By on December 7, 2012

Your personal information is valuable.

When I liquidated vehicles for Capital One, we typically examined over 14,000 variables before lending out our money to a customer.

Any customer. A credit card. An automobile. A commercial loan. It didn’t matter. We needed to get to know the economics of you first.

All of the low rates and big profits were dependent on buying your personal information, and then crafting decision models and metrics to determine your personal risk.

Our success in auto finance generated low rates for our customers and low delinquencies for our investors. But they both could have been far lower.

There is a line of demarcation between what is private, and what is public.

Your payment history? Public for the most part. There are those landlords, small money lenders and car lots that don’t report your credit history. But most utilities, credit cards, mortgage companies, and auto finance companies do so on a regular basis.

It’s a trade. You get money. They get the opportunity for a profit. Along with the right to buy and sell the resources needed to make sound future decisions.

Even the low tech version of a customer’s credit history work fairly well. Pay stubs, utility bills, bank statements, references, and recent housing information are typically used by car dealers to determine your eligibility.

So are criminal histories. In certain areas of this country you can type in a person’s name , state of residence, and the word “mugshot” or “arrested”. Or even access a state information database that records prison histories.

Lo and behold, you may see a familiar face staring right back at you.

All of these things are publicly available. But what about a few of the private things? Should they be fair game too?

If you were financing a car to a complete stranger, wouldn’t you want to know their recent accident history? Or the number of times over the last few years that their insurance was dropped due to non-payment of their premium?

I had three customers who wrecked their cars so far this year. Thankfully, they all kept paying on their full coverage insurance with a $500 deductible. That alone made a $13,000 difference to my bottom line.

A credit union that had the means to examine this behavior could make a lot of better decisions for their members.

A lot of insurance companies these days levy their premiums based, in part, on a customer’s age.

I am not convinced if that is always a fair way to measure risk.

That rare young adult who has managed to find a stable good paying job. Or that student who has earned a free ride to school and kept their GPA on the high end. I think they are far more responsible and creditworthy than that fifty year old who has consistently wrecked cars and dropped their insurance.

So where should that line be?

Should certain resources that are now publicly available become private?

Should other things that are only available upon a special request, become just as accessible as your credit report?

It’s a tough question. Ponder it.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


44 Comments on “Question Of The Day: When Financing A Car, What Information Should Be Fair Game?...”

  • avatar

    Yeah… when I hear “capital one” I can just remember the greatest mail spammers I have ever endured…

    I did not like your former company very much.

    • 0 avatar

      That’s the joke with Capital One. “What’s in your wallet? Everybody’s eyes”

      I have a Capital One card. Zero balance. Never late. Credit score of 800. In the past three years, Capital One has looked at my credit history 19 times….

      • 0 avatar

        Every card company does that. Almost all of my credit card issuers peek into my credit history periodically. Some of them do it almost every month, and some do it a few times a year. This isn’t unique to Crap One.

        The bigger problem I have with Crap One’s credit cards is that they have a large number of subprime cards (often given to college students before the CARD Act) and a large number of prime cards, and it’s hard to tell which is which. Once you have one of their cards, it’s obvious if you are subprime, because they will give you a tiny credit limit and refuse to ever raise it (like the one Crap One card I had from college).

        The positive thing about Crap One’s credit cards is that they don’t have foreign transaction fees.

  • avatar

    Oughta be up to the lendee to provide as much information as they see fit and up to the lending establishment to decide if that’s enough for them to lend out the requested amount.

    The less info you oblige, the less certainty, the less you get lent, and at a higher rate.

    A good example would be my recent life insurance policy renewal. They wanted to send some vampire out to collect my blood. I said, “Hey no way is my insurance company extracting any of my sweet nectar” and denied them this request.

    In turn, I pay an extra $40 or so a year for my premium. I keep my blood, they keep a small amount more of my money, everyone’s happy.

    • 0 avatar


      Great decision on having a term insurance! My company does not require any medical on renewals and from what I know, we have lowest renewal rates on Term Life. But I live in GTA, province of Ontario. Maybe where you live they have different rules and regulations.

  • avatar

    I find many of the correlations that businesses use these days to be highly suspect. Ask the wrong question and you get a misleading answer. I am also highly aggravated by the power imbalance. The idea that a “company” is somehow more trustworthy than an individual, and therefore to be believed when reporting on an individual is just bunk.

