By on April 3, 2013

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.

Sub-prime auto loans were up 18 percent in 2012, thanks to a bubble created by the Fed’s quantitative-easing program. As QE has driven up inflation and kept interest rates low, global investors are looking at riskier investment vehicles that offer better potential returns. Bonds backed by subprime car loans are one of those vehicles that everyone from hedge funds to institutional investors have gravitated towards. In 2012, $18.5 billion in subprime backed securities were sold, up from $11.75 billion in 2011.

With subprime lenders expecting 1 in 4 creditors to default on their loans, interest rates can easily top 20 percent, and dealers can easily repossess and sell the same car over and over again while reaping enormous profits. Meanwhile, the process appears to be fueling yet another credit-driven asset bubble similar to the mortgage crisis that torpedoed everything in the previous decade.

Despite a focus on used cars in the Reuters report, many of the players in the used car field, such as Santander, GM Financial and Ally Financial are tied in with the new car side as well. Santander is Chrysler’s financing unit of choice, while GM has GM Financial as a separate subprime financing arm, in addition to Ally. Delinquencies are slowly creeping upwards as well. GM alone claims that 8.5 percent of its auto contracts are delinquent  higher than Ford, Toyota and Honda combined.

News of yet another month with a SAAR of over 15 million is an encouraging sign for the auto industry, but in light of reports such as this one, one can’t help but wonder how much of the market is being driven by subprime lending, and whether this level of auto sales will be sustainable. Adding additional capacity to meet demand that is fueled by a lending bubble could be disastrous if we witness a 2008-style deflation in auto sales thanks to a subprime contraction.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

66 Comments on “Subprime Madness: Shotguns Now Accepted As Car Loan Down Payments...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    He traded a Mossberg for a 2007 Suzuki? Poor sap should demand his shotgun back.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      And the dealer needs to be really careful about that kind of thing.

      Do it more than *very rarely* and you might be “in the business of buying firearms” and suddenly you need a Federal Firearms License to not be a felon.

      By far better to tell him to take it to a gun store or pawn shop and come back with cash.

    • 0 avatar
      carrya1911

      I’d have to see the Mossberg. If it was a 590, I could see valuing it at $500 or so. Maybe $600 if it was dressed up with a Speed Feed stock and a Surefire light. Maybe $700 with a decent red dot optic.

      …but for most Mossberg shotguns a $700 valuation is well beyond the real world value of the weapon.

      …then again over 10 grand for a six year old Suzuki seems like a pretty stupid valuation, too…so it’s not like the Chrysler dealer is bearing the most risk here.

      • 0 avatar
        Domestic Hearse

        I’m gonna look into this crystal ball here and make a prediction…given the customer had to use a shotgun as a downpayment, the dealer is going to have both the shotgun and his Suzuki back in about six months.

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        Are Mossbergs any good? I’m not a real fan of rattle guns so I have no clue.

  • avatar
    lowsodium

    A local honda dealer is offering $147 a month Civic’s. Fine print shows a ridiculous 84 month term @ around 5+%.

    Did they learn nothing from the housing crisis?

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Around here I see $189 leases with $2500 down for what I assume is base Civic. The Acura Cimmaron advertises $260 with no money down 10,000 mile leases for 720+ credit (I called)… from what I can tell its equipped as a Civic EX-L minus leather, heated seats, and nav (std moonroof, alum wheels, all power inc heated mirror) . I’ll take the Cimmaron.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      They probably did but good credit will probably replace “as rare as hen’s teeth” in the near future when referring to extremely rare.

      Simple math – a thimble full of people with good credit cannot support the industry so a super tanker full of people with bad or risky credit are a lot more attractive, the people with money are willing to gamble that the number of people successfully paying the loans will outnumber the people who don’t by a good margin with the added bonus that sub-prime borrowers are saddled with higher rates that the few people with good credit would scoff at.

      Essentially desperation is breeding this behavior.

      I wonder if this sort of thing happened in post industrial Europe as America took off as a manufacturing giant?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        To the bookmobile!

        (to read up on history)

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Who run Bartertown?

