no, that’s selling price. it’s a 400 over invoice deal.
but the drive-offs are capitalized. the cash deficiency is funded out of deal proceeds. whatever broker built this also seems to have glommed the jersey area lease cash.
i know this because i USE this software about 50x on a daily basis. You dont.
The cash deficiency just happens to be the exact itemized difference between the customer cash and inception fees, which then gets added as a line item to the selling price to adjust the cap cost when capitalizing the extra fee?
that said, everything is in the “total cap cost” line.
Thats the profit, not the capitalization of the extra inception fees.
Profit is the original selling price minus the dealer cost.
The adjusted selling price is the original selling price plus the deficient inception fees being capitalized.
Thats why the profit is $400 and the capitalized inception fees are $339.35
I know I am new. But in this a messy deal or what?
The numbers I got from Polestar matched the calculator spot on. I didn’t know where to plug all this in to rectify these numbers.
Not really, it’s more @delta737h learning to read an mdesking printout.
yes correct, you were pointing at the selling price though. everything rolls into the total cap cost.
It is not clear to me what rebates and loyalty they applied to the deal.
They’re numerically equal but why on earth would they call that a price adjustment? Doesn’t make a bit of sense. I thought it was some sort of market adjustment which I have seen. If what you’re saying is true, then that is a piss poor WS. They need to get their descriptors straight. What am I supposed to think? Sloppy way to do business.
you’re aware i just quoted you a deal that was about $2500 cheaper than you’re being quoted here, right?
That’s a piece of crap to begin with. I make no apologies for demanding correct terminology, precision, and accuracy.
Because the selling price is being plused up to front the dealer the cost of paying the inception fees. It’s handling both the capitalization of the fees and the disbursement of the proceeds for multiple parties in the transaction.
The arrow was supposed to be circling one $339 and pointing at the other
True, I don’t. But that doesn’t excuse the sloppiness. Maybe you’re satisfied with their garbage, but I’m not. Any chance you’ll recommend desking software improvements to the vendor?
No. I didn’t follow.
Nope, i think it’s terrific. Easily better than anything else i’ve seen people use.
Then why isn’t it accurately described as reg fees/tire fees instead of “price adjustment” which is totally meaningless. One might rationally conclude that it is a market adjustment which appropriately gets added to the sell price to determine the adjusted sell price. If they are capped, they should be labeled as reg. fees among the acq fee, taxes, etc. to determine the gross cap.
I did, however, notice that the WS did not say “Due at Delivery”. Simply stating customer cash means nothing. I’ve seen WS with customer cash being applied to a CCR or used to cover all or some of the upfront fees. No CCR in this WS. It’s just plain sloppy. So, please, stop defending slop.