I’m guessing it’s assuming you’re paying the msd amount as part of the das rather than being not considered as we normally do
The contributor input the DAS not as intended.
For the purpose of SIGNED!, DAS is the line item “amount to be paid in cash” under “Itemization of Amount Due At Lease Signing” on the contract, which includes MSD. So in this case, the DAS should be $4900 per Line 9B.3 on the contract, $4900 of which is MSD. This is commonly known as Zero Drive-off.
I reckon this is confusing. We thought we would follow the contract’s terminologies so user knows exactly where to find the figure. Let me talk to @michael to see if there is a better way to present this. We also welcome your suggestions.
In the meantime, I will amend the submission per the line item’s definition. Thanks for letting us know!
We changed “Due At Signing” to “Cash Due At Signing” on the form and clarified that this figure includes any security deposit. Hope this will be clear moving forward. Thanks!
I hate to be a naysayer but in the interest of identity protection, I’d never post a copy of my contract here, even though I have recently leased a car from a leasehacker dealer. I’d be more than happy to share my numbers but would never post my contract. I don’t know why I’d have to prove I’m telling the truth by posting my contract.
PII and VIN can/should be scrubbed. Otherwise there is a wealth of information, especially for newbs, in seeing and understanding the components of the contract, how it translates to the LH calculator, and becoming familiar with the terminology, etc.
Part of the problem is that the numbers are not entered into the database uniformly. We have already made corrections to quite a few submissions. Without a photocopy of the contract, there is no way for us to verify whether the numbers were submitted correctly.
We can certainly recalibrate our submission requirements. On the one hand, we want to ensure the quality of data so the database is actually useful; on the other hand, we want to minimize barrier to entry. It’s a balancing act that we need to consider carefully as the database develops.
In the old days, people would email us their contracts and we would manually enter all the numbers into the database. That turned out to be an unsustainable effort on our end given our resources. This is why this time we want to make it an open effort.
P.S. We also welcome anonymous submissions.
Use of OCR tech, which can help pick right data points from a pdf or jpeg/pic formats, rather than manual entries could be looked into (from solution stand point)
User data entry errors is going to be painful in many cases, ofcourse in my humble opinion.
like the signed! category alot, would like to also see it added to the forums page as well. Not sure if people are seeing it Love this site either way
Nice idea! We do this with supplier invoices at my work.
We use a modified version of this python library GitHub - invoice-x/invoice2data: Extract structured data from PDF invoices.
It uses templates to identify data in the pdfs/scans. Basically you use regular expressions to identify the data you want to extract.
It then puts that data into a format you can dump into a database.
If the contract formatting is consistent over time across the various banks/dealers, you could reliably import data i would think. (Provided scan/picture quality doesn’t suck).
Just a thought.
Location where deal was signed - For an out of state deal, should we enter the state where the dealer is located? or the state where the car will be garaged?
In my case the dealer is in Louisiana, but I technically signed it in my pajamas from my living room in Florida.
In this case it would be Louisiana.
The idea is that the competitiveness of the market where the dealer is located plays a role in pricing, whereas where the car is garaged doesn’t.
Good point though! We will update the description accordingly. Thank you!
Would it be possible/a good idea to ad many be a section of “signed” or deals that were maybe but not signed, maybe called “skipped”? Just a thought. I’ve had a various quotes and deals that I passed up on that I regret and don’t regret.
Just read “Ask the Hackrs” and “Worst Leases” for that.
I just added my deal for my '21 Volvo XC60 T6 Inscription to the SIGNED page and the numbers are way off. I think I shouldn’t have put the MSDs down in the upfront charges. How do I fix? The contract and the calculator are posted.
I just reviewed your change request. It seems like your original submission is correct. The total cash due at signing is $9938, $8000 of which is MSD. The effective monthly payment does not include your MSD payment.
Thank you for such a quick response [and for having co-founded a great website]. Now I understand my confusion. According to the calculator, my effective monthly payment is $783 and Leasehackr score is 7.8 years. A good deal for today’s market. The difference in calculations are the packages. Compared to someone who didn’t buy any packages, my effective cost looks higher and Leasehackr score lower for the exact same car. I thought the SIGNED page was about the car deal itself so we can compare apples to apples. Someone looking for a '21 Volvo XC60 T6 Inscription isn’t getting an accurate picture of what they should pay without the extra packages. I’m sorry for being difficult. I didn’t want to look like I got a crappy deal - male ego you know.
I see and good points. We will consider whether to separate F&I products out in deal submission.
Regardless, we recommend folks to compare deals within context. This means to only compare deals within the same region and month and to take into the consideration of targeted incentives applied. Maryland’s deal looks bad on the surface in comparison to California’s because the different ways states levy taxes. SIGNED! makes it easier for shoppers to parse numbers and gauge the market, but it’s still quite qualitative! This is why we say Leasehacking is an art!
Congrats on the big discount on the car! Enjoy your ride!
This is why comparing monthly payments or lh score against strangers isnt useful. The signed data gives a database for extracting actual comparable info (normalized pre-incentive discounts).
The latest Ford Edge signed in August shows an effective higher than the base monthly but that’s based on 5500 tdas. The tdas is non cash so the effective is incorrect
I’m correcting it. There’s a bunch of incorrect entered data.