Sub-Prime Auto Financing, Loan Terms On The Rise

Derek Kreindler
by Derek Kreindler

Long-term auto loans, leasing and sub-prime financing all saw increases year-over-year from 2011 to 2012, according to a report by Experian, a consumer credit rating agency. While typically a dry and detail-oriented subject, the area of auto financing gives us some insight into the nature of the new car market and even the economy itself.

The average term for a new vehicle loan rose to 65 months in Q4 2012, up from 62 months in Q4 2011. Longer terms and lower interest rates allow for smaller monthly payments for consumers, enabling them to pick a more expensively vehicle than they may have been able to afford with a shorter loan.

The lower interest rates and monthly payments meant that the average loan amount increased slightly, up $272 to $29,691. While used car loan terms stayed flat at 60 months, interest rates did decline slightly (from 8.67 percent to 8.48 percent) as did the average monthly payment. Sub-prime financing accounted for just under a quarter of all new vehicle loans in Q4 2012, up from 22.59 percent in Q4 2011. 55.4 percent of used car loans were sub-prime, up from 53.8 in Q4 2011.

The report comes on the heels of another study claiming that most middle-class Americans have trouble affording a new car – a notion that is at odds with the 15 million + SAAR expected this year, along with strong 2012 sales. The longer loans and increase in sub-prime financing give us a clue as to the way things are going. By approving more people for loans and making their monthly payments more manageable consumers are able to afford a car more easily, while the finance company can collect interest for a longer period of time. TTAC commenters with experiencing in this area, feel free to chime in with your take. Steve Lang has already sounded the alarm in recent columns with respect to the used car market. But I am wondering what the implications are for new car sales, and how the SAAR is being affected by overzealous auto financing.

Derek Kreindler
Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 134 comments
  • Sportyaccordy Sportyaccordy on Mar 07, 2013

    Something else to note, which goes contrary to internet consensus, is cars are simply better built today than they were even 10-20 years ago, warranting higher used car prices. In 2003 I bought a 1993 Honda Accord EX with 91,000 miles for $2200. That's $2700 today. When I bought it, it was solid, but it looked and felt like something out of the 80s. Fast forward to now, a 2003 Accord costs about $5000-9000, but it looks and feels modern. I would feel confident buying one today and driving it through 2023. I think we will be seeing the cars of the last decade on the road for at least another 10 years. The used car market recognizes this and values used cars appropriately.

    • 28-Cars-Later 28-Cars-Later on Mar 07, 2013

      I'd be willing to bet your '93 will be on the road longer than the '03 with proper care, well beyond 2023. Let's have lunch long after, you bring your '93 and I'll bring my '93 Volvo 240. :)

  • El scotto El scotto on Mar 07, 2013

    A fine column filled with common sense and a few dashes of pessimism. Am I the only one who saw a car on a lot and said " Must have that"?

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next