Bolt lease numbers for January 2017

[JupiterMoon]

Run the numbers....reduce your cap cost by $7500 and see what residual you'd need to be at to equate to 57% at zero cap cost.

I'm unclear on what you are suggesting. My previous post was comparing two scenarios:

1) Current deal, $2,500 Capital Cost Reduction from GM, residual is (say) 60% of MSRP
2) Hypothetical deal, $7,500 Capital Cost Reduction from GM, residual is (say) 60% of MSPR minus $5,000.

I'd prefer deal (2), as I expect to want to buy out the lease. But if you know you want to turn in the car, and you live in California, and your money factor is only 0.0005, then deal (1) is $250 cheaper.

Cheers, Wayne

Wayne,

What I am saying is that even with the tax hit on the cap cost reduction amount, applying the tax credit to the cap cost will result in a lower monthly payment and less rent charge and less tax (even with a lower residual) than were you to not apply that tax credit to the cap cost but increase the residual.

I'm strictly speaking about returning the vehicle.

Run the numbers in the two scenarios and see what you get:

A) 57% residual with no tax credit
B) 47% residual with $7500 tax credit + tax on that credit.

You will pay more per month with (A) than (B).

They are trying to make it look like it's a sweet deal to inflate the residual and con us out of the full tax credit. Not only are they pocketing the tax credit but they are also making even more on increased base payment and rent charge. It's a win win for them not to give us the entire tax credit towards the CC.

 

[LeftieBiker]

In New York, we pay tax on the total lease payments only, not the full MSRP. Then we pay tax on the residua, if that's what we pay for it, only if we buy the car. So GM really is making it extremely unappealing to buy the car after leasing it. They inflate the residual resulting in more tax at the end of the lease (if the car is purchased by the lessee) because of the inflated residual. In the other Bolt forum, before I stopped posting, I was told that GM is "saving" us $330 (total) in taxes on a typical lease. That's just small potatoes compared to the high lease payments and astronomical residual. I'd rather have the $7500 applied to the down payment, as Nissan does.

 

[devbolt]

Run the numbers....reduce your cap cost by $7500 and see what residual you'd need to be at to equate to 57% at zero cap cost.

I'm unclear on what you are suggesting. My previous post was comparing two scenarios:

1) Current deal, $2,500 Capital Cost Reduction from GM, residual is (say) 60% of MSRP
2) Hypothetical deal, $7,500 Capital Cost Reduction from GM, residual is (say) 60% of MSPR minus $5,000.

I'd prefer deal (2), as I expect to want to buy out the lease. But if you know you want to turn in the car, and you live in California, and your money factor is only 0.0005, then deal (1) is $250 cheaper.

Cheers, Wayne

Wayne,

What I am saying is that even with the tax hit on the cap cost reduction amount, applying the tax credit to the cap cost will result in a lower monthly payment and less rent charge and less tax (even with a lower residual) than were you to not apply that tax credit to the cap cost but increase the residual.

I'm strictly speaking about returning the vehicle.

Run the numbers in the two scenarios and see what you get:

A) 57% residual with no tax credit
B) 47% residual with $7500 tax credit + tax on that credit.

You will pay more per month with (A) than (B).

They are trying to make it look like it's a sweet deal to inflate the residual and con us out of the full tax credit. Not only are they pocketing the tax credit but they are also making even more on increased base payment and rent charge. It's a win win for them not to give us the entire tax credit towards the CC.

First of all, GM is giving you $2500 of the tax credit towards CCR for their leases, so scenario A as you have described it is not exactly accurate as to what reality actually is.

I ran both scenarios, and scenario A for a $43,905 Bolt, $2500 of CCR, no down payment, MF of 0.0005, residual of 57%, comes out to $550 including taxes. Scenario B with all of the $7500 tax credit applied to CCR, residual of 47% and the rest the same comes out to $527 a month. So yes, A is ever so slightly more expensive. Drop the residual to 46%, and you only save $10 a month. Drop the residual to 45% and it's actually $3 more per month than scenario A.

Personally I have better things to do with my time than stress over a $23 difference for a monthly lease. I spend more than that on a weekly basis is for my morning coffee from the local coffee shop.

 

[JupiterMoon]

I'm unclear on what you are suggesting. My previous post was comparing two scenarios:

1) Current deal, $2,500 Capital Cost Reduction from GM, residual is (say) 60% of MSRP
2) Hypothetical deal, $7,500 Capital Cost Reduction from GM, residual is (say) 60% of MSPR minus $5,000.

