GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Looks like the lease numbers for the Volt haven't changed from last month.
Still $4,610 lease cash for LTs (and $4,235 for Premiers)....plus another $2,250 on top for the CARB states.

Money Factor = .0004 for LTs (.0006 for Premiers)

Residuals (10k miles/year, 36 months): 51% LT / 50% Premier
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I’m a little confused about how the federal tax credit works. Is the Lease Cash and additional $2250 CARB incentive inclusive of that $7500? If so why is the amount not for the full $7500? I was under the impression one of the advantages of leasing the Volt was being able to realize all of the federal tax credit where purchasers may not have enough of a tax liability to take advantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I’m a little confused about how the federal tax credit works. Is the Lease Cash and additional $2250 CARB incentive inclusive of that $7500? If so why is the amount not for the full $7500? I was under the impression one of the advantages of leasing the Volt was being able to realize all of the federal tax credit where purchasers may not have enough of a tax liability to take advantage.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
GM is only giving up to 6860 in CARB states....they are pocketing the other 640.
Non CARBers really get screwed on leases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
Yep, it kinda sucks GM is pocketing the rest of the cash (past $4,610) of the federal tax credit on leases in non-CARB states but they could argue that you're only "paying for" 50%/51% of the car and so they're being generous by giving you more then half the tax credit. Now, it would be cool if they offered the rest as a further discount if you purchased the vehicle at the end of lease terms, but ha ha, giving away money... no one's going to do that.

In my case I only pay about $4,200 in taxes right now sooooo, the federal pass-on that GM does is about a wash for me vs. buying the car outright. Still, would have been AWESOME to reduce the capital cost by another almost $3,000. My lease payments would have been like a smidge above $250 then with only first month and a couple doc/lic fees due at signing!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
Not to be overly picky, but the financing company gets the tax credit. It buys the car from the car dealer (which bought it from GM) and hence is the first owner. Agree that you shouldn't get more than half the tax credit since during a three year lease cars lose about half their value (20% per year). Seems perfectly fair.

If you think it's unfair then buy the car and pocket the entire $7500. Do that and, depending on the length of the loan, you can end up cash positive for over a year.

FWIW Nissan did take the $7500 off MSRP for the first Leaf leases. I loved that, seemed more straightforward. However, in this case the residual would be greatly reduced and the lease payment wouldn't change that much. Essentially you can't expect a 50% residual AND the tax credit as lease cash. A 50% residual and half the lease cash isn't too shabby.

In my case I only pay about $4,200 in taxes right now sooooo, the federal pass-on that GM does is about a wash for me vs. buying the car outright.
Definitely not a wash. By leasing you're getting half the tax credit and paying for 50% of the depreciation. If you bought and only were able to use 50% of the tax credit, you would be paying for more than 50% of the depreciation and only getting credit for 50% of the credit. So you made a good choice from this standpoint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
Right, but I might have actually bought it if I could have taken the full $7,500 credit. It's a great car and I've really fallen in love with it!

But ya, it's not too bad of a deal getting that amount from GM, having a private offer, and being sales tax free. Sure as heck couldn't have got any other ~$34,000 car with all those perks :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Am I the minority in thinking that if you don't earn enough to be able to claim the full $7,500 credit, perhaps a brand new car shouldn't be an option to consider in the first place... Unless the reason you don't qualify is because you're retired and/or have enough savings stashed away to live comfortably with no debt needed for major purchases eg a brand new car.

I can't fathom why anyone who doesn't earn $50k a year would consider buying a $30k car
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I can't fathom why anyone who doesn't earn $50k a year would consider buying a $30k car
Because you can get a Volt lease at the same payment as a $20k car. At least in the CARB states. :sunglasses:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
FWIW Nissan did take the $7500 off MSRP for the first Leaf leases. I loved that, seemed more straightforward. However, in this case the residual would be greatly reduced and the lease payment wouldn't change that much. Essentially you can't expect a 50% residual AND the tax credit as lease cash. A 50% residual and half the lease cash isn't too shabby.
That argument would make sense if the residual was lower in CARB states, but it's not. So in reality, the 50% residual is factored in based on the CARB state credit of $6860/6485. So the non-CARB state leasees are getting screwed and GM is pocketing the extra money. It's not illegal but it goes against the intent of the law. The credit was not created for the car companies' captive financial arms to pocket it. It was created to pass along to the customer to move the product faster and grow the EV market. Congress and Obama even wanted to clarify this in 2011 and change the statute to reflect that but of course the House was retaken by the GOP that year and was dead on arrival like most bills Obama supported since then.

Also it's not just Nissan, other companies like BMW are also passing along the full credit on their leases.