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        The credit institutions were nowhere near as “sophisticated” as they are now. So the answer is no.

      • 0 avatar
        blowfish

        The lenders are banking on good economy and jobs everywhere so people with less than stellar C hist will keep paying or moving up to bigger badder wheels.
        We all do need wheels here. Aslong as u can keep the lights on who really wants to face a bill collector?
        Once u have good repayment hist your C H will upgrade anyways.
        I do hope the cheaper nat gas will get Uncle Sam moving in the driver seat again.
        For a while we thought Euro was an alternative to the dollar, now its looking like more the European patient.

    • 0 avatar
      ant

      147*84=12348

      These used civics?

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      The Housing Crisis was about two things – *packaging bad mortgages as if they were secure instruments*, and getting people into mortgages they couldn’t afford in the first place (fueling the former).

      The thing is, lots of people *can* afford $150/mo for a Civic – the term and the interest are what make it possible at all.

      It’d be more like the housing crisis if they were offering Accords for $500 a month to *people who had about no chance of being able to pay*.

      (Plus it’s a lot easier to repo a car than a house.)

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        +1

        The other factor is that, expensive as a car is, it’s typically only a fraction of the value of a house. I thought it funny (not in a humorous way) that the premise was being made that this would lead to another Wall Street collapse.

        • 0 avatar
          wsn

          +1 And that the valuation of a car is stable in that it must compare to a new car, which is rationally controlled by major car makers. There won’t be a self-feeding loop that price would spiral up when more people buy cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Reino

      5% on a used car loan isn’t really out of this world for someone with average credit.

  • avatar
    Secret Hi5

    It’s actually a very smart move. They won’t be shot at when they repossess the car. At least not by that shotgun.

  • avatar
    kjb911

    I turned 18 in sept of 08, shortly thereafter I was handed a bank of america credit card with a 5,000 limit and a capital one card with an 8,000 limit all while working for minimum wage in retail. quickly shredded the damn things and took out a secured credit card with a 200.00 credit limit. I can’t say many of my fellow teenagers were so sensible and quickly racked up insurmountable debt. on my side my identity was stolen and finally started getting it back in line in the summer of 2011 whereI was only allowed to finance my ford with a cosigner. I feel like the system is rigged to see you fall and then make sure you have to travel to hell and back to repair the damage I think it’s time we revamped the way we monitor credit

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Agreed on all points… and if I may say its quite impressive to see a “younger person” make proper financial decisions, well done.

      • 0 avatar
        kjb911

        I don’t know how impressed you could be when my first financial purchase was a 85 Pontiac Fiero with 200,000 miles on it in the summer of 2007 God I Miss That Car. When the ex crashed it I ended up getting a Hyundai Tiburon SE V6 which Citizens Bank decided I should end up paying 18.5% interest on a 6,000 loan for three years. Once again ex wrecked that car and thankfully my gap coverage paid the loan off and I went to my credit union to purchase a Jeep Grand Cherokee for 4,000 with 0.5% financing for two years. My ex then decided it would be fun to mod my jeep with new headers and an bigger exhaust that caused nothing but fun in the repair department. Finally had enough traded it in on Focus which is a 6 Year Loan at 4.2% Through Ford Credit with a co-signer and a hell of a lot cheaper car insurance. The moral of the story is I am in control of my finances, just shouldn’t date lol

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Super high miles Fiero? Son, you keep impressing this Pontiac guy. Too bad it was wrecked there are neat mods you can do to those, including dropping in a 3800 or even a Caddy 4.9.

          Word to the wise on Citizens if you ever get into another 18% jam… their banking and credit card operations don’t ever seem to talk to each other. Get their Mastercard and when they start sending you fake checks in the mail to transfer a balance, max out the card (which incurs a 3% fee). Take the $4,000+ you get and pay off the 18% loan to the banking arm, and haul ass to pay down the balance over a 12 month period (or get another 0% card after 12 months for the remainder and keep doing this till its paid off). This will ding your credit +/- 80 points until you get the CC balance under 33%, but I was able to use this technique to pay off a similar loan in roughly 12 months (incidentally it was a loan on my Pontiac).

