I think it is likely to settle out that the incentive will have little impact on lease rates. Consider this simple mathematical illustration. You are leasing a $55K car for 3 years with a 60% residual, and for the sake of simplicity, I am ignoring internal interest. Most people forget that the existence of an incentive at the end of the lease will depreciate the car by that additional amount. So, either the lessor will increase the residual percentage or simply subtract the expected incentive from the standard residual calculation.Hey
Couldn't find any definitive information anywhere I looked online regarding if the 7500 tax credit applies to leases. Any info or links would be appreciated. Thank you
This is incorrect. Look at what Jeep is doing on the 4xe on Leasehacker.I think it is likely to settle out that the incentive will have little impact on lease rates. Consider this simple mathematical illustration. You are leasing a $55K car for 3 years with a 60% residual, and for the sake of simplicity, I am ignoring internal interest. Most people forget that the existence of an incentive at the end of the lease will depreciate the car by that additional amount. So, either the lessor will increase the residual percentage or simply subtract the expected incentive from the standard residual calculation.
Without Incentive:
With Incentive (on the front and back end of the lease)
- Residual = $33K ($55K * 60%)
- Capitalization Cost = $55K
- Leased depreciation = $22K ($55K - $33K)
- Lease payments = $611 ($22K / 36 months)
- Residual = $25.5K ($55K * 60% - $7,500 additional depreciation from incentive)
- Capitalization Cost = $47.5K ($55K - $7,500 incentive retained by lessor)
- Leased depreciation = $22K ($47.5K - $25.5K)
- Lease payments = $611 ($22K / 36 months)
Yeah, and if Tesla did that, they would lose their shirts on the lease turn ins. The existence of the incentive absolutely depreciates the value of those future used cars.Tax credit does not impact residual. Residual is based on MSRP. Discounts and the tax credit, if offered, will reduce the Capitalization cost. This is the corrected version:
Timeline | Depreciation | Value | With Incentive |
New | 0% | $55,000 | $47,500 |
Year 1 | 20% | $44,000 | $36,500 |
Year 2 | 10% | $38,500 | $31,000 |
Year 3 | 10% | $33,000 | $25,500 |
In the past, before they hit the original 200k delivery barrier, Tesla added the tax credit to the residual. They didn't adjust the Capitalization Cost. (I don't know what they are doing this time around.) So, if you bought out the lease at the end, which they no longer offer, you didn't get any benefit from the credit.Tax credit does not impact residual. Residual is based on MSRP. Discounts and the tax credit, if offered, will reduce the Capitalization cost. This is the corrected version:
- Residual =$33K ($55K * 60%)
- Capitalization Cost (what you pay when buying the car) = $47.5K ($55K - $7,500 incentive retained by lessor)
- Leased depreciation = $14K (47.5K - $33K)
- Lease payments = $402.78 ($14.5K / 36 months)
Again, not correct. The federal tax incentive is passed along to the lessor of the vehicle, which is then passed along to the lessee as an incentive that reduces the cap cost.Yeah, and if Tesla did that, they would lose their shirts on the lease turn ins. The existence of the incentive absolutely depreciates the value of those future used cars.
Nissan Financial made the exact mistake you illustrate. Nobody is making that mistake after Nissan. Lessors will reduce the residual value to account for the accelerated depreciation caused by an incentive.
Maybe this will help illustrate it... Let's say depreciation over 3 years is 20% in year 1, another 10% in year 2, and then another 10% in year 3 (to align with the example 60% residual calculation above).
At the end of the first year, the car depreciated 20% from $55K would be "worth" $44K. But only a fool would pay $44K for a used car if they can get a new one for just $3,500 more. So, that car really is not worth $44K, it is depreciated more because of the existence of the incentive on a new car. So, it would likely sell in the high $30K range in stead. Then same for year 2. The 30% depreciated value is $38.5K, but if you can get a one year old car in the mid- to high-30s, nobody would buy a two year old car for that. So it is worth less, and so on.