I'd prefer deal (2), as I expect to want to buy out the lease. But if you know you want to turn in the car, and you live in California, and your money factor is only 0.0005, then deal (1) is $250 cheaper.

Cheers, Wayne

Wayne,

What I am saying is that even with the tax hit on the cap cost reduction amount, applying the tax credit to the cap cost will result in a lower monthly payment and less rent charge and less tax (even with a lower residual) than were you to not apply that tax credit to the cap cost but increase the residual.

I'm strictly speaking about returning the vehicle.

Run the numbers in the two scenarios and see what you get:

A) 57% residual with no tax credit
B) 47% residual with $7500 tax credit + tax on that credit.

You will pay more per month with (A) than (B).

They are trying to make it look like it's a sweet deal to inflate the residual and con us out of the full tax credit. Not only are they pocketing the tax credit but they are also making even more on increased base payment and rent charge. It's a win win for them not to give us the entire tax credit towards the CC.

First of all, GM is giving you $2500 of the tax credit towards CCR for their leases, so scenario A as you have described it is not exactly accurate as to what reality actually is.

I ran both scenarios, and scenario A for a $43,905 Bolt, $2500 of CCR, no down payment, MF of 0.0005, residual of 57%, comes out to $550 including taxes. Scenario B with all of the $7500 tax credit applied to CCR, residual of 47% and the rest the same comes out to $527 a month. So yes, A is ever so slightly more expensive. Drop the residual to 46%, and you only save $10 a month. Drop the residual to 45% and it's actually $3 more per month than scenario A.

Personally I have better things to do with my time than stress over a $23 difference for a monthly lease. I spend more than that on a weekly basis is for my morning coffee from the local coffee shop.

I agree..$23 isn't much but if they give you the entire credit it makes a big impact.

 

[devbolt]

Wayne,

What I am saying is that even with the tax hit on the cap cost reduction amount, applying the tax credit to the cap cost will result in a lower monthly payment and less rent charge and less tax (even with a lower residual) than were you to not apply that tax credit to the cap cost but increase the residual.

I'm strictly speaking about returning the vehicle.

Run the numbers in the two scenarios and see what you get:

A) 57% residual with no tax credit
B) 47% residual with $7500 tax credit + tax on that credit.

You will pay more per month with (A) than (B).

They are trying to make it look like it's a sweet deal to inflate the residual and con us out of the full tax credit. Not only are they pocketing the tax credit but they are also making even more on increased base payment and rent charge. It's a win win for them not to give us the entire tax credit towards the CC.

First of all, GM is giving you $2500 of the tax credit towards CCR for their leases, so scenario A as you have described it is not exactly accurate as to what reality actually is.

I ran both scenarios, and scenario A for a $43,905 Bolt, $2500 of CCR, no down payment, MF of 0.0005, residual of 57%, comes out to $550 including taxes. Scenario B with all of the $7500 tax credit applied to CCR, residual of 47% and the rest the same comes out to $527 a month. So yes, A is ever so slightly more expensive. Drop the residual to 46%, and you only save $10 a month. Drop the residual to 45% and it's actually $3 more per month than scenario A.

Personally I have better things to do with my time than stress over a $23 difference for a monthly lease. I spend more than that on a weekly basis is for my morning coffee from the local coffee shop.

I agree..$23 isn't much but if they give you the entire credit it makes a big impact.

Not sure I'd call it a big impact if all you are saving is $23 a month between those two scenarios.

One interesting thing I did notice is that in scenario A, your drive off amount in CA is $1203, of which $232 is the tax on the $2500 CCR that GM is giving you. In scenario B, the drive-off amount increases to $1682, of which $682 is the tax on the CCR. After you factor that in, the price delta is only $10 a month between the two scenarios, though A is still the more expensive one.

It's really a crapshoot as to what the car will actually be worth in 3 years when it comes off of lease. If you think the actual value will be crap like a Leaf or Fiat, then GM is doing you a favor. If you think it will actually hold it's value, then yes, you proabably got screwed by GM. Nobody knows what is actually going to happen with the values, not even GM.

 

[JupiterMoon]

First of all, GM is giving you $2500 of the tax credit towards CCR for their leases, so scenario A as you have described it is not exactly accurate as to what reality actually is.

