GMAC "Tightens" Lending Policy; Domestics' Car Loan Cash Drying-Up

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Regular readers of this site will know that America’s domestic automakers and their captive finance units are not on speaking terms with the truth. The estrangement continues with news that GMAC (a GM – Chrysler co-production) is tightening-up its lending practices. GMAC spins the announcement as some kind of reflection on their sense of fiduciary responsibility: “GMAC Financial Services today implemented a more conservative purchase policy for consumer auto financing in the U.S. as a result of the lack of stability in the global capital and credit markets. The changes include limiting purchases to contracts with a credit score of 700 or above. Additionally, the company will restrict contracts with higher advance rates and longer terms.” As Automotive News [sub] points out, this is hardly an onerous “limitation.” “For the first seven months of 2008, prime customers with scores exceeding 700 represented 74.3 percent of the U.S. auto loan market.” But the real story is the story behind the story.

The FICO score story neglects to mention two key facts. First, the “lack of stability… in the markets” is the usual smoke and mirrors. Translation: the banks to which GMAC sells whole loans don’t want high risk consumer paper. If any. Second, somone forgot to tell you that GMAC is no longer writing loans over invoice. In other words, backwards customers– and that’s just about everyone– can’t roll the loss on their last vehicle into the cost of the new one. Meanwhile, GMAC’s “platinum bonus”– thousands of dollars paid to dealers who booked a large number of GMAC loans– is dead. Connect the dots. Now that GMAC’s ability to lease is gone, killed by falling residuals, the lender is, in effect, closing down its auto loan biz. This at the exact moment that Toyota is unleashing its zero percent sale. The dominoes they are a rockin’.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 10 comments
  • Landcrusher Landcrusher on Oct 14, 2008

    Canuck, That's not bolshevism, it's conservative banking. Under Bolshevism party members get 0% interest, and othere don't. Also, party members get a car, while others wait in line. But anyway, the reason bundling is a bad idea is the way they do it. They strip a lot of information out, and (at least in mortgage bundles) they even make it impossible to strip anything out of the bundle. This is stupid. Why? Because if you can't sell an individual loan out of the bundle, then each loan becomes worthless. The whole loses the value of the sum of it's parts. I suspect that future bundling will be easier to unwind because that kind of bundle will retain a higher value. The other kind are going to be junk until everyone forgets this lesson.

  • Ronin Ronin on Oct 14, 2008

    I don't see how banks and 'acceptance corporations' could stop lending. Lending is how they make their money. What I can see is returning to loan approval standards of way way long ago- way back to those of the 90s and 80s.

  • 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