          • 0 avatar
            kjb911

            Haha I put almost 200,000 miles on that car the only thing I did was replace clutch twice, the brake master cylinder, routine maintenance, rebuilt the headlight motors,and replaced the cooling tubes after they were crushed by a tire shop lift. I loved that freaking car. Learned to drive of my Dad’s Bonneville SSEI, and as I mentioned on another post we had a G8 GXP that my mother traded after the divorce I wish I had bought that car!

            My CU is great but don’t like to finance anything over 10,000 so went with Ford. I have done something similar in the past with my capital one card when they were offering 0% balance transfer I would just play back and forth with the two cards cards I had (this time a 300.00 limit) and kept paying down, transferring, paying, transferring, repeat which cause my score to significantly improve. Now just waiting for a few negative hits to leave my record from the id crisis and I should be on the track to getting an excellent credit score

    • 0 avatar
      JuniperBug

      I’m a few years older – turned 18 in Nov. ’01 – and I saw the same thing. Credit card companies were lining up to sign me up, despite an income that hovered around $5,000/yr. Meanwhile, my mother, with a net worth into six figures, couldn’t get a card with a $1,000 limit in her own name due to “not having a steady income.”

      I remember a few years ago, a bank called me on my cell phone, congratulating me that I qualified for a $10,000 cash advance, and wanted to know into which account would I like the money deposited. I never made any application for such a thing, and told them I wasn’t interested. The call centre critter seemed shocked at this news, and wanted to know why I didn’t want it. I said I don’t need it; have no purchases I intend to make and have no intention of paying “a low interest” for the privilege. They then came at it from the angle of “you can pay off your debts with this. How much interest are you paying now?” Zero, I said. I have no debt. The conversation quickly ended after that. My only new vehicle was a $15,000 sport bike, with Honda offering a high 8% interest rate (this is because powersports loans aren’t nearly as attractive as car loans, and had nothing to do with my credit rating). I was able to put the whole purchase on my credit line at a lower rate and paid it off inside of 18 months.

      It worries me that I’m an outlier. The concept of not being able to spend more than you have (notwithstanding for responsible investments, ie: education and appreciating assets) is something I was comfortable with by about 7 years old. That an apparent majority of grown adults can’t figure this out truly baffles and worries me. It also angers me that at least some of my tax money is going into bailing these people out when they willingly get themselves in over their heads, buying stuff they can’t afford and don’t need. I lump having multiple children which you can’t afford to support into this category. Contrary to what some people believe, having children isn’t a right that the public should pay for.

      • 0 avatar
        stratocaster

        Unfortunately, you are an outlier. I also had a similar experience with offers of credit.

        Recently, a coworker of mine (who has a paid-off late model luxury sedan) received a call from his dealership. The salesperson indicated that “we can get you into a new car for less than your current monthly payment.” He said “unless that monthly payment is less than zero, I am not interested since my car is paid off.”

        The salesperson simply couldn’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to get a newer car.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Smart move if you think you wouldn’t be able to control yourself. I have credit cards with large limits, but I haven’t carried a month over month balance on any of them ever.

      I found out my wife had been carrying a $1500 balance on a card for a few months, and we immediately paid it. She thought it made her balance sheet look better to have the debt and a larger account balance by not paying it off completely.

      It looked better…to the bank.

      Unlike most people and politicians, we don’t run or family on defecit spending because of the simple practice of remaining in the black every month by not letting debt eat us alive.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Actually, if you don’t use your credit cards and constantly carry zero balances, it does hurt your FICO score. 30% of your score is your payment history – no payments – no history.

        With that said if you charge $2000 on a credit card and pay it off 24 hours later, it still shows on your credit report for that month you carried a $2000 balance.