    The penalties for truly bad behavior on both sides are insufficient, and it’s led us to a place where everyone is better off not borrowing for anything other than a house.

    • 0 avatar

      I fully agree with what you wrote. Responsibility should not be taken lightly and the idea that an individual gets hammered while a company can get away with murder is fundamentally flawed.

      Right now I think that too much personal information flows around for uses that are highly suspect and are often unrelated. If you are borrowing money it makes sense that you be fully vetted in terms of your fiscal capacity and historical responsibility. No problem there. But when the relationship between credit history and the reason for checking become more diverse, that is where the problems begin. Example: why should you homeowner’s insurance company be able to base rates on credit scores? Is somebody with a score of 700 more likely to have a house fire? And if you are going to using scores to do so, shouldn’t there be a uniform algorithm? I was banged with a “Insurance Score” that put me into a higher rate category. A little research showed that this score is highly dependent on credit score. A score of 800 plus zero homeowner claims for the life of home ownership equals a penalty? I dumped those bastards. Such abuse is a welcome mat for government regulation of the industry

  • avatar

    Outside of the protected areas, race, religion, ect, anything goes. If I’m loaning someone money I want to know as much as possible.

    • 0 avatar

      “Outside of the protected areas, race, religion, ect,”

      Why? Age and sex are not “protected” for insurance purposes, why should race and religion be?

    • 0 avatar

      When we did in-house financing we favored Mexicans because they paid the best by a large margin. I’m so glad we’re out that business.

      One thing I’ve always thought unfair is that consumers have to pay to get these scores. It’s another profit center for the banksters. I think they also try to keep scores down so they can charge higher interest. Equifax in particular is very slow compared to the others in raising scores.

      • 0 avatar

        I have to agree with you, but I’ve seen it’s not just Mexican people who repay well, but seemingly anyone of hispanic decent. Every single hispanic person I’ve dealt with in the last ten years have been great customers/payers.

        Not sure if I agree with the notion that banks try to keep credit scores down to charge higher interest though… When I finance a deal for a customer using prime banks they typically approve a large range of credit scores, usually from 600-up. Anything below 600 is low for a reason, and the bank wouldn’t take the deal based on credit history, not so much the credit score, which is really a small part of a person’s credit history and has little bearing on the financing decision. There are a large number of sub-prime lenders who will take the deal even if a customer has bad credit. True, the customer will pay higher interest, but only because the lender knows that some of the higher-risk deals will blow up and end up in a loss. That’s the reason for the higher interest, to basically ensure that if 30% of the lender’s deals end up as repos, the remaining 70% of paying customers will keep the company in the green. And even if they pay higher interest, there is usually a range depending on vehicle, term, downpayment, credit history, etc; ranging from 9.9% to 29.9% (in Ontario). So the credit score is basically just a quick glimpse of the overall credit history, not the end-all and be-all that determines whether a customer has good or bad credit.

      • 0 avatar

        re:ott’s comment, I would differentiate between foreign-born and American-born. From my experience, the foreign-born often pay like clock-work. American-born, not so much.

        Beyond stereotyping, credit extension algorithms are usually based on:
        1) collaterization of the property — does the vehicle have sufficient value to cover the loan
        2) capacity to pay — does the person have enough income to pay as due?
        3) credit score — higher = lower interest rate, lower = higher interest rate

        Generally speaking, “subprime” lending means you have #1 and #2, but a low credit score, and so you charge higher interest. “Prime” lending means you have #1 and #2 with a high credit score.

        Where you get into trouble is if you do what the banks did during the housing boom and “innovate” by deciding that credit score trumps collateral (some houses were poor collateral) and capacity to pay (no doc loans!).

      • 0 avatar

        In my 12-year old, middle class neighborhood, at least on my street, the only house so far to be foreclosed on was the one house bought by Mexicans. Like everyone, they don’t always pay their bills. But then they can’t drive a house back to Mexico…

  • avatar

    I’ve been a community banker for almost 30 years and it’s clearly true that the better you know your borrower, the easier it is to make the loan. In the old days, buyers would stop by the bank to line up financing before they went car shopping(a relationship model). Today, most customers get their financing at the dealer – who must rely on data and models (nothing wrong with that either. It reduces costs, but is inherently impersonal).

    A few key items to remember:

    – payment history is valuable to you as a borrower. Protect it, own it, review it (get your free credit report every year and make sure the data is correct)

    – Like your father told you, “everything over $100 is negotiable”. That includes interest rates and fees. If you have a solid payment history, shop the loan around as well. Real savings can be had.