I also disagree that GM should keep half because you are only using half of the car in a lease. If that was the case, they should be required to give the remaining amount to the 2nd owner when the car is sold after lease.

One more thing. GM did get tax benefits and grants on the manufacturing side from the Federal government for designing and manufacturing the Volt. This credit was meant for the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
Am I the minority in thinking that if you don't earn enough to be able to claim the full $7,500 credit, perhaps a brand new car shouldn't be an option to consider in the first place... Unless the reason you don't qualify is because you're retired and/or have enough savings stashed away to live comfortably with no debt needed for major purchases eg a brand new car.

I can't fathom why anyone who doesn't earn $50k a year would consider buying a $30k car
I'm actually just a couple grand away from $50k but like I said I still would only get about half the credit! (Yay for smartly managing my pre-tax benefits ;) ). I would have to be making like ~$72k or something to get almost exactly the full credit. Anyway, ya, because of the no sales tax in WA state and the rebates with a lease the car is really competitive. Oh, also the monthly fuel savings.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
That argument would make sense if the residual was lower in CARB states, but it's not. So in reality, the 50% residual is factored in based on the CARB state credit of $6860/6485. So the non-CARB state leasees are getting screwed and GM is pocketing the extra money. It's not illegal but it goes against the intent of the law.
...
One more thing. GM did get tax benefits and grants on the manufacturing side from the Federal government for designing and manufacturing the Volt. This credit was meant for the public.
You seem to be somewhat misinformed. As mentioned before, the lessor gets the tax credit. This means the manufacturer does not get the tax credit. The dealer does not get the tax credit. And the lessee does not get the tax credit. So no, GM is most definitely not "pocketing the extra money". You seem to be conflating the lessor with GM on the theory that it is a captive financial entity. That may be true but as a separate entity it has its own P&L, and other financial entities are free to lease Volts. In fact most Volt leases have been handled by third parties not affiliated with GM.

You also seem to be confusing the ZEV credits with the federal tax credit. These are completely different things with different dollar amounts calculated differently. If GM finds it financially better to cut the price of the Volt by $2250 in order to earn 2 ZEV credits, more power to it. That's hardly "screwing" customers in non-CARB states. It's simply passing along benefits GM gets in CARB states along to residents of the CARB states. That's hardly an action which can viewed as objectionable. In this regard, GM's choice of offering more lease cash in CARB states rather than your idea of offering different residuals seems a much better one. Having different residuals by state would be too confusing on too many levels.

But honestly the bottom line has to be this: If you think the leases are unfair then just buy the car. Problem solved. No point in complaining about how the leasing is calculated when you have a perfectly fine alternative.

No idea what you are talking about when you refer to manufacturing grants and so forth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Gm financial is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation. As an entity owned by GM, at the end of the day, the tax credit portion not given out to customers goes towards gm's bottom line which is reported on the company's quarterly filings. I agree with you when talking about 3rd party banks handling the leases. The credit goes to them. With gen 1 we saw a mix of lease cash and inflated residuals. My point here is that as a division of GM, a good portion of the tax credit is being kept by them, the company that Mary Barra runs.

I'm thinking bigger picture. I think sales are being held back from where they could be and that the national dealer network is not engaged in selling the car 6 years after launch. Making the car more affordable to lease by close to 100 a month would go a long way in helping imo.

Frankly, we don't know whether the 2250 is coming from the federal credit or ZEV credits. For all we know the few extra thousand that California dealers are taking off of msrp vs other states is being reimbursed by GM on the backend from the ZEV credits. The point I was trying to make though was that the residual price is already factoring in that credit since the used market won't be restricted by residency of the buyer. I agree with you and wouldn't have different residuals by state. I don't even see how that would work because of interstate commerce in the used market. you were saying that the current residual is based only on the main discount and I disagree. All of the discounts being offered by GM will have an effect on what the car is worth 3 years from now. Especially since most of the sales are happening in the carb states.

The government provided grants and tax benefits to car manufacturers to develop evs and battery tech. Just to be clear I support what the government did with those programs but the purpose of the 7500 credit is to move product and GM is holding back here and I don't think it's a defensible position by the company. Technically there has been no public explanation so we've all had to speculate on the reason why, but I respect that some here have a different opinion on the matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
The "fairest" way is you getting the residual mount of the tax credits...52% residual should mean you get 52% of the tax credit...I consider it a gift they usually give us around the full amount...But this car is not in demand, it's not "sellers market" it's a buyers market and GM most likely wants to gain as many ZEV credits as possible for 2016. Each Volt counts as 2 ZEV credits but the Bolt EV will get 7 (or possibly 8 depending on the EPA range) but that's only until 2018 when credits get capped...Expect GM to greatly promote the Bolt EV once it's available...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Expect GM to greatly promote the Bolt EV once it's available...