        The best FICO score is generally achieved with a 10% to 20% credit utilization – so speculated by scoring experts. The reality is all of it is secret. The belief being, you’re showing your ability to handle revolving credit by utilizing, but only a small portion of it, and managing your payments (don’t shoot the messenger, I’m telling you how the game is played)

        Now your VantageScore, created in 2006, does look better if you’re not utilizing your credit and not carrying a balance. That is one of the benefits of the VantageScore system. However, it appears that almost no one is actually using it for credit decisions.

        This is not a post encouraging people to go carry balances – but happy wife – happy life – and your wife is actually correct that if you’re carrying a reasonable balance with low credit utilization it does, surprise, boost your score.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I’m pretty sure credit scores are actually determined by Manatees pulling idea balls into a tank, this seems to make the most sense.

        • 0 avatar
          wsn

          Credit score isn’t that important, as long as it’s not too crappy. When I deal with banks, equity is everything. If I want to borrow $500k, having a $300k down payment is much better than having a credit score of 800.

  • avatar
    ant

    These kind of stories really tick me off.

    I consider it to be immoral to charge the poorest among us double, triple, or in the case of check into cash joints, THOUSANDS of times the amount of interest that people with money pay to borrow money.

    Looking back at the history since money was invented, this story plays out time after time, and NEVER ends well.

    Interest should NEVER exceed the total amount borrowed as a rule of thumb.

    Is that really too much to ask?

    • 0 avatar
      rwb

      You don’t need to be rich to pay your bills, and if you fail to do so, they need to know they won’t lose money when you *do* pay.

      I absolutely agree with your last statement, and the easiest solution is to live cheap and not ruin your credit. Medical expenses are the elephant in the room, but many people find themselves in the poorhouse just because they bought nicer things than they could afford, and they deserve zero sympathy.

    • 0 avatar
      bikegoesbaa

      What if it can be demonstrated that the poorest among us are 2 or 3 or more times as likely to default on a loan than people with money and solid credit ratings.

      Loaning money to anybody carries an element of risk. Loaning money to poor people and/or people with poor credit is much riskier than loaning to the average person. This can be proven and quantified.

      Why is it not reasonable to charge higher interest rates on loans that have a statistically higher probability of default?

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “I consider it to be immoral to charge the poorest among us double, triple, or in the case of check into cash joints, THOUSANDS of times the amount of interest that people with money pay to borrow money.”

      I don’t like it either, but when 25% of the people you’re lending to end up defaulting, you have to charge higher rates so you don’t lose your ass. Higher risk = higher rate.

      The simple solution would simply be only lend to customers with “good” credit, but there is little to no incentive to have good credit anymore when virtually anyone can qualify, and when they default, there is little consequence.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I know squat about the inner workings of the payday loan industry, but it wouldn’t surprise me sky high interest is a nice legal way to grant everyone equal opportunity while allowing the company to better protect itself.

        The reason I say this is when I was a kid in the late 80s I recall my father telling a story about a friend who operated a legitimate payday loan type operation. Evidently he was investigated by some gov’t agency (someone filed a complaint I suppose) and they accused him of violating PA state law which guaranteed EEO access to all banking operations. He argued as a creditor and business owner he had a right to refuse loans to anyone based on job history, education level, criminal background etc and that the only color he personally was interested in was green and getting his back plus interest. So this agency threatened to take him to court, lawyers got involved, but as it turned out this gentlemen had an interesting card up his sleeve. He provided business records showing he did occasional business (going back two decades) with a little old grandmother of minority status who lived nearby, and she was welcome anytime to borrow up to $5,000 due to an excellent payment history with his business. I imagine the libtard jackboots who threatened him heard a “woomp woomp” after seeing this and according to my father at that time the gentleman was told the investigation was closed.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      “Interest should NEVER exceed the total amount borrowed as a rule of thumb.

      Is that really too much to ask?”

      Yes, if the cost and risk of providing the loan outweigh the size of the loan.

      If you make that a law, you’ll simply 1) prevent the poor and *bad credit risk* population from having any access to legal loans and 2) send them to black-market loan sharks.

      (If you think you can make loans like that and not go bankrupt, do so!

      Start a company doing it, and you’ll take the entire market by providing a superior service – why would anyone involved take out a loan from anyone else?