    • 0 avatar
      Felix Hoenikker

      I’ve been a member of the same credit union for 30 years. When I go car shopping, a get a price ramge for the models I am interested in then call the CU and tell them I want to borrow 3/4 of the purchase price of the most expensive car I am interested in. They give me a rate and a verbal OK. When the dealer asks about financing, I tell them it’s already arranged. When they ask the terms I tell them, and they usually beat the offer by a small amount. That minimizes the time I spend in the F&I office.

      • 0 avatar

        I think this is a great approach. I would add one other tool: a finance calculator or payment chart. With every car I’ve ever financed, the first payment given has been wrong. I haul out the calculator and suddenly they’re “Oh, I misquoted. So sorry about that.” Yeah, right.

      • 0 avatar

        Felix Hoenikker, I too have been a member of my credit union since 1965 when I was first assigned to the nearby AF installation in my area, and I prefer to deal with that credit union, although I also have three other banks where I keep money.

        But I wish to add that lenders in general, and banks, finance companies and even credit unions have not always been kind to more-mature borrowers, especially if they are retired or over 65.

        I say this without malice because I understand that a lender will want to recoup the money they lend out, plus interest. But I fear that there is an insidious age discrimination in the real world when it comes to lending money.

        Old people are usually saddled with higher APRs than the younger folks and old people are more often than not pressured to take on a life insurance policy to cover their loan for the duration of the loan.

        Now, I can understand the caution that lenders want to take in case an old borrower should die before the loan is paid off, but most lenders also want an arm and a leg when it comes to personal information, personal wealth, personal assets and liabilities, in addition to the standard info like timely payment of bills, spouse abuse, traffic tickets, etc etc etc.

        The question that Steven Lang poses is a valid one. What information should be fair game? And if an older person applies for a loan from any lending institution, why is there bias against old people and retirees if everything else stays the same?

        I will add that the most objective lender I know off, and the one I recommend highly to all active duty or retired military members is USAA.

        I know of many people who were refused financing by GMAC, banks and credit unions because of their rank, incurred debts due to military moves and transfers, and who were helped by USAA with a car loan when they needed it the most. Maybe USAA just puts more trust and has more faith in military members. Or maybe they are just more willing to write off bad loans.

        I should also add that I have not had to finance anything since I was young and poor.

    • 0 avatar

      For my business and personal banking, I have followed my banker from one megabank to a second and then to a community bank. He lives next to my business partner, which doesn’t hurt. I am much happier to be dealing with a local bank.
      My experience with megabanks is now limited to cashing my 4th pittance of a check for a class action suit settlement (some as a stockholder, some as a consumer) for one stupid move after another on their part. Given their proven incompetence, I am very uneasy trusting them with my information going forward. Bank of America, BTW. My wife had a joint acct with our daughter who forgot to close it when she transferred to another college. As near as I can determine, that bank drained the account and then dinged it with enough fees to make it attractive to sell to a collection agency, which is how I found out about it. Statement forwarding, address service requested – didn’t happen apparently. Surprisingly, only one of the credit bureaus saw it as significant – the full broken mirror seven year period of adverse incident for less than $50. Wachovia, BTW. I’d sooner put my money in a mattress and earn equivalent interest.

      • 0 avatar

        I recommend using a small bank or preferably a credit union more than almost anyone I know, but your Wachovia story is user error. Your daughter and wife first made the mistake of getting a fee-paying account (as a college student, almost every bank offers a no-fee account) and second not meeting the minimum balance requirement for the account to avoid fees.

        I’m all for the opinion that the big banks are corrupt and need to be smaller, but let’s take some personal responsibility when due too.

      • 0 avatar


        I agree that it was user error. However, that shouldn’t make anyone feel better about the policies and procedures of big banks. All that was necessary to avoid the problem was a simple imprint on the statement envelope requesting forwarding address service, or alternatively, when the account was opened, they could have collected a backup address for the second person on the joint account. Given the cost of attracting and keeping a new customer and the adverse cost of a disgruntled former customer, either of these would be a sensible procedure. What else are they not doing well that may affect your data?
        I have been banking for 44 years and with only four banks – all made money from me and two of them never will again. It is unfortunate that Dodd-Frank creates a class of too big to fail banks – Systemically Important Financial Institutions. I’ll bet BofA is one. (They can be wound down by federal bureaucrats at the discretion of those bureaucrats. Sure, right-o.) SIFI designation should be a notice that its time to voluntarily disgorge enough operations to that the institution is small enough to fail again.