An incentive depreciates used cars. They do not retain their imaginary no-incentive value.
Timeline Depreciation Value With Incentive New 0% $55,000 $47,500Year 1 20% $44,000 $36,500Year 2 10% $38,500 $31,000Year 3 10% $33,000 $25,500
Where the money goes is irrelevant. I am just sharing illustrative math that shows what actual lessors learned with actual leases in this actual industry. Incentiives on new cars depreciate used car values. That is fact.Again, not correct. The federal tax incentive is passed along to the lessor of the vehicle, which is then passed along to the lessee as an incentive that reduces the cap cost.
Already been through this argument. Nissan screwed up. Tax credit is not deducted from residual, residual is MSRP times depreciation factor. Lease companies may need to adjust depreciation percentage. But, given the high price of Tesla cars the credit will not have nearly the impact as it did on Nissan’s much cheaper car since the used price of a Tesla will be very much lower than a new one, after the credit. Consider:Yeah, and if Tesla did that, they would lose their shirts on the lease turn ins. The existence of the incentive absolutely depreciates the value of those future used cars.
Nissan Financial made the exact mistake you illustrate. Nobody is making that mistake after Nissan. Lessors will reduce the residual value to account for the accelerated depreciation caused by an incentive.
Maybe this will help illustrate it... Let's say depreciation over 3 years is 20% in year 1, another 10% in year 2, and then another 10% in year 3 (to align with the example 60% residual calculation above).
At the end of the first year, the car depreciated 20% from $55K would be "worth" $44K. But only a fool would pay $44K for a used car if they can get a new one for just $3,500 more. So, that car really is not worth $44K, it is depreciated more because of the existence of the incentive on a new car. So, it would likely sell in the high $30K range in stead. Then same for year 2. The 30% depreciated value is $38.5K, but if you can get a one year old car in the mid- to high-30s, nobody would buy a two year old car for that. So it is worth less, and so on.
An incentive depreciates used cars. They do not retain their imaginary no-incentive value.
Timeline Depreciation Value With Incentive New 0% $55,000 $47,500Year 1 20% $44,000 $36,500Year 2 10% $38,500 $31,000Year 3 10% $33,000 $25,500
Exactly. And as of now, I do not think they are, or there have been no reports of them doing so.Tesla (as the owner of a leased vehicle) gets the tax credit. Whether they pass on some or all of that money to the person leasing the car (as part of the lease terms) is up to them...
It seems obvious that they are with the new $349/month lease on the Model 3 RWD...Exactly. And as of now, I do not think they are, or there have been no reports of them doing so.
I've not been watching Model 3 stuffs, as my interest is in the Model Y, same as the section of the forum you're in. Let's keep this specifically about the Model Y.It seems obvious that they are with the new $349/month lease on the Model 3 RWD...
My little table above was meant to illustrate how it does directly cascade down to the 3-year value. But the ultimate key is that the incentive will impact the residual value. The question is how leasing companies are dealing with that. They might assume it is a direct 1:1 impact, or they may treat the residual calculation calculation as a net after incentive instead of MSRP. Or they may increase the residual percentage calculation factor. Or they may just subtract an incentive plug number from the traditional residual calculation. But when it all nets out, the incentive may have no impact at all on lease payments or only a small portion of the incentive may benefit lease payments.Already been through this argument. Nissan screwed up. Tax credit is not deducted from residual, residual is MSRP times depreciation factor. Lease companies may need to adjust depreciation percentage. But, given the high price of Tesla cars the credit will not have nearly the impact as it did on Nissan’s much cheaper car since the used price of a Tesla will be very much lower than a new one, after the credit. Consider:
Assume an MSRP of $80,000 and a Residual @ 60% = $48,000 “market” value
Enter a buyer: for a new car it will be $80,000 - $7,500 credit = $72,500. This is way over the price of a used Tesla ($48,000) and will not impact new car sales. There seems no reason for the lease company to decrease the residual.