# Lease rates on A3 sedan



## livestrong191 (Nov 18, 2013)

So what are looking at $$ to lease a A3. Right now a brand new A4 loaded is in the low $300's a month 36 month 10k a year


----------



## aodmisery (Aug 31, 2013)

im hoping for a payment of no more than 400 with 12000 miles and 0 down


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

It's a bit hard to say right now. 

1) Residual value - considering it's hard enough just for a price...
2) APR - if the specials are 3.9% I am thinking 4.9% on initial release


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

Keep in mind the A4 is an outgoing model and the A3 is brand new. While it's likely the A4 will move up market with the B9, they still have to sell both cars for awhile. Audi has always made attractive leases on outgoing models, they were practically giving away B7's at the end of their lifecycle. Also, while many enthusiasts would choose a new A3 over a B8.5 A4, to the general public, the A4 is a larger car and does have an element of refinement that some may prefer.


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

livestrong191 said:


> So what are looking at $$ to lease a A3. Right now a brand new A4 loaded is in the low $300's a month 36 month 10k a year


you are getting wrong info then. a base premium A4 CVT with around $4k total down will be in the low $300's a month with tax (maybe). remember to read fine print on all advertisements. I sell Audi's for a living and havent seen a low $300 A4 payment in years without a decent amount of money down on a low equipment car.

It is way too early to even try to predict A3 lease rates. This car is a whole new ball game for Audi and will be treated different than what we've seen in the past.


----------



## cyberpmg (Nov 27, 2001)

Hope Audi Finance doesn't mess up the lease rates. I've seen them in the past present a lease on the introduction of the B8 A4 to be more than a base C6 A6. While price to own will scale appropriately, I hope the lease rates on the A3 for the introduction year don't push it to be more than the A4.


----------



## Chimera (Jul 6, 2002)

Imo, if AoA wants a piece of the every-third-car-is-a-bmw, they'll have to compete with the current BMW 320xdrive for $299/mo ($379 for 328xdrive). Even if real world options jack the true cost up, buyers want to be wow'd by the monthly.


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

Read the fine print, $3800 down and another $500 for owner loyalty plus a $500 discount. I can tell you right now, the majority of people who want these cars, don't have $3800 to put down, most people want to put down nothing which turns that bull**** $279 lease payment into A $500 lease payment real quick. The only reason BMW has cheap leases is to buy market share, the cars are usually upside down for the duration of the lease and nobody buys them at the end. In turn flooding the market with used base models that do nothing but kill resale value. I see leased Audi's being bought out or traded in all the time with $3k+ equity. You don't see that with BMW and you probably never will. 
*320i Lease...*

$279*/month for 39 months. $500 Holiday Credit, $500 Loyalty Cash are included in payment.

• $279 First months payment
• $2,750 Down payment
• $0 Security Deposit
• $725 Acquisition fee
• $3,754 Cash due at signing

*328i x Lease...*

$379*/month for 39 months. $1,250 Holiday Credit, $500 Loyalty Cash are included in payment.
• $379 First months payment
• $2,750 Down payment
• $0 Security Deposit
• $725 Acquisition fee
• $3,854 Cash due at signing


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> Read the fine print, $3800 down and another $500 for owner loyalty plus a $500 discount. I can tell you right now, the majority of people who want these cars, don't have $3800 to put down, most people want to put down nothing which turns that bull**** $279 lease payment into A $500 lease payment real quick.* The only reason BMW has cheap leases is to buy market share, the cars are usually upside down for the duration of the lease and nobody buys them at the end. In turn flooding the market with used base models that do nothing but kill resale value. I see leased Audi's being bought out or traded in all the time with $3k+ equity. You don't see that with BMW and you probably never will.*
> *320i Lease...*
> 
> $279*/month for 39 months. $500 Holiday Credit, $500 Loyalty Cash are included in payment.
> ...


The person leasing doesn't care at all if they do the part in bold and are normally all for companies buying their business. 

Also any widespread discounting of any new car model reduces the used value. I don't see me paying more for a car to help hold up used values helping me in the long run.