I ran both scenarios, and scenario A for a $43,905 Bolt, $2500 of CCR, no down payment, MF of 0.0005, residual of 57%, comes out to $550 including taxes. Scenario B with all of the $7500 tax credit applied to CCR, residual of 47% and the rest the same comes out to $527 a month. So yes, A is ever so slightly more expensive. Drop the residual to 46%, and you only save $10 a month. Drop the residual to 45% and it's actually $3 more per month than scenario A.

Personally I have better things to do with my time than stress over a $23 difference for a monthly lease. I spend more than that on a weekly basis is for my morning coffee from the local coffee shop.

I agree..$23 isn't much but if they give you the entire credit it makes a big impact.

Not sure I'd call it a big impact if all you are saving is $23 a month between those two scenarios.

One interesting thing I did notice is that in scenario A, your drive off amount in CA is $1203, of which $232 is the tax on the $2500 CCR that GM is giving you. In scenario B, the drive-off amount increases to $1682, of which $682 is the tax on the CCR. After you factor that in, the price delta is only $10 a month between the two scenarios, though A is still the more expensive one.

It's really a crapshoot as to what the car will actually be worth in 3 years when it comes off of lease. If you think the actual value will be crap like a Leaf or Fiat, then GM is doing you a favor. If you think it will actually hold it's value, then yes, you proabably got screwed by GM. Nobody knows what is actually going to happen with the values, not even GM.

No I meant the difference would be considerably bigger if the entire $7500 was applied.

Anyway the point is that we are all interested parties here and so if we can work together to solidify the proper way to compute the leases, we can all help each other get a good deal when we go to the dealers and not try and get screwed by them. If I can do my part, then I'm glad I can help someone in the process. I have an excel spreadsheet that I can send to anyone who wants to use it as a guide to getting a good deal.

 

[devbolt]

I agree..$23 isn't much but if they give you the entire credit it makes a big impact.

Not sure I'd call it a big impact if all you are saving is $23 a month between those two scenarios.

One interesting thing I did notice is that in scenario A, your drive off amount in CA is $1203, of which $232 is the tax on the $2500 CCR that GM is giving you. In scenario B, the drive-off amount increases to $1682, of which $682 is the tax on the CCR. After you factor that in, the price delta is only $10 a month between the two scenarios, though A is still the more expensive one.

It's really a crapshoot as to what the car will actually be worth in 3 years when it comes off of lease. If you think the actual value will be crap like a Leaf or Fiat, then GM is doing you a favor. If you think it will actually hold it's value, then yes, you proabably got screwed by GM. Nobody knows what is actually going to happen with the values, not even GM.

No I meant the difference would be considerably bigger if the entire $7500 was applied.

Anyway the point is that we are all interested parties here and so if we can work together to solidify the proper way to compute the leases, we can all help each other get a good deal when we go to the dealers and not try and get screwed by them. If I can do my part, then I'm glad I can help someone in the process. I have an excel spreadsheet that I can send to anyone who wants to use it as a guide to getting a good deal.

The entire $7500 is being applied in scenario B, there's just a lower residual than the one in scenario A which only has $2500 of the credit being applied.

I totally agree that we should all work together to make sure that the dealers and the finance companies don't completely screw us over. I've already determined that leasing won't save me any money if I intend to keep the car at lease end because I'll put too many miles on the car during the lease period. Even if I buy extra miles at a discounted rate of only 20 cents a mile, it'll add $5400 to the cost of the lease. And at that point I'm north of $700 a month, in which case, I might as well buy the car outright. Well, finance the purchase, anyways.

 

[wwhitney]

1) Current deal, $2,500 Capital Cost Reduction from GM, residual is (say) 60% of MSRP
2) Hypothetical deal, $7,500 Capital Cost Reduction from GM, residual is (say) 60% of MSPR minus $5,000.

I ran these numbers through the leasehackr calculator for a hypothetical $40,000 Bolt with 9% sales tax, 0.0005 money factor and the usual fees. The residual in case (2) is 47.5% instead of 60%.

Scenario (1): total lease cost is $17,289.
Scenario (2): total lease cost is $17,543.

The difference is $254 more for scenario (2), as I calculated earlier.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tedkidd]

1) Current deal, $2,500 Capital Cost Reduction from GM, residual is (say) 60% of MSRP
2) Hypothetical deal, $7,500 Capital Cost Reduction from GM, residual is (say) 60% of MSPR minus $5,000.

