First lease hack since 2020, I am happy to be back on here 
One pay of $4,900.
18/10
No MSDs.
Contract submitted to NMAC says $6,1xx (cap cost has to be greater than residual), of which $4,900 was paid by me and the rest was covered by the dealer.
Signed on 1/3, using December programs.
23 Likes
Very nice. Any details you can share to help people replicate?
6 Likes
Gorgeous color…love it.
Well done. I assume the contract you signed was at $6,100? How did the dealer make you whole on the $1,200 difference?
Would appreciate this as well. Did you sign on or before 1/3?
Edited my first message. Yes, I did sign on 1/3 using December programs. Dealer doesn’t have any more units, please stop PMs asking for dealer info 
If you want the same deal, you have to find a dealer willing to do ~5% off MSRP, buy rate and MSDs (assuming January programs are the same as December, I am not sure)
RE: contract - yes, contract says $6,1xx on it, they gave me something like a ‘we owe’ where they mentioned that $4.900 is covered by me and the rest is covered by them.
Just curious how much did you end up paying in msd?
I did not do any MSDs.
1 Like
Mad props for that deal.
it sounds like the dealer basically wrote you a check (to themselves, lol) to cover the difference so the contract would get funded. i’ve seen this on a ton of contracts. I seem to recall seeing it shown as a capital cost reduction which wasnt actually made.
Others can debate this approach, it may lead to interesting discussions…
Correct. There was no capital cost reduction which wasn’t actually made. It basically just read as I paid $6,1xx. But I just paid $4,900 
What was interesting is that they didn’t include acq. fee, doc fee, etc into cap cost. When I asked them why they said there’s something about 18 months contract that makes it impossible. Not sure what that was, but at the end of the day, I am happy with this deal.
As I am fond of sayin… sometimes I don’t care how the dealer gets there, as long as they get there
1 Like
Best I’ve seen on a non-MSD deal.
I’m not sure NMAC likes to see the fees put into cap cost on these one pay deals. It artificially inflates the number.
2 Likes
I was wondering the same. I’m not sure we will ever know for sure…unless someone from NMAC is here listening and wants to tell us) 
…but having those fees be separate seems to be preferred. Of course it also avoids interest which is best for the customer.
It is very common for acquisition fees to be capitalized on other leases, though. That was what we all wanted to do, and usually did, when MFs were approaching zero.
I agree, makes sense to include them with low MF’s and tradational, monthly leases.
Does not make sense on one pay leases, paying interest for no reason since it’s all paid upfront anyway.
1 Like
I haven’t done the math on any of this, but the only way I could see it would make sense is if there were some combination of capitalized cost additions that had a smaller interest impact than the discount the dealer was willing to give on the vehicle…which then still allowed the contract to past muster with the +$100 rule.
This might end up being splitting hairs, but I suppose it could work for a dealer that wants to load up on add-ons for the finance department, such that the sales department is willing to take the discount hit…dealers have come up with crazier schemes🤪
I actually had something like this happen a few years ago. We had already come to terms on the signing (and it was one of those sweetheart Chevrolet bolt single pay leases that I think was $6300 for a 36/10), when they came back with the paper documents, they told me they added $499 in a “protection package”. Before they even let me react, they immediately moved into the fact that they adjusted the sales price such that my total single pay amount was the same as agreed-upon. As such…“I received the wonderful benefits of this package, at no additional cost”.
Their error = Your benefit!
Best one-pay with no msd thus far!
1 Like