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

If all you care about is payment then you are correct. I was merely pointing out there are repercussions for a super low monthly payment and they usually require a hefty down payment if you can even get the car since those are base cars that the fine print says "may have to be ordered" that's because you can't find one on a lot that cheap. When you compare BMW or Mercedes to Audi option for option the pricing is usually in Audi's favor, they just prefer the cars to retain value rather than blow them out on the front end.

Personally I like to know I'm getting the most for money, buying a base model car that nobody will want when I'm done is something I would never do. People that own businesses successful enough to lease vehicles through them are generally not buying base 3 series either.

Once again, 35 months straight of record sales in the US, they must be doing something right.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Slightly off topic, but there is something important you need to keep in mind when discussing leases and BMW. Compared to Audi, BMW and Mercedes lack the same corporate sponsorship (read: available capital) and possess significantly smaller economies of scale. As a result (let's use BMW as the case here), BMW needs to drive all of its factories at capacity in order to maximize profit. Massive fixed costs in infrastructure dictate that said infrastructure needs to be utilized in a productive fashion at the highest percentage of time possible. BMW has fewer units over which to amortize this investment than does Audi as part of the Volkswagen group. 

So, in order to run said factories at maximum capacity, BMW must ensure that the sales pipeline stays unclogged and moves at a rapid clip. Stockpiled, unsold cars sit on the balance sheet or worse, a slowdown causes a factory slowdown which absolutely kills profitability of the factory.

Now, through the magical world of accounting auto manufacturers use their finance arms as virtual ATMs. In fact, finance arms (and after market parts) generally drive the majority of profit for automakers, not the assembly of vehicles. So what BMW does is utilize BMW finance to subvent leases to keep the prices artificially low and the volumes unnaturally high. This keeps factories running at full tilt, improves utilization and profitability and reduces the cost per unit manufactured. 

So, what happens when the lease gets turned in? Well, I'm not privy to their financials, but my guess is that BMW financial services takes a decent bath on lease returns that come in below the residual. Of course, this is where the CPO program comes into play, helping to boost the residuals. A little birdie once commented that BMW's average lease return loss is between $1,000 - $1,500. Slap on a CPO fee and they've recouped a large percentage of that loss. Now, here's the best part of the whole thing, and I'm channeling my best Cosmo Kramer here, "they write it off, Jerry! Just write it off!". The finance arm takes a loss, writes it down against pre-tax numbers, and I would assume that since finance arms are often wholly owned subsidiaries, this means it helps reduce the overall tax burden of the parent as well (someone with better knowledge of corporate finance structures can chime in here and correct me).


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> Slightly off topic, but there is something important you need to keep in mind when discussing leases and BMW. Compared to Audi, BMW and Mercedes lack the same corporate sponsorship (read: available capital) and possess significantly smaller economies of scale. As a result (let's use BMW as the case here), BMW needs to drive all of its factories at capacity in order to maximize profit. Massive fixed costs in infrastructure dictate that said infrastructure needs to be utilized in a productive fashion at the highest percentage of time possible. BMW has fewer units over which to amortize this investment than does Audi as part of the Volkswagen group.
> 
> So, in order to run said factories at maximum capacity, BMW must ensure that the sales pipeline stays unclogged and moves at a rapid clip. Stockpiled, unsold cars sit on the balance sheet or worse, a slowdown causes a factory slowdown which absolutely kills profitability of the factory.
> 
> ...


Except for "profitability of the factory" when factories are cost-side only, this looks balls-on, dead-accurate to me.

VWAG and Audi have HUGE leverage in the marketplace due to their sheer size and existing economies of scale. They will absolutely crush their competition as they shift more and more models onto MQB-like platforms. (The press releases for MQB stated ~30% reduction in mfg costs once they get everything shifted (SWAG: 2017?). 5% would have been significant, ~30% is revolutionary.)


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

i see plenty of near-end Audi lease customers with positive equity each month. They are using this money to put down toward their next Audi, or buying the car outright, driving it for a little while longer, then selling it private party and make good money.