      • 0 avatar

        As a former temp employ of a company taken over by BofA, and son of a former VP of a company taken over by BofA, and a 30 plus year account holder that is now with BofA since the late eighties, I can assure you that many people with no fee accounts had their accounts changed to a fee account with nothing more than a very uninteresting, small print annual statement. They did this on a regular basis over the last twenty plus years. Usually, some negotiating would get back a couple months fees. I keep my account only so I have an account my mom can access in an emergency or I would drop them.

      • 0 avatar

        Once again, big banksters are corrupt as hell and need to be destroyed, but not dealing with your own bank account is user error, and you can’t blame the bank for not chasing you down.

        From my own experience with BofA, they are criminally incompetent at updating account information (address, name change due to marriage, addition of co-owner, etc.), don’t get me wrong.

        Landcrusher, you could still close your BofA account, and get an account with a credit union that has a broad network of ATMs. Alliant Credit Union, based in Chicago, comes to mind, for example. Their accounts allow you to access your money without fees across three or four different ATM networks (and make deposits too), which include almost any credit union and any 7-11, among other things. Your mom would probably have access to more ATMs than BofA in an emergency.

        In fact, almost any credit union allows you to withdraw money at almost any other credit union fee-free and often you can make deposits in other credit unions’ branches.

      • 0 avatar

        That would do me no good. And trust me, BofA will never again pull that stunt on me. But they still do it to others. I keep an account there because my mother banks there. It has an emergency fund for her, and it’s a joint account. I do most of my banking at big banks where I have enough money to avoid fees, but not enough to have a private banking services without paying a fee. By and large, credit unions are preferable, but I did have an experience with a crooked one. I would say avoid any of them that don’t have their own real estate.

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    I think credit reporting should be set up like HIPPA where the patient needs to OK any disclosures of info to a third party. It may be a little inconvenient for the credit rating agencies compared to the current system, but it would help prevent identity theft.

    • 0 avatar

      It should definitely be closer to that. There have been improvements over the years, but there aren’t nearly enough protections. For example, in most cases, banks can share info freely among affiliates, and with the way bank mergers have been going, it seems like there is no big bank that doesn’t already have tons of info about you from doing business with a smaller bank it purchased.

      By the way, when I’ve financed cars, I’ve always showed up with my own financing. The dealer always runs my numbers to see if they can beat it, but it’s never happened yet. I suppose if I were buying a car that offered 0-0.9%, they’d be successful, but there are credit unions that will give you 1.49% these days, and I doubt dealers could go that low without the captive finance company subsidizing it.

      • 0 avatar

        My beater daily driver recently became unsafe to drive @ freeway speeds so I started shopping for a replacement. Sandy has made desirable used cars dear, e.g. a cherry ’02 IS300 wagon recently on eBay didn’t make it to the end of the auction & I wasn’t paying $13k for an 11 year old car. So I started looking for any end of the year leasing or financing deals. Since I’m a Honda fanboy, I started there and the ’12 Crosstour $0,$0,$0 3 year lease for $280/mo got me in the door. After seeing this abomination up close and personal, I next tried the CR-V. Terms weren’t nearly as good, but since this dealer knows I like the unloved, I last bought an ’08 Civic Si from them in May of ’09 because my ’99 GS-R was stolen the previous Thanksgiving, they steered me towards a, “spiffy,” I’m sure unloved ’12 MT Fit Sport. I drove it and was as underwhelmed as I was when I drove an ’09 Fit before I bought the ’08 Si for $1,500 more than they wanted for the Fit. But as basic transportation that hauls a sh!tload of stuff, I said I would consider it.

        Back home, doing further research, I found a deal from Ford for a ’12 Focus, but all the reviews say their AT sucks and there wasn’t a MT within 300 miles of me so I started negotiating on the Fit.

        Ended up paying $500 under invoice w/them giving me another $500 more than I could wholesale the beater for. Didn’t want to pay cash and since I just finished a traditional refi of my mortgage I was in no mood to shop my own financing. I did find that will issue car loans for 1.49% so I used this number w/the dealer. Best I could do w/them was 2.25% so I said ok. As it turned out, I managed to buy a new car for $280/mo w/$0 down for 60 months. Not an earth shattering deal, but not that shabby imho either. Plus if I want to do the dance w/pen fed, they refi car loans @ 1.49% too.