      That this is not already being done by someone hungry to take profits from the “wicked” check cashing places should be your first clue as to how the risks and costs *actually work out*.)

    • 0 avatar
      corntrollio

      “Interest should NEVER exceed the total amount borrowed as a rule of thumb.

      Is that really too much to ask?”

      Well, you’re not asking enough questions. There are people voluntarily taking these loans — maybe you should ask some of them why they’re signing on the dotted line?

      There’s nothing immoral about getting enough interest to make a loan business profitable, although if your interest rate passes certain thresholds, it could be usury and violate law.

      The reality is that a lot of poor people are unbankable and couldn’t get traditional loans. Some argue that if you eliminate payday loans and other high risk lending, you will eliminate the possibility of financing anything for these people except by truly immoral loan sharks. Others argue that it’s fine that they have to pay cash for everything.

      I’m not sure what the right answer is, but if we allow this sort of lending, we need to have it have proper interest rates that compensate for the risk of default.

    • 0 avatar
      corntrollio

      “Interest should NEVER exceed the total amount borrowed as a rule of thumb.

      Is that really too much to ask?”

      By the way, it’s also worth pointing out that the interest on a $100K house loan at 7% (which used to be a normal mortgage interest rate) is almost $140K over a 30-year loan term. Do you think that should be illegal?

  • avatar
    Jellodyne

    Sounds like a sound business decision. That’s one less shotgun they need to worry about when they attempt to repo it.

    Edit – Secret Hi5 beat me to it. Must read all comments before posting.

  • avatar
    stratocaster

    “It’s one hit after another,” he said recently at a local mall restaurant over a dinner of bourbon-glazed chicken – some of it packed up for later. “Three days ago, I lost my iPhone. Had to buy another.”

    Court records show Nelson has monthly income of $1,592.97, while monthly expenses total $1,563.00, leaving about $29 in his wallet.

    I guess it’s impolite to ask why someone has to have an iPhone when they only have $29/month left over after expenses.

    • 0 avatar
      corntrollio

      I see this crap all the time in these articles — journalists are lazy and don’t want to do real work.

      For example, there was an article where a woman was defaulting on her mortgage and talking about how she needed a bailout, but the article showed her buckling her kid into an expensive Italian car-seat in an expensive leather seated late model SUV. The article was a joke.

      Another one had a woman who had bought a condo for $150-175K, refi-ed it to higher than $600K, and spent the money on vacations, cars, and “starting a business” (which failed very quickly). Why should we bail her out because she spent $450K on everything except her house? If I took out a $450K consumer loan and pissed it away, you wouldn’t have any sympathy for me, and we shouldn’t have any sympathy for these cash-out refi people either.

  • avatar
    brettc

    I thought all the crazy/excessive sub-prime garbage was over with, but apparently not. So that’s not great news… I hope that moron enjoys his 2007 Suzuki with the crazy interest rate. He probably could have kept his shotgun if he got a loan from Western Sky. ;)

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      When banks & financial entities are literally too big to jail (see Frontline’s episode on Lanny Breuer’s admission of this on behalf of the Eric Placeholder DOJ), and banks and financial entities having any piece of subprime loan markets (whether home, auto or student loans) will and forever be bailed out with taxpayer dollars once the losses begin to avalanche, the only lesson to be learned is that it’s a can’t lose, incredibly profitable market segment to exploit.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “He probably could have kept his shotgun if he got a loan from Western Sky. ;)”

      I thought I read in the fine print the interest rate is something like 500% percent.

      Correction, it seems to hover between 116% and 194%.

      http://www.oes DOT org/page2/31795~THE_most_OUTRAGEOUS_high-interest_SCAM_Westernsky_Financial.html

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        That woman in those ads isn’t even a Native American – turns out she is British!

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Wow. If you can’t trust the Native American mafia to use Native Americans on TV, who *can* you trust?

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            BWHAHAHAHA!