Audi has a slightly higher lease payment but something to show for it in the end. this 320i lease, just like every other 3 series lease, will be $3-5k negative by lease end leaving the driver no other option than handing in the car and having to come up with more out of pocket money for their next beloved BMW ultimate lease machine.


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

I recently had a friend refer someone to me that had an '08 328i, she was on her fourth BMW and she still owed $18k... on a 5 year old base 328i!!! :screwy:


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

ProjectA3 said:


> i see plenty of near-end Audi lease customers with positive equity each month. They are using this money to put down toward their next Audi, or buying the car outright, driving it for a little while longer, then selling it private party and make good money.
> 
> Audi has a slightly higher lease payment but something to show for it in the end. this 320i lease, just like every other 3 series lease, will be $3-5k negative by lease end leaving the driver no other option than handing in the car and having to come up with more out of pocket money for their next *beloved BMW ultimate lease machine*.


:laugh:



Mr. Rabboto said:


> I recently had a friend refer someone to me that had an '08 328i, she was on her fourth BMW and she still owed $18k... on a 5 year old base 328i!!! :screwy:


What the actual ****?! People and their stupid car buying decisions. :facepalm:


----------



## BeBop! (Jun 18, 2009)

Dan Halen said:


> :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> What the actual ****?! People and their stupid car buying decisions. :facepalm:


... but ... but.... it's a BMW ... my image and what people think of me is more important than being financially responsible!


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

BeBop! said:


> ... but ... but.... it's a BMW ... my image and what people think of me is more important than being financially responsible!


Actually, as cocked up as this may be, I won't buy a BMW _because of_ the stigma attached to the brand. A friend just couldn't understand why I'd bypass a "better car" due to the badge alone. "Better" is subjective, I guess, and it gets negative marks for the perception in my eyes.

Will Audi gain that same reputation over the next couple years? Who knows. I sort of think they will, but at least right now, they're not there. I do hope it stays that way.


----------



## JOES1.8T (Sep 8, 2003)

I have a downstairs neighbor who has gone through 3 BMWs (2 3 series and now an X5) in the past 2.5 years. Doubt he leased them, but as some of you have mentioned, it's an image thing for most Americans even the ones living abroad. I see more BMW's running around post driven by military members and their dependents more than I do American cars. Personally I don't care for them, they don't appeal to me and the dash boards on most of their models are hideous.


----------



## livestrong191 (Nov 18, 2013)

ProjectA3 said:


> you are getting wrong info then. a base premium A4 CVT with around $4k total down will be in the low $300's a month with tax (maybe). remember to read fine print on all advertisements. I sell Audi's for a living and havent seen a low $300 A4 payment in years without a decent amount of money down on a low equipment car.
> 
> It is way too early to even try to predict A3 lease rates. This car is a whole new ball game for Audi and will be treated different than what we've seen in the past.


Here you go. Close to 40k car and since I get $1000 for driving a benz off and I am putting down $1500 I should be close to the target under $400 a month payment. SEE BELOW traight from audiusa website




Example lease: 2014 Audi A4 2.0T quattro Premium with automatic transmission, with cold weather package, and transportation. $379*/Month for 36 Months with $2,994 due at signing (Excludes taxes, title, other options, and dealer charges).

No first month's finance payment & rates starting at 1.9% APR** on 2014 A6 TDI, A7 TDI, & A8 TDI clean diesel models.

First monthly payment covered by Audi of America up to $1,000 on A6 TDI; up to $1,200 on A7 TDI; up to $1,800 on A8 TDI clean diesel models.



*Example lease based on MSRP of $37,545 for a 2014 Audi A4 2.0T quattro Premium with automatic transmission, with cold weather package, and transportation, excluding title, tax, options and dealer fees. M


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

Travis Grundke said:


> Slightly off topic, but there is something important you need to keep in mind when discussing leases and BMW. Compared to Audi, BMW and Mercedes lack the same corporate sponsorship (read: available capital) and possess significantly smaller economies of scale. As a result (let's use BMW as the case here), BMW needs to drive all of its factories at capacity in order to maximize profit. Massive fixed costs in infrastructure dictate that said infrastructure needs to be utilized in a productive fashion at the highest percentage of time possible. BMW has fewer units over which to amortize this investment than does Audi as part of the Volkswagen group.
> 
> So, in order to run said factories at maximum capacity, BMW must ensure that the sales pipeline stays unclogged and moves at a rapid clip. Stockpiled, unsold cars sit on the balance sheet or worse, a slowdown causes a factory slowdown which absolutely kills profitability of the factory.
> 
> ...