  • avatar

    Information gathered should be strictly related to the borrowers ability to pay off the loan and the lender should be entitled to that information. The information should be used to calculate risk and define the terms of the lone only though.
    Selling that information afterward to third parties is wrong because it is not the lending companies information to sell. It still belongs to the borrower and just the act of applying for the loan does not change that.
    I think that loan companies should be obliged to make their lending history information available to the borrower so that they can make better decisions on which company to choose.

    • 0 avatar

      “I think that loan companies should be obliged to make their lending history information available to the borrower so that they can make better decisions on which company to choose.”

      Access and control and the ability to correct wrong information are important keys to proper privacy standards. The Obama administration made a push towards privacy earlier in the year with these principles in mind, but no one in Congress has bit yet.

  • avatar

    “A lot of insurance companies these days levy their premiums based, in part, on a customer’s age.
    “I am not convinced if that is always a fair way to measure risk.”

    It’s simple statistical analysis. Run the numbers–are parameters dependent or independent? Is there strong or weak correlation? Have you identified the most sensitive factors?

    I honestly believe one of the most important subjects for people to learn in school & apply in life is statistics. Understanding probability, distributions, randomness, expected outcomes, confidence, etc would rid the world of a ton of stupid.

    • 0 avatar

      Most age correlates to experience in said field. This specific example is perfect as a driver of years is going to be better than a driver of 5 or 1. Age is merely a convenient excuse for their profit to remain fat while letting their actuaries slack off. They’re playing on people moral misgivings to be allowed the justification.

      • 0 avatar

        The metric my car insurance company uses for the base rate is based on years of driving experience. If you got your license at 16 and are 40, you would be in the 20-24 years experience category. I think up through about 10, the categories go year by year, but I think then it goes by 5 year intervals — 10-14 years, 15-19 years, etc.

        So if you lived in NYC, went to college in NYC, worked in NYC, then only got your license when you moved out of New York at age 35, you’d still get rated based on your years of driving experience, 0.

  • avatar

    Everything should be fair game. Creditors should be allowed to put webcams in your bedroom to make sure you aren’t stuffing cash under your mattress. They should be allowed to put black boxes and go-pros in your vehicle to make sure you drive safely. Creditors should be able to restrict your leisure time and leisure activities to make sure you don’t lose your job of flunk out of school.

    The materialistic will live their lives with big brother looking over their shoulder. The intelligent will stay away from consumer credit for goods that lose 20% of their value when you take ownership, and educational degrees that take 20 years to break even.

    Without loose credit, corporate America will no longer tolerate the gutting of middle-class-purchasing-power by federal and state taxation. Spending will transition from frivolous wars and inefficient entitlements to higher education, infrastructure, and worker training programs. Our economy will finally re-balance.

    Make indebtedness as uncomfortable as possible.

    • 0 avatar

      Black Boxes & Go-Pros? Do you read Jalopnik sir?

    • 0 avatar

      Well than cRap I am screwed took loans to go to collage bc folks had no money got my degree got a job paid them off my kids will go into debt for collage as well no free ride from mom and dad, pay off your debts borrow what you need for , homes cars and education yes, vacations, beach houses 75 inch tv’s not so much

  • avatar

    Let’s ask more pertinent questions. Let’s say that I have information that shows a very strong correlation on likelihood to repay based on zip code, occupation, and hobby activity. Should that be allowed? How about I can see profitability correlations based on repayment history, can I use that? Even if it doesn’t correlate with likelihood to uphold the terms? What if I simply believe that people who engage in a particular type of activity are more likely to be a risk, even though I can’t show a correlation, or if I ignore some correlations while pricing others in a way to make up for the cost of others? Can I base my decisions on an in person interview?

    And my favorite, can I discriminate against people who have fought back against unfair policies and cheating by other companies?

    • 0 avatar

      At least historically, zip code was a problem because banks used this to discriminate against minorities who tended to live in certain zip codes. The practice is called redlining and still occurs not infrequently.

      Car insurance companies already give preferential rates for occupation in some cases. Sometimes that could rise to hobbies – e.g. if you are a member of a particular organization that gets better rates.

      Fighting back against whistleblowers, that would seem to be against public policy.