I ran these numbers through the leasehackr calculator for a hypothetical $40,000 Bolt with 9% sales tax, 0.0005 money factor and the usual fees. The residual in case (2) is 47.5% instead of 60%.

Scenario (1): total lease cost is $17,289.
Scenario (2): total lease cost is $17,543.

The difference is $254 more for scenario (2), as I calculated earlier.

Cheers, Wayne

AND if you find yourself wanting to buy the car at the end, they've created a scenario where they literally rip you off. You pay +/- $5000 more for the car, and they pocket that part of the tax credit they used as self-protecting holdback.

Let's say the ACTUAL residual is 53% of residual. Granted the $254 is small, but the back side is one way you pay a significant premium over market value to keep your car, and the other way you get your car at a discount.

If you are absolutely certain you will not be keeping the car, this argument appears to be a silly exercise. But one of the appealing things about leases TO ME is the options they afford, as I have no idea what my situation will be in 3 years and if I love the car I may want to keep it. Given this, scenario 2 almost certainly removes an option I don't want removed.

They should simply be use honest numbers. Dishonesty doesn't benefit their image, which already isn't one of high integrity and trustworthiness.

 

[wwhitney]

AND if you find yourself wanting to buy the car at the end, they've created a scenario where they literally rip you off. You pay +/- $5000 more for the car, and they pocket that part of the tax credit they used as self-protecting holdback.

Absolutely agree, and that's why I won't be leasing, as I expect to want to buy the car.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Schnort]

Or you negotiate at the end of the lease with comparable market value.

 

[JupiterMoon]

They should simply be use honest numbers. Dishonesty doesn't benefit their image, which already isn't one of high integrity and trustworthiness.

That's exactly my point but there are shills on this and other Bolt forums in particular who think they know better and are supporting the corporations instead of the customer. It's ridiculous. They are all lease experts but apparently enjoy getting screwed...oh wait..in 3...2...1....

"If you don't like it don't buy it".... :roll:

 

[bro19991]

I see you're just as big a whiner on here too.

 

[JupiterMoon]

I see you're just as big a whiner on here too.

I see you're just as big a corporate shill and troll on here as well. Unlike you, I'm actually trying to help. Don't like the truth? Don't read it.

 

[devbolt]

I see you're just as big a whiner on here too.

I see you're just as big a corporate shill and troll on here as well. Unlike you, I'm actually trying to help. Don't like the truth? Don't read it.

Boys, play nice. You're both pretty...

 

[JupiterMoon]

I see you're just as big a whiner on here too.

I see you're just as big a corporate shill and troll on here as well. Unlike you, I'm actually trying to help. Don't like the truth? Don't read it.

Boys, play nice. You're both pretty...

I am being nice...this guy has a silly chip on his shoulder for some reason. Pointing out the obvious shouldn't upset anyone but for some reason it upsets him lol. Maybe because he's overpaying for his Bolt? Just a guess.

 

[devbolt]

I see you're just as big a corporate shill and troll on here as well. Unlike you, I'm actually trying to help. Don't like the truth? Don't read it.

Boys, play nice. You're both pretty...

I am being nice...this guy has a silly chip on his shoulder for some reason. Pointing out the obvious shouldn't upset anyone but for some reason it upsets him lol. Maybe because he's overpaying for his Bolt? Just a guess.

Here's what I think: the Bolt represents a paradigm shift in the automotive world, more so than what Tesla has done. It's an attempt to mainstream EVs and to be seen as less of a rich person's toy and more that of a car that anyone can own. Is the car too expensive? Compared to a comparable ICE car, sure, it's expensive, and so are the payments. But compared to other 200+ mile range EVs that are currently available, it's a bargain. Expecting the Bolt to compete on price with sub-$25K sub-compacts is unrealistic given the nascent status of the EV industry. Eventually we'll get there, but it will probably take 5 to 10 years to do so. Which means that the cheap lease rates that people think it should have are also 5 to 10 years away.

I think there is much controversy over the way that GM has structured the lease. This seems to be partially fueled by the fact that up until now, people have been used to getting ridiculously cheap lease rates on EVs. Lease rates that are unrealistic to make the car company any sort of money, and instead just seem designed to move units to get ZEV and CAFE credits. If the Bolt is to be seen as a mainstream car, it needs to be priced at a more realistic level, and not have GM play games with incentives.