Normally all plants are at their most efficient when they run at full capacity, no different for Audi or BMW. Lowering their manufacturing costs and equating this to maximizing their profit isn't always the same. A huge number of things go into profit with manufacturing capacity only being one of them. To say that because of their size it is important for BMW to run their plants at full capacity isn't necessarily true either. If I have one plant running at 80% capacity and you have 10 plants running at 80% capacity you can't draw a conclusion that the large company is more profitable. My one plant could only need to support a small amount of overhead, profit per vehicle could be higher, my plant more efficient, etc. 

All manufacturers need to keep there pipeline unclogged, cars off the balance sheet and the plants running near capacity. I am sure that at the VW Corporate meetings Audi North America (or U.S. if that is how they are classified) doesn't get a pass because VW Corporate can spread out the problem over many markets. Audi North America is expected to move their goal amount of vehicles and they need to figure out how to do it through pricing, specs, leases, advertising, models they offer, etc. (This is where we lose on the manual A3).

The idea of lowering lease payments by artificially raising residuals only to take the loss later also doesn't work long term (see GM a number of years ago). Just "writing off the losses" lets you use your losses to offset your profit, thereby reducing your overall tax burden, still shows on the overall profit. Having a finance arm that loses a lot of money to allow the rest of the company to make good money? With your money you can do the same thing by picking stocks that really do well and others that tank. If you lose as much as you gain your net tax burden is $0. You effectively wrote off the losses and reduced your tax burden. Only problem is your net profit is also $0.

Also everyone has a CPO program to raise lease and used car values, this isn't a BMW function only.


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> I recently had a friend refer someone to me that had an '08 328i, she was on her fourth BMW and she still owed $18k... on a 5 year old base 328i!!! :screwy:


Very limited information to draw any conclusions. She sign up for a 10% loan over 84 months? She role over previous car debt into this loan? She pay far too much for the car in the first place?

Sounds like a personal problem.


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

Oops there was a typo, she was *$8k* upside down, the car was a CPO she bought in '10 and she was paying just under $600 a month!

I once saw an 84 month lease on a Nissan Xterra a few years back. :what:


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

dmorrow said:


> Very limited information to draw any conclusions. She sign up for a 10% loan over 84 months? She role over previous car debt into this loan? She pay far too much for the car in the first place?
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.


I disagree. Any financially savvy person can immediately draw the conclusion that _she done ****ed up._

:laugh:


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> I once saw an 84 month lease on a Nissan Xterra a few years back. :what:


How is that even possible? By that point, you'd have paid enough to own the thing, anyway, with the residual surely being no more than a few thousand dollars.

A seven year _loan _on a vehicle is batty enough, but a lease? Nah... no way.

I'm not paying for a car nearly half as long as I intend to pay for a house.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

dmorrow said:


> Very limited information to draw any conclusions. She sign up for a 10% loan over 84 months? She role over previous car debt into this loan? She pay far too much for the car in the first place?
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.


That's what it sounds like to me too. Although how could the leasing company even allow that? They will take money to reduce your monthly payment, but I never heard of them rolling in debt and NOT at the very least increasing your payment!!