      • 0 avatar

        Geico uses one’s job as one determining factor for rates. You can fool this at times. For example, a job as an engineer puts you in the lower rate category. They don’t ask, however, what kind of engineer. You could be a stationary or portable engineer and operate boilers and whatnot and still get away the discount that was meant for the brainiac type of engineer.

  • avatar

    I’m all for tough lending standards. The harder the better. I use to work in the mortgage industry and I saw plenty of loans that were approved by Fannie Mae (not the mortgage company) to people that had no business owning a home. Fannie Mae gave us money to market to those people. Homeownership for everyone!

    One classic story is of a couple that got an low rate two-year ARM loan above the purchase price of the home. They took that extra money and paid off student loans. When when the low-rate went away, they stopped making payments for a year and then turned the house back over to the bank. They even went out and bought a new car when it was all done. (Oh, and then had to turn in the car due to not making payments.)

    I hope those days are long over…

    • 0 avatar

      The reality is that, while some loans that didn’t make sense were approved by Fannie Mae, there were many many more that were approved solely by private banks.

      Fannie Mae was never as big into non-prime lending as private banks were on their own accounts, and it’s easy to find statistics to back this up.

      • 0 avatar

        It’s also easy to prove that these private institutions were able to make toxic loans by bundling them with CRA government-backed mortgages. It’s easy to find evidence that the government allowed bundling, encouraged bogus AAA ratings, and left derivatives hedging unregulated to generate the liquidity necessary to keep the CRA funded.

        The situation is analogous to deregulating hard drugs and prescription narcotics to help people in pain. Then blaming the drug cartels and prescription drug companies for destroying the general public with their addictive products.

        Thankfully our government is not dumb enough to legalize dangerous narcotics. Unfortunately, they are dumb enough to legalize narco-lending, and expand the ‘benefits’ well beyond people who need such products.

      • 0 avatar

        No, it’s actually not “easy to prove that these private institutions were able to make toxic loans by bundling them with CRA government-backed mortgages”. You don’t even know what you’re talking about and are just throwing jargon together.

        Anyone suggesting that the CRA caused a worldwide property bubble is either a political hack or doesn’t understand finance. The CRA was perhaps 6% of loans during the bubble, CRA-based loans actually had a lower foreclosure rate than non-prime loans (for obvious reasons if you understand CRA-lending), and most non-prime lenders were not subject to the CRA. There is a mountain of literature about this:

        The CRA was passed well before the property bubble, and even George W. Bush’s “Ownership Society” was created well before it too. Government-backed mortgages went hogwild too during the bubble, but Fannie and Freddie never got into non-prime loans in the way that private banks did.

        Anyone talking about the CRA is making a political talking point, not a legitimate argument.

      • 0 avatar

        Bankers do not cause crises by lending too much money at interest rates that are too low. In fact, banks have always been loathed for the opposite. They refuse to lend to people in ‘need’ for big ticket items, and they charge exorbitant interest rates for the revolving capital they do issue. These lending policies have always aggravated other industries who want loose credit. This includes the Great Depression era, which is frequently attributed (by monetarists) to the inactivity of the Federal Reserve Bank during the 1929-1930 recession.

        The subprime loan crisis was caused by over-lending at below market rates. Obviously, this practice was influenced by government policy and government machines within the lending industry. I listed some of those policies and practices above. Politicians are now scrambling to maintain regulatory authority. They argue that CRA loans were not at a default risk; therefore, CRA/government is not to blame.

        Sorry, CRA doesn’t operate in a vacuum. You either ‘get it’ or you’re a servile sycophant who lets the government walk all over you, your family, and your fellow citizens.

        I don’t particularly care whether the CRA continues or not, but I will not suffer fools who refuse to learn from the recent past. Those people will hasten the arrival of another credit failure, and another bout of rampant housing inflation that moves future generations of home buyers and the current lower-middle class farther away from home equity.

  • avatar

    14,000 variables? How does that work?

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • MBella:
  • Vulpine: And don’t forget, a lot of people who do have spares don’t know how to use them even if one is...
  • Vulpine: Obviously you have to choose based on your usage habits. Based on your description, the best choice is an...
  • Sjalabais: This is what really amazes me. How can waiting for a car for only three months be an insurmountable...
  • Sjalabais: What the lifted wagons do is basically going back to the ground clearance of cars of the 90s. Newer cars...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote


  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States