Let's hope. It's just sad how they don't promote the Volt at all. I received a direct marketing from GM to end my lease early and they would cover all of the remaining payments. It showed photos of all of the new Chevy's I could get. Of course the Volt was not pictured among them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
GM (Financial) is completely within their right in withholding a portion of the tax credit. Lessees are "buying" only about 50% of the car during a 3 year lease, so why should GMF need to give the whole 7500?
If you want the whole credit, buy the car. Don't make enough to claim the 7500? Well, too bad. Or find a leftover 2016. 7470 lease cash offered on those.

FWIW, GMF is giving $10,475 lease cash on a Spark EV....way more than 7500.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
Each Volt counts as 2 ZEV credits but the Bolt EV will get 7 (or possibly 8 depending on the EPA range) but that's only until 2018 when credits get capped...Expect GM to greatly promote the Bolt EV once it's available...
I'm fairly sure the Bolt EV will earn four ZEV credits. To get more it would have to be "fast refueling capable". Can't see that happening since it would have to be similar to gas or diesel. For electrics I think you'd have to have a battery swap.

But at $3500/ZEV credit, the difference between four credits and two credits is $7K. Also note that in CA a Bolt EV with a nominal cost to produce of $32K actually costs closer to $18K. Should be some good deals in CARB states.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
Gm financial is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation. As an entity owned by GM, at the end of the day, the tax credit portion not given out to customers goes towards gm's bottom line which is reported on the company's quarterly filings. I agree with you when talking about 3rd party banks handling the leases. The credit goes to them. With gen 1 we saw a mix of lease cash and inflated residuals. My point here is that as a division of GM, a good portion of the tax credit is being kept by them, the company that Mary Barra runs.
...
Frankly, we don't know whether the 2250 is coming from the federal credit or ZEV credits. For all we know the few extra thousand that California dealers are taking off of msrp vs other states is being reimbursed by GM on the backend from the ZEV credits
It simply doesn't matter if the lessor is a wholly owned subsidiary or not. Just doesn't. This is clear because the leasing terms were worse when the lessor was unaffiliated. From an analysis point of view, the functions are wholly separate and have to be analyzed that way.

As for knowing what is attributable to ZEV credits, I think the difference in prices between CARB and non-CARB states is the difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
I'm fairly sure the Bolt EV will earn four ZEV credits. To get more it would have to be "fast refueling capable". Can't see that happening since it would have to be similar to gas or diesel. For electrics I think you'd have to have a battery swap.

But at $3500/ZEV credit, the difference between four credits and two credits is $7K. Also note that in CA a Bolt EV with a nominal cost to produce of $32K actually costs closer to $18K. Should be some good deals in CARB states.
Thanks for this and it appears I stand corrected and understand why some are hoping for a fast recharge rate for the Bolt EV...

Is this info still current?

" For purposes of subdivision
1962.1(d)(5)(A), a Model Year 2009 through 2017 ZEV, inclusive,
shall be deemed a Type III, Type IV or Type V ZEV if it has the
capability to accumulate at least 95 miles of UDDS range in 10
minutes or less, at least 190 miles of UDDS range in 15 minutes or
less, or 285 miles of UDDS range in 15 minutes or less,
respectively. "
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
Is this info still current?

" For purposes of subdivision
1962.1(d)(5)(A), a Model Year 2009 through 2017 ZEV, inclusive,
shall be deemed a Type III, Type IV or Type V ZEV if it has the
capability to accumulate at least 95 miles of UDDS range in 10
minutes or less, at least 190 miles of UDDS range in 15 minutes or
less, or 285 miles of UDDS range in 15 minutes or less,
respectively. "
I'm not an expert in the CARB regulations so I don't know. However, I wouldn't think so. The Bolt EV will be a Type III since it will have more than a 200 mile range. The Volt is a Type I since it gets over 50 miles of range. Neither of these will have a Fast Refueling option.

The big changes in the regulations were related to battery swapping. As applied to BEVs, to meet the Fast Refueling requirements you have to do a battery swap. At the moment, the only vehicles I know of which can get the extra credits for Fast Refueling are the hydrogen cars or BEVs with battery swaps. This follows because DC charging isn't fast enough. For example, Tesla "super" chargers don't get close to providing enough range in a short enough period of time. Originally Tesla got extra credits because they had a battery swap station, but this proved controversial since it didn't seem to be open. The regulations now make clear that to get the credits the manufacturer has to prove the vehicles are actually using the swap station. FYI while you have to prove the BEVs are using the swap stations there are no requirements that you need to prove these vehicles use the FR station since, without it, they can't run.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top