Re GM losing money on each Bolt:
The article I linked in
Post #353 has some figures on this.
=======
We estimate that GM loses ~7$k per vehicle at the EBIT level, but the contribution margin (selling price less variable production costs) is in positive territory at ~$3k. Based on our component costs forecasts, the EBIT per vehicle can improve to $1.3k (5% EBIT margin) by 2025E, assuming that the lion's share of the cost savings need to be passed on to the consumer in order to reach TCO parity.
=======
EBIT is Earnings Before Interest and Taxes. It's one of a cost accountant's tools to measure profitablilty. (Or stock analyst's). There's no corporate income to pass along to stockholders long term if they can't earn enough to cover Interest and Taxes. EBIT is also an element in forecasting what volume of sales will be needed to make a reasonable profit. This author assumes 5% is reasonable profit.
Contribution Margin: This the actual cost to build one more unit ignoring overhead - Factory construction and improvements, interest, workman's comp, long term pension obligations, real estate taxes, R&D, lobbying, everything the assembly tech on the shop floor doesn't see as the car goes by. A normal range of overhead costs was 100% or more (relative to Direct Labor) on the consultant and engineering contracts I used to analyze, I have no idea what is 'reasonable' or how it is figured in the auto industry. Note that linked article says they did a teardown and found the actual hardware in the car was a lot less expensive than they expected so the estimated Contribution Margin for building each additional Bolt is a positive $3,000 - ignoring overhead that would be spread across anything they chose to build. Also there is $4,000 (present cost) of semiconductor stuff in each Bolt, and there is near universally a steep downward cost curve in that area as volume becomes huge.
TCO parity. TCO is Total Cost of Ownership. Lifetime cost for the customer. Parity is their comparison to what they consider an equivalent ICE car. I'll add here that Bolt is built of stuff that is new, expensive, and likely to be less expensive as volume ramps up. While the comparable ICE car has already had all the extra costs engineered out of it for decades and doesn't have the opportunity for cost savings that exists in new technology.
Also noted is the European version of Bolt is likely to reach large sales volume years sooner than in the US. (So what we see on the road here doesn't reflect GM's investment return for embarking on these).
Yes Bolt is a gamble by GM to get product out there before each unit is profitable. I think abstaining from this market would be a greater gamble.