            Sorry, not British – her name is Amanda Howell. She grew up in the middle class squalor of Fairfield, Connecticut.

            http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3370175/bio

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Well APaGttH, since you implied something against them, I suggest avoiding the Native American casinos and if anyone offers you a peace pipe think twice.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    “As QE has driven up inflation and kept interest rates low, global investors are looking at riskier investment vehicles that offer better potential returns.”

    Watch out Derek, the Keynesians are coming!

  • avatar
    corntrollio

    Subprime actually gets a bad rap in some ways because of how the media characterized it. “Subprime” in its traditional meaning when it means lower credit rating than prime but with proper underwriting standards is actually fine and doesn’t cause problems. “Subprime” when it means no underwriting standards is the problem. The former has a predictable default rate, whereas the latter may not. The latter should really be called something else, but the media seized on the name “subprime” and that’s what people use for both categories now.

    The problem during the recent financial crisis is that lots of poorly underwritten loans were extended.

    My question here is whether these “subprime” loans are still properly underwritten or whether they are taking some liberties. If they are properly underwritten, no big deal.

    Academic discussion:
    prime means 1) buyer has capacity to pay; 2) buyer has good collateral; and 3) buyer has very good credit
    subprime means 1) buyer has capacity to pay; 2) buyer has good collateral; and 3) buyer has slightly less good credit

    You need all 3 factors to have predictable default rates, generally, and are easy to securitize. Obviously people with less good credit default in higher rates, but that’s fine because the interest rate is higher.

    The types of loans that were given during the financial crisis often did not evaluate factors #1 and #2 and only evaluated #3. The assumption was that good credit score = good credit risk, and that assumption turned out to be wrong because people treat their mortgages differently than other forms of credit. The loans weren’t properly underwritten, so the default rate was not predictable, and banks stupidly assumed that certain portfolios were AAA because the ratings agencies said so.

  • avatar
    JRoth

    As QE has driven up inflation…

    Huh?
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CPIAUCSL/

    Here, try this:

    As Saturn has driven Honda and Toyota out of the small car market…

    It’s exactly as true as your statement!

  • avatar
    CapVandal

    Walk in, drive out has been around forever.

    Check out this obit for Johnny — http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-04-23/news/9904230159_1_wilbanks-johnny-john-h

    The walking man’s friend.

    The old wall street cliche — Price is what you pay, value is what you get.

    If you have a job and no transportation — then the value of a car that runs is quite high.

    Just my opinion, but no ginned up structured finance product will be sold again in our lifetime.

    The people buying this stuff is the so called ‘smart money’ — hedge funds and the like. They aren’t now and never have been too big to fail.

    • 0 avatar
      corntrollio

      “Just my opinion, but no ginned up structured finance product will be sold again in our lifetime. ”

      They already are being sold, all the time.

      There is nothing wrong with the concept of structured finance. Just like all things, there is a problem of doing it badly.

      • 0 avatar
        CapVandal

        Agree.

        By ‘ginned up’ — I was referring to the worst stuff that was sold prior to 2008. CDOs^2 to the AAA rated ‘super seniors’, etc.

        • 0 avatar
          corntrollio

          That makes sense. It wasn’t so much the structure that was the issue as the underlying assets within the various instruments. If you have poorly underwritten loans, your baseline assumptions are worthless. If your baseline assumptions are worthless, your structured product has a much higher chance to fail, especially when markets are stretched.

          That’s why I was trying to be very clear above for those who are interested in such things — there is nothing wrong with traditional subprime lending, and it’s a very sound business model, but the bizarre lending practices that all get summed up with the term “subprime” in newspaper articles are the ones that are often problematic because they tended to have poor underwriting standards.

  • avatar
    I_Like_Pie

    I would like to know what Mossberg shotgun is worh $700.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      One that lets the dealer still make money on the deal.

    • 0 avatar
      jpolicke

      I hope he’s better at buying cars than he is at buying guns. According to Mossberg’s website the most expensive 590 is $845 MSRP. And pumps aren’t subject to the current ban-related buying frenzy, and can still be had for under list. I just picked up a bolt action rifle for $160 under sticker.

      If he had traded in a Bushmaster, his payments would have been cut in half.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States