Just discovered that you used MF = .00295 instead of .00285. Anyway, thanks again.
yah, I have to assume thereās some extra mark up hiding in the mf.
But thatās still different than what OP and I used. OP said he got it from the dealer. So, itās going to make a differenceā¦
Iām always suspicious of the accuracy of dealers quoting mfs when the calc lines up about perfectly with a marked up mf.
1 Like
Youāre probably right and may explain why the WS cap reduction and rebate credit werenāt adding up to 7,500. Did you do a guess and check on the MF to get the desired result? Gonna have to run that through my program. I think you may have nailed it!
-
Iād hold off on the i5 until programs improve personally speaking. BMW had to juice the iX programs because they werenāt selling late last year either.
-
Calculators cannot make value judgments.
A calculator is just a tool to construct your own offer and/or recalibrate someone elseās shared deal for your own taxes, incentives, RV/MF etc if they are different.
Iāve rarely seen anyone make any further headway by decoding a dealer quote into the LH calculator. If it matches, so what? Math doesnāt lie. If it doesnāt match, so what? Dealers arenāt going to lower their offer because your calculator said so. Chances are, it was the consumerās error. If not, GL getting a dealer to admit it was theirs.
To be very candid, the ship sailed once the consumer asked for a quote instead of presenting a well-researched offer of their own.
1 Like
Thatās exactly why I constantly remind folks to submit a well-researched professional-looking lease proposal and, it had better be comprehensive and dead-on accurate. No one should ever chase after a dealer and argue quotes, WS, etc. Once they do that, they relinquish control.
1 Like
Yah, just moved it in increments of .0001, since thatās the typical change on mark ups.
2 Likes
Thanks for the analysis and education!
I havenāt yet figured out how to look up the buy rate on Edmunds but more than one dealer has now quoted 0.00285
Hereās the linkā¦
2024 BMW i5 Lease Deals and Purchase Prices ā Car Forums at Edmunds.com
Youāll need to create an account if you donāt have one.
Having current, accurate information for residual value, money factor, and incentives is important in understanding your deal. As such, going directly to a source that has access to that data from the captive banks is your best option.
Rate Findr has that information, as they have direct access to it from the captive banks. Itās a tool on the Leasehackr Calculator, available to Super Supporters.
2 Likes
And thanks everyone for your effort.
Iām new to leasing and was trying to understand the moving parts so this has been quite illuminating even if it might not have been the recommended approach to get the best deal.
@wtmeyer The money factor for the iX is being quoted as 0.00161 which brings the payments closer to the less expensive i5
I think the base MF for the iX should be 0.00111. BMW dealers can mark up the MF a maximum of 0.00040, unless that changed beginning in2024.
Checked out your LH calculator result using my lease program and got the same results. Kudos to you and the LH calculator!
Also, Edmunds has been known to be wrong once in a while.
IX buyrate was .00050 in December ā¦ effective payments were like low 700s plus tax
Hi Wtmeyer.
I visited dealer in illnois to check out new ix. Dealer salesman mentioned that for APR would be 2.6%, which I believe is the base MF from BMWFS. I wanted to put down 7 MSD to bring down rate to 1.6% which I thought would be a result of 7 MSD , but he mentioned that it is not possible and didnāt recommend me to put MSD down as he mentioned that original rate would come down to 2.3% and not 1.6%. Am I missing something here?. Would MF and impact of MSD vary by state?
Man! Lease pricing is way more volatile than price to purchase.
If you are not sure about the dealerās calculations or software calculations, you can always fall back on old reliableā¦ MATH. As @max_g stated: āMath doesnāt lie.ā. Thanks to @mllcb42 recognizing that the MF = .00295 and not .00285, we have a much better understanding of what happenedā¦ So, here we goā¦
Consider your zero-drive off dealer dataā¦ Some states (e.g., CA) will cap both taxable and non-taxable fees when computing the base payment. Tax is levied on the resulting base payment and so, tax is levied on taxā¦ 
Other states, like Ohio, will separate the taxables and non-taxables to avoid tax on tax. 
The formula for the zero drive-off base payment isā¦
where:
P = base payment
Lease Payment = P(1 + Ņ)
S = sell price = 65295
D = cap reduction = 7500
K = all fees capped = 869 + 925 = 1794
T = tax on cap reduction @9% = 675 EDIT: T instead of G
R = Residual Value 37786.35
N = term 36
F = money factor = .00295, not .00285
Ņ¬ = sales tax rate = 9%
Plugging in the above values to our formula, givesā¦
Contractual Payment = 945.29 x 1.09
= 1030.36
Always vet the dealerās data. A problem such as the dealerās misallocation is usually a symptom of a bigger problem (likely inputs). And, as @mllcb42 determined, it was a higher MF. So, this should serve as proof of what the dealer actually did. They said they were covering the upfront fees. In fact, those upfront fees were capped in the lease at a higher MF than disclosed. As I mentioned, the allocation of the 7500 resulted in a sum that was 175 less which is why I suggested that you ask the dealer to cut you a check for 175. Now you have supporting proof. If you want to request a refund from the dealer, you have nothing to lose. If they refuse, itās probably not worth pursuing at this point as itās a done deal.
Awesome!
I tried to create a spreadsheet with your formula and had to do a couple of adjustments. The trivial one is that T in the formula should be G as per the legend. The less obvious one is that the F in the beginning of the formula should FN.
If it is not too difficult, how would I extend the formula for a non-zero DAS?
And I havenāt completed the deal yet!
Thanks
Thanks