not to buy. I may yet lease a virtually identical 2016 SV, with QC and 107 mile range, for literally half the cost of a Bolt lease, with a low residual.

 

[roundpeg]

Nobody gets it. Oh well.

 

[DucRider]

You sign your tax credit of $7500 over to the leasing company, in full.

You don't sign anything over to them, the credits are not transferable. They are the purchaser and are entitled to the credit - you are not.

You then "rent" the car from them. They set the "rental" terms. If you don't like them, move along.

The residuals on a Bolt are going to be different than anything in the past because at the end of a 3 year lease, there will not be a tax credit available on the purchase/lease of a new Bolt. I don't have a crystal ball that tells me exactly how that will affect the value of used Bolts, but GM financial may be hedging their bet by offering only part of the $7,500 as a CCR. If the values remain higher than history suggests, they win. If they follow the pattern we have seen, they lose (residuals are historically 40% or less).

GM Financial's "guestimate" for a 3 year old, 36K mile LT is ~$22,500
Historical data would suggest <$15K

And once again, anyone using a lease to finance the purchase of a car is trying to use a hammer to drive a screw - the wrong tool for the job.

And as to the original post subject - all indications are that GM is indeed committed to the Bolt, both in it's current form and as a platform for future vehicles. There are indications that GM has room to drop the Bolt price when/if the tax credit goes away (at current exchange rates, the Canadian version is ~$5K cheaper, in Norway ~$3K cheaper).

 

[LeftieBiker]

And once again, anyone using a lease to finance the purchase of a car is trying to use a hammer to drive a screw - the wrong tool for the job.

This appears to be true for the Bolt, but not so for the Leaf and some other EVs. You seem to want to ignore the many people who don't qualify for the $7500 purchase credit; I think I'd get roughly $900 instead if I bought a new EV. For me, leasing a Leaf with a low residual, then buying it, would make great sense. Don't look at the exception here and call it the norm.

 

[DucRider]

And once again, anyone using a lease to finance the purchase of a car is trying to use a hammer to drive a screw - the wrong tool for the job.

This appears to be true for the Bolt, but not so for the Leaf and some other EVs. You seem to want to ignore the many people who don't qualify for the $7500 purchase credit; I think I'd get roughly $900 instead if I bought a new EV. For me, leasing a Leaf with a low residual, then buying it, would make great sense. Don't look at the exception here and call it the norm.

I think it's the other way around - you're situation IS the exception and not the norm. The majority of those looking to purchase the Bolt likely qualify for the entire tax credit. The vast majority of those leasing plan to turn in the car at the end of the lease (or at least evaluate a purchase decision at that point in time). And leasing is still not designed as a way to finance the purchase of a car. It may or may not work out better in some situations, but that is not the intent - nor are they designed to be advantageous for those looking to purchase. The entire focus of a lease is to have the lowest possible monthly payment - this will often come at the expense of a high payoff at lease end and a bad deal for purchasing the car. The LEAF deals were/are an exception, and only possible because Nissan is knocking thousands off the effective price - either up front or on the back end by offering $$$ off the original agreed upon residual. It's possible (or even likely) that the same will wind up being true on the Bolt. I don't think anyone believes that a used Bolt will retain 60% of MSRP after 3 years and 36K miles.

Insisting that GM Financial should structure their lease program specifically to allow low income (or at least low tax liability - some wealthy people have little tax liability) customers a way to finance the car and get the $7500 tax credit is rather presumptuous. That situation would be a tiny percentage of the leases they write - the exception, not the norm.

GM Financial is NOT the only game in town. Many banks and credit unions offer auto leases.
Found that the CULA (Credit Union Leasing of America) is one source for your local credit union to utilize.http://www.cula.com/index.html
If you are looking to use the lease solely to get the tax credit, this would be useful:

2) Benefits to your Lessee
E) No Early Termination Penalties
Many auto lease programs impose penalties, even thousands of dollars if the lease is paid off early. Because the Lender Lease is simple interest, there is no “front loaded” interest to pay if the member terminates early. Instead of penalties like front loaded interest, the member is responsible for a market competitive purchase option fee (as disclosed in the lease agreement).

G) Can Convert To A Conventional Loan At Any Time
Lessees have the freedom to convert the auto lease to a loan (subject to lender approval) or to purchase the car outright, at anytime during the lease with no penalties.

http://www.cula.com/consumer_auto_car_lease.html
Enter into a lease and finance the balance after the tax credit is applied as a CCR. Payments would likely be in the $500-$600 range on a 60 month loan. These numbers are without taxes and fees. If you cannot afford payments in that range, you cannot afford a Bolt (or any other $30K+ car). It's fairly basic math.

They have a residual calculator, but NO EV's are listed (that I could find), only PHEV's. The 2017 Volt residual at 3 yr/36K miles is 32% as are the Ford Energi offerings. The Prius Prime shows a 45% residual as does the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid. Not sure if they will underwrite EV leases at all (may be too risky), but there are other sources out there.

Expecting GM Financial to change their policies to accommodate a small percentage of potential customers will in all likelihood result in nothing but frustration. Get over it and move on.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Insisting that GM Financial should structure their lease program specifically to allow low income (or at least low tax liability - some wealthy people have little tax liability) customers a way to finance the car and get the $7500 tax credit is rather presumptuous. That situation would be a tiny percentage of the leases they write - the exception, not the norm.

