Months after TTAC started to relentlessly bleat about the glut of money flowing into the auto loan sector, the mainstream media is finally taking notice. Automotive News is finally expressing some worry over the factors that we’ve been discussing for some time: car loan terms are getting longer (to help keep payments low), subprime lending is increasing and an expected rise in interest rates could put an end to the new car market’s exuberant performance.
While the engine behind the exceptional growth in new car sales is a hotly debated topic, leasing is proving to be an undeniable catalyst behind this year’s impressive new car sales numbers. Through June of this year, leasing accounted for 25.7 percent of new car sales, versus 22.2 percent in 2012. A decade ago, that number stood at just 17.5 percent.
Over at Autobytel, Juan Barnett (better known as DC AutoGeek) takes a look at the history of auto financing, originally intended as a way for the common man to be able to afford an automobile some 90 years ago. The most striking thing is how attitudes have changed so dramatically over time.
Initially, bankers were calling for a ban on financing of personal automobiles, fearing that it would lead to financial imprudence. How times have changed.
In a 2008 letter to the Security and Exchange Commission, a collection of automotive finance companies argued against a proposed federal rule that would have made 60 months the maximum term for an automotive loan. The group said “[that the] 72 month term has become the industry standard,” and that it was critical to the American economy to allow banks to determine independently the risk as it relates to automotive loans. They argued that any mandated term limit would cripple the automotive industry. They were probably right.
Bad news on the subprime front, as credit rating agency Experian reports a rise in delinquencies and repossessions for auto loans in Q1 2013.
Melinda Zabritski offered a rather dubious explanation for the nearly 17 percent rise in repos (as well as the 1.3 percent uptick in 30 day delinquencies and 12.4 percent rise in 60-day delinquencies) (Read More…)
Following in the footsteps of Spanish bank Santander, GM Financial announced that it would enter the prime lending market in 2014.
Tesla Motors, Inc. released its first quarter financial results yesterday, which featured a number of milestones for the auto maker. Among them, Tesla’s revenue rose 83% from the last quarter to $562 million, a record high for the company.
Ratings agencies and other players in the finance world are beginning to sound the alarm on auto backed securities. Among the most troubling factors for some investors is the growth of smaller issuers who rely on pools of deep subprime loans. And ratings agencies who are being more conservative with their ratings are missing out on the action.
Anyone looking for an anecdote illustrating the QE-fueled madness that is subprime auto lending, take a look at this Reuters report on what constitutes a down payment in the subprime world.
And still, though Nelson’s credit history was an unhappy one, local car dealer Maloy Chrysler Dodge Jeep had no problem arranging a $10,294 loan from Wall Street-backed subprime lender Exeter Finance Corp so Nelson and his wife could buy a charcoal gray 2007 Suzuki Grand Vitara.
All the Nelsons had to do was cover the $1,000 down payment. For most of that amount, Maloy accepted Jeffrey’s 12-gauge Mossberg & Sons shotgun, valued at about $700 online.
Upon receipt of a multi-billion dollar loan from the Canadian government, General Motors signed a “Vitality Commitment”, essentially a covenant in the loan agreement between GM and Canada’s government, which guaranteed that a certain amount of GM’s North American production would remain in Canada. That number is widely reported as being 16 percent, while page F-69 of GM’s IPO filings outlines that the covenant is valid until GM repays its loan commitments or until December 31, 2016, whichever comes later.
While Oshawa has widely regarded as one of GM’s best plants in terms of producing high-quality vehicles, the future of GM’s Oshawa plant is looking increasingly bleak.
(NSFW language)
Months ago, we began our Suzuki Death Watch, and today, we hear the executioner’s song. Suzuki’s North American distribution arm filed for bankruptcy, and will end automotive sales in the United States. Slow sales, an unfavorable exchange rate and a limited lineup of vehicles can all be blamed for the demise of a company that was ignored all too often. Luckily, Suzuki’s motorcycle and powersports business remain intact. We’ll have more tomorrow.
GM wants to double its $5 billion revolving credit line. However, the junk credit rated company does not want to pay junk credit interest for it. “We think we can get it priced as if we’re investment grade, which is kind of one of our goals going into 2013, to achieve investment grade,” GM CEO Dan Akerson told Bloomberg yesterday in Sao Paulo.
Hong Kong, and I speak from experience, is a great place to incorporate, to save taxes, and to throw a cloak of secrecy over financial operations which otherwise would be out in the open. In the case of GM, it is also a great place to save their Korean behinds. In December 2009, GM sold a 1% stake in its Shanghai-GM (SGM) joint venture to the Hong Kong part of its Chinese partner SAIC for the paltry sum of $85m. GM also put its India business into a Hong Kong based joint venture (HKJV). GM provided the India business, SAIC provided cash. As it turned out later, unearthed in Ed Niedermeyer’s seminal oeuvre about the mystery golden share, SAIC also underwrote a $400 million loan. In its darkest hour at the end of 2009, GM was kept afloat by the Chinese. Now, history seems to repeat itself in some convoluted way. (Read More…)
How does the French government save an ailing car maker that employs thousands of people without actually bailing out the auto maker? By baling out their finance unit, of course!
Once upon a time, GM’s North American operations spewed red ink across the firm’s balance sheet, with the whole mess kept afloat by relatively strong overseas operations. Now GM makes most of its money at home while its international divisions limp along. No, really: in its just-released Q1 financial report, GM reveals that some $1.7b of its $2.2b global EBIT came from its once-troubled home markets. What a difference a bailout makes!
Lotus is one of those brands that every auto enthusiast loved to lionize, despite (or possibly because of) the fact that it hasn’t made a profit for its owner, Proton, in 15 years. But now things are changing. Lotus itself is in the midst of a makeover, seeking to transition from niche sports- and track-car company to a Ferrari and Porsche-rivaling aspirational brand. Meanwhile, back in Malaysia, its owner, Proton, is undergoing a few changes itself. Having been founded as a state-backed business, Proton may soon be privatized, reports Bloomberg. And as a result, Protons private investors could push for a quick divestment of the firm’s Lotus holdings. One such investor, Gan Eng Peng of HwangDBS Investment Management, tells Bloomberg
It will make sense for them to sell it. Proton and Lotus are not a good fit. They are in different market segments, both in terms of geography and product.
Recent Comments