If you don't intend to buy the car at lease-end, then it doesn't matter how GM has structured the lease with the artificially high residuals. The effect is the same, you still get a similar payment with either method of structuring the lease ($2500 CCR and high residual, versus the full $7500 tax credit applied and a lower residual). The tax credit savings are still being passed on to you, just not in a way you are used to. In 3 years you can then explore the next generation of long-range EVs.

However, if you are one of those people who can't claim the full tax credit, but still want to eventually own the car and somehow get the full value of the tax credit, you may have to do one of two things: lease the car and in three years make a low-ball offer on the car when it is time to return it and hope market conditions have changed so that GM will accept your low-ball offer. Or pass on buying the car now, wait 3 years and see what used CPO Bolts are going for, which will hopefully be for a low price, lower than what the residual was projected to be. You could also wait 6-months to a year to lease the Bolt and hope that GM can't move units and have started severely discounting the price of them. This assumes that the EV tax credit hasn't been repealed by then, though.

Me? I'm buying the car as soon it hits my dealership's lot.

 

[bro19991]

I see you're just as big a corporate shill and troll on here as well. Unlike you, I'm actually trying to help. Don't like the truth? Don't read it.

Boys, play nice. You're both pretty...

I am being nice...this guy has a silly chip on his shoulder for some reason. Pointing out the obvious shouldn't upset anyone but for some reason it upsets him lol. Maybe because he's overpaying for his Bolt? Just a guess.

Keep being bitter about the fact I can actually afford a Bolt and claim the full tax credit and keep crying some more about how GM is stealing "your" tax credit that you couldn't even claim fully if you purchase. Guess it's GM's fault you don't make enough money to claim the full credit too.

I'm playing the smallest violin in the world right now.

 

[JupiterMoon]

Boys, play nice. You're both pretty...

I am being nice...this guy has a silly chip on his shoulder for some reason. Pointing out the obvious shouldn't upset anyone but for some reason it upsets him lol. Maybe because he's overpaying for his Bolt? Just a guess.

Keep being bitter about the fact I can actually afford a Bolt and claim the full tax credit and keep crying some more about how GM is stealing "your" tax credit that you couldn't even claim fully if you purchase. Guess it's GM's fault you don't make enough money to claim the full credit too.

I'm playing the smallest violin in the world right now.

I'm not bitter at all. Why would I be? I'm not the one getting screwed. And frankly, I couldn't care less what you think. I don't really value the opinions of a fanboy. If you want to support a corporation more than your fellow customer, be our guest but you won't be garnering any sympathy from anyone who has have a brain.

Oh and I can afford one....you wishing I couldn't is a good way to conflate your ego I suppose. I just choose not to get screwed.

Enjoy overpaying for your Bolt Maybe I'll pick one up in a few months at a price you wish you could have had. :mrgreen:

 

[tedkidd]

I am being nice...this guy has a silly chip on his shoulder for some reason. Pointing out the obvious shouldn't upset anyone but for some reason it upsets him lol. Maybe because he's overpaying for his Bolt? Just a guess.

Keep being bitter about the fact I can actually afford a Bolt and claim the full tax credit and keep crying some more about how GM is stealing "your" tax credit that you couldn't even claim fully if you purchase. Guess it's GM's fault you don't make enough money to claim the full credit too.

I'm playing the smallest violin in the world right now.

I'm not bitter at all. Why would I be? I'm not the one getting screwed. And frankly, I couldn't care less what you think. I don't really value the opinions of a fanboy. If you want to support a corporation more than your fellow customer, be our guest but you won't be garnering any sympathy from anyone who has have a brain.

Oh and I can afford one....you wishing I couldn't is a good way to conflate your ego I suppose. I just choose not to get screwed.

Enjoy overpaying for your Bolt Maybe I'll pick one up in a few months at a price you wish you could have had. :mrgreen:

Yeah, me too. I can easily pay cash. Mute point as I have a model 3 reservation at 46,000 (drove to Cleveland), and another at 128,000 (post reveal), so probably not getting a Bolt. It's the cost of ownership I'm trying to fully get my head around and Jupiter and Whitney have been helpful.

I have a Smart for $150 a month, and was able to land (for a friend) a $49,000 Mercedes B for $210 a month (stale inventory deal JUST after getting my Smart meters and before I realized I'd be dumping my TDI), so these discussions of $4-500 seem like Chevy is giving people an a$$ing.