roundpeg wrote:LeftieBiker wrote: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.