I know I leased once and they offered to increase the buyout at the end of my lease to reduce my payments...instead of doing what I told them to reduce the price of the car...I was like 'do you think I am dumb?' when I reviewed the terms.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

dmorrow said:


> Normally all plants are at their most efficient when they run at full capacity, no different for Audi or BMW. Lowering their manufacturing costs and equating this to maximizing their profit isn't always the same. A huge number of things go into profit with manufacturing capacity only being one of them. To say that because of their size it is important for BMW to run their plants at full capacity isn't necessarily true either. If I have one plant running at 80% capacity and you have 10 plants running at 80% capacity you can't draw a conclusion that the large company is more profitable. My one plant could only need to support a small amount of overhead, profit per vehicle could be higher, my plant more efficient, etc.
> 
> All manufacturers need to keep there pipeline unclogged, cars off the balance sheet and the plants running near capacity. I am sure that at the VW Corporate meetings Audi North America (or U.S. if that is how they are classified) doesn't get a pass because VW Corporate can spread out the problem over many markets. Audi North America is expected to move their goal amount of vehicles and they need to figure out how to do it through pricing, specs, leases, advertising, models they offer, etc. (This is where we lose on the manual A3).
> 
> ...


BMW is at a disadvantage due to size. Minor, but important example: the metal bracket used to mount the dashboard on the A3 has now been standardized: instead of there being a different bracket for each to mount the dash of a Skoda Octavia, Golf, A3, Passat, Jetta, etc. there is now one standardized bracket that is stamped and used across some 6 million units. BMW can only (in theory) amortize that across around 1.5 million units.

Take the 1.8 or 2.0TFSI engines as a bigger example. Both are Audi designs but are sold and utilized across the entire corporate portfolio. BMW doesn't have that kind of scale. 

I read an article about two years ago about factory utilization at the German automakers and apparently due to the way BMW is structured their plants need to run at an obscenely high level of output to keep the cost structure low enough for profitability. 

Keep in mind that logically NONE of this works in perpetuity, but in the credit based economy we are in today, the notion of "tomorrow" seems to never arrive. ;-)


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

She did done F'ed up. And of course she was mad at me because I couldn't keep her payment the same on a new A4.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

Dan Halen said:


> How is that even possible? By that point, you'd have paid enough to own the thing, anyway, with the residual surely being no more than a few thousand dollars.
> 
> A seven year _loan _on a vehicle is batty enough, but a lease? Nah... no way.
> 
> I'm not paying for a car nearly half as long as I intend to pay for a house.


This is what disgusts me...how do you think car manufactures the high cost of cars these days? Only because 'people can afford it' with longer terms. Note, I am using that loosely. Justification? Cars are built to 'last longer then they use to'.

Personally, when your warranty ends, so should your payments...at most, I would ever allow for one year of 'living on the edge'.

Not sure the terms on American warranty on Hyundai's though, which is like 10 yr, 100,000 miles...being careful estimating your mileage...


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

An interesting stat - The average length of time people keep their cars in Germany, 7 years. The average length of time people keep their cars in the US, 3 years.

I think it's funny when people act leasing is such a horrible thing and then sign a 60 month purchase deal and end up never owning the car anyway because they trade it in early. That happens pretty much daily. :facepalm:


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> An interesting stat - The average length of time people keep their cars in Germany, 7 years. The average length of time people keep their cars in the US, 3 years.
> 
> I think it's funny when people act leasing is such a horrible thing and then sign a 60 month purchase deal and end up never owning the car anyway because they trade it in early. That happens pretty much daily. :facepalm:


Pay me now, or pay me later. Some of those who finance for 60 months and trade after 36 probably have well over 36,000 miles on the vehicle at the time of trade-in. The negative equity they roll could have been paid in 36 equal payments as a mileage buy-up.

What about those who buy on a 36-month term and keep for 120 months? You probably like the negative equity guys more. At least they're in there buying something. :laugh:


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

I'm the marketing director at our dealership, and although I am an ABS, I only sell to friends and referrals which makes me a pretty lucky guy, lol.

I am curious to see who the type of buyers the A3 attracts. A4 deals are generally the biggest PITA because of the demographic that purchases them. I suspect in this "age of entitlement," the A3 selling process will be similar. They take the most time, are generally the biggest hassle and you make the least amount of money. 

The C and D segment deals are generally pieces of cake as the buyers are usually pretty savvy folk who don't have time to deal with BS and generally have the money/credit score to keep it simple. :heart:


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Is that translated as: C and D buyers don't question the window sticker and pay whatever it says?