Your "get over it and move on" attitude isn't helpful, and I don't think you understand the EV market niche. Many of us are retirees with small tax liabilities, not a "tiny percentage." People who have retired from public service and non-tenured jobs in education tend to be more progressive than the general population, and more interested in EVs, while at the same time not affluent. What you write about leasing is true for leasing in general, but at some point you're going to realize that EV leasing is, if not another ball game entirely, at least a different league.

 

[DucRider]

Insisting that GM Financial should structure their lease program specifically to allow low income (or at least low tax liability - some wealthy people have little tax liability) customers a way to finance the car and get the $7500 tax credit is rather presumptuous. That situation would be a tiny percentage of the leases they write - the exception, not the norm.

Your "get over it and move on" attitude isn't helpful, and I don't think you understand the EV market niche. Many of us are retirees with small tax liabilities, not a "tiny percentage." People who have retired from public service and non-tenured jobs in education tend to be more progressive than the general population, and more interested in EVs, while at the same time not affluent. What you write about leasing is true for leasing in general, but at some point you're going to realize that EV leasing is, if not another ball game entirely, at least a different league.

The issue you have is not with how leases are structured, but how the Federal incentive is structured. It was set up as a Tax Credit, and specifically excluded from rollover. Other incentives such as solar can be rolled over. That is not the fault of any leasing company. If you do not qualify for the incentive offered by Congress, write/lobby them to change the way it is structured.
And EV leasing is NOT in a different league. Financial institutions structure their leasing programs to appeal to the widest audience. Asking a major manufacturers leasing branch (those that own their own and don't rely on 3rd parties) to structure a leasing program specifically geared to retired public servants/teachers? I think you would be better served by a credit union geared more towards your specific needs. You can probably find one that will write you a lease with a low residual and offer the full $7500 as a CCR. Monthly payments will likely be in the $550 range on a base LT (with zero down and excluding taxes and fees). Total cost in that scenario will likely be ~$32K.

The vast majority of EV leases are returned at the end of the lease period. Expecting leasing to be structured as a means to purchase a vehicle, EV or not, is unrealistic. With a tax liability of only $900, your AGI works out to be $9K. Qualifying for financing (purchase or lease) on a $30K+ vehicle becomes questionable - annual payments will be in the $5K+ range. Granted, I don't know your entire financial situation and you may have a fair amount of tax free income (Roth IRA distributions i.e.).

Nissan is setting the residual of a LEAF S at 27% and discounting it to the point the the net cap cost (including tax credit) is $16,739. You are comparing a Bolt to a vehicle that is effectively 1/2 the price. With that heavy discount, you do get lower payments and a lower residual, and it indeed may be the better choice for your situation. If you need low payments and a low residual, you likely need to be looking at a vehicle that costs less than the Bolt. You might even look at some of the off-lease LEAF's. They are readily available (with QC) for <$8K.

GM will likely restructure the factory lease program in the future, and it may fit your particular situation better. Or maybe not. Until GM has excess inventory they need to move off of dealer lot's, you won't see the kind of lease deals you can get from Nissan. Yes, the LEAF payments and residuals are half the cost - they have to be in order for Nissan to move inventory - and the deals are likely to get even better once the next gen is announced.

 

[LeftieBiker]

I'm not requesting that GM offer the same lease deal as Nissan has on the leftover 2016 Leafs. I'm requesting that they offer several different lease agreements, one of them geared towards people who need to lease first to be able to buy later. You can keep saying that EV leasing isn't different, but between the rapidly changing technology (especially regarding range) and the Federal incentive (which I would be working to have changed if it weren't so likely to just be eliminated soon) EV leasing is indeed different from typical ICE leasing. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[EZRyder]

I got my lease 4 days ago because I was a little worried about the $7500 credit being yanked by Emperor Donald. I doubt California will be suspending any sort of CAFE standards; we SET the standard here in CA.

EV's are here to stay, for sure. GM and all the other car makers get this. They say the tipping point would be 200 mile range. Having had the car 4 days, I can say that's definitely a massive improvement, but I also had two instances of range anxiety on my first trip. Granted, I was driving from Dublin to Angels Camp and trying to make it back to Tracy and was afraid I wouldn't make it. There are ZERO DCFC east of Tracy. But, turns out I would have made it, after all. But I do think that when EV's get closer to 300 or even 400 - which is much closer to a full tank of gas, miles-wise - then the world will switch so fast it will make your head spin. I don't know that 238 mile range is going to do it. But maybe!

FWIW: On my long highway trips over the last few days, I got consistently what a professional reviewer got: 190 miles. That's the balls-to-the-wall, music, temperature control, navigation, and all that, and going 65-80mph. No traffic. My work commute is 75 miles and the car seems to be using exactly that amount - except tonight with brutal traffic I got much better. But, Im thrilled with 190 real world highway miles out of it.

 

[Nagorak]

I don't think the problem is really the range. Sure 300 or 400 miles would be better, but the real issue isn't the range but the charging infrastructure. I'm sure if there were significant areas where there wasn't a gas station within 50 miles, let alone 100 or more, plenty of ICE drivers would have range anxiety. If we get more chargers I think that would help fix most range anxiety issues with the Bolt.

 

[EZRyder]

Yeah, true. Charging infra is a big issue. Especially for apartment dwellers. Thats a lot of people.