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

C and D drivers definitely question the sticker, espcially lease rates vs. competition, but in general make decisions faster and more profit is had in those cars for us lowly salespeople


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

I don't doubt that, but there's also more room between invoice and MSRP in those, correct?


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> I don't doubt that, but there's also more room between invoice and MSRP in those, correct?


On the Durango? 

Invoice was ~$42.5k. MSRP was ~$44.7k (both including delivery)

I paid a little under $40k before the vehicle we traded in (which had no loan on it)

I haven't looked closely at A4 pricing to know the differences between invoice and MSRP - don't really want a last of the generation MY.


Oh - nevermind me - I see now you were referring to the C and D segment cars.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> I'm the marketing director at our dealership, and although I am an ABS, I only sell to friends and referrals which makes me a pretty lucky guy, lol.
> 
> I am curious to see who the type of buyers the A3 attracts. A4 deals are generally the biggest PITA because of the demographic that purchases them. I suspect in this "age of entitlement," the A3 selling process will be similar. They take the most time, are generally the biggest hassle and you make the least amount of money.
> 
> The C and D segment deals are generally pieces of cake as the buyers are usually pretty savvy folk who don't have time to deal with BS and generally have the money/credit score to keep it simple. :heart:


This is spot on. C and D segment buyers aren't usually pinching pennies - they're looking for a good deal and value but just want to get the deal done. I would suspect there will be lots more penny pinchers and credit roaches on the A3 that will make the lives of sales and finance folks plenty entertaining.


----------



## livestrong191 (Nov 18, 2013)

They have $349 a month lease with $2799 , so for ever $1000 you do not put down your payment goes up $20 so zero down and close to right under $400 a month


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

livestrong191 said:


> They have $349 a month lease with $2799 , so for ever $1000 you do not put down your payment goes up $20 so zero down and close to right under $400 a month


And that's really the sweet spot for a lot of people.


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

Audi markup over invoice is 6% across the board.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

That's still a larger number on $90,000 than it is on $30,000, but it's not as much room as I thought there may be.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## diebartdie (Dec 4, 2013)

I was at the launch event in Ottawa tonight. I talked to one of the finance ladies and she said probably 3.9% APR. She found me twenty minutes later to confirm the rate was actually 3.4% APR.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

I'm not sure she answered the question you thought you asked. What she gave you is a finance rate.

Still, I don't know how they can give any rate with any level of confidence this soon. The market could undergo any number of changes between now and the on-sale date.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## diebartdie (Dec 4, 2013)

You could be right Dan. I am pretty sure I asked her about the lease rate although I was about 5 glasses of wine in at that point. Now that I think about it she did not mention if it was 36months or 48months. Usually the rates differ depending upon the term.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

dmorrow said:


> The idea of lowering lease payments by artificially raising residuals only to take the loss later also doesn't work long term (see GM a number of years ago). Just "writing off the losses" lets you use your losses to offset your profit, thereby reducing your overall tax burden, still shows on the overall profit. Having a finance arm that loses a lot of money to allow the rest of the company to make good money? With your money you can do the same thing by picking stocks that really do well and others that tank. If you lose as much as you gain your net tax burden is $0. You effectively wrote off the losses and reduced your tax burden. Only problem is your net profit is also $0.


But if they restructure their financing on their vehicles, especially if it is to their own finance division, you can transfer any arbitrary expense to a oversea entity effectively negating any profit that might have been made. Plus, structuring these depreciable assets as lease/purchases to these other outside entities allows more holes to funnel their money through.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> Audi markup over invoice is 6% across the board.


So if I remove destination on a base A4 2.0TQ (the $34,700 car), invoice should be $32,735? 

Who even has the most reliable invoice pricing these days- Edmunds or TrueCar? Edmunds puts this car at $32,373 invoice, and TrueCar shows $33,536. Note that I stripped the $895 destination fee out, so I used $34,700 instead of $35,595.

There are no TrueCar Certified Audi Dealers near you because Audi of America discourages its dealers from providing upfront prices below MSRP.That's... new. I've previously just been told that no TrueCar dealers exist near me. I understand they're just trying to protect the brand image and resale values, though. :laugh:


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> Who even has the most reliable invoice pricing these days- Edmunds or TrueCar? Edmunds puts this car at $32,373 invoice, and TrueCar shows $33,536. Note that I stripped the $895 destination fee out, so I used $34,700 instead of $35,595.


I've always gone to Edmunds first. They seem to update their "build" tools to match manufacturer restrictions reasonably quickly as well. 

A ~6% gap between MSRP and invoice seems to leave some room for negotiation. I know I won't likely see under invoice like with our Durango (a purchase which was helped by my employers "affiliate" status with Chrysler). I'm fine with that; an Audi of any kind is an entirely different product category than a Dodge branded vehicle.


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

True car sucks, they want dealerships to pay them to advertise and then turnaround and suggest to the same dealers customers what kind of discount you should expect. Name another business that does this? Therefore, the only data that shows is from dealerships who have paid TrueCar. :what:


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Yeah, that's sort of what I figured.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

ProjectA3 said:


> ...leaving the driver no other option than handing in the car and having to come up with more out of pocket money for their next beloved BMW ultimate lease machine.


LOL!


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> This is spot on. C and D segment buyers aren't usually pinching pennies - they're looking for a good deal and value but just want to get the deal done. I would suspect there will be lots more penny pinchers and credit roaches on the A3 that will make the lives of sales and finance folks plenty entertaining.


This. Once someone has their mind up that a $50-75k car is "necessary", a few thousand more or less isn't going to affect your price sensitivity one bit.

Price increases from 50k to 55k or 30k to 33k are both proportionally 10%, but the +3k on the latter typically "feels" worse to the sometimes/often(?) more cost-conscious A-segment buyer.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> True car sucks, they want dealerships to pay them to advertise and then turnaround and suggest to the same dealers customers what kind of discount you should expect. Name another business that does this? Therefore, the only data that shows is from dealerships who have paid TrueCar. :what:


Kudos to Audi for standing up for their brand. TrueCar is not at all an appropriate communication-channel for a business in, or attempting to be in, a premium segment. But is perfectly fine for commoditized business-models.


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

LWNY said:


> But if they restructure their financing on their vehicles, especially if it is to their own finance division, you can transfer any arbitrary expense to a oversea entity effectively negating any profit that might have been made. Plus, structuring these depreciable assets as lease/purchases to these other outside entities allows more holes to funnel their money through.


Won't this mostly help with taxes not the base problem? The local company will do well by transferring the loss to an overseas entity? As an extreme example, if BMW says the residual on your car will be $25k at it turns out it they have to sell the car for $15k, where is the $10k coming from? Moving it to different businesses or oversea's can make it difficult to figure out what happened to cause the loss (new cars sales and leases look great but the lease business is doing horribly) but I can't see this program working. This will help this year's profit and you could move a lot of cars but I don't see a way to shuffle the long term losses around to make it work as time goes on. I guess you could call the $10k part of a lease expense and it would be difficult to figure out why the expenses were so high but in the end you still have to cover or finance the loss. Restructuring or moving the expense may delay or hide the real problem.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

dmorrow said:


> Won't this mostly help with taxes not the base problem? The local company will do well by transferring the loss to an overseas entity? As an extreme example, if BMW says the residual on your car will be $25k at it turns out it they have to sell the car for $15k, where is the $10k coming from? Moving it to different businesses or oversea's can make it difficult to figure out what happened to cause the loss (new cars sales and leases look great but the lease business is doing horribly) but I can't see this program working. This will help this year's profit and you could move a lot of cars but I don't see a way to shuffle the long term losses around to make it work as time goes on. I guess you could call the $10k part of a lease expense and it would be difficult to figure out why the expenses were so high but in the end you still have to cover or finance the loss. Restructuring or moving the expense may delay or hide the real problem.


They could keep pushing the losses into the future, until they find a way to restructure that, or bring in the losses on a good year. The sell/lease/swaptions schemes could keep their books in the black until the reaper comes calling. There is a whole industry that leeches off that.


----------

