Not so Hot Anymore: Fiat Chrysler Changes Sales Reporting Method, Ends Winning Streak

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

In response to media reports, a lawsuit, and federal investigations into potential sales figure tampering, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is changing the way it records sales.

This means that the automaker’s much-touted 75-month sales streak is dead. FCA admits that under the new method, its year-over-year monthly sales gains ended in September 2013. Ad copy is likely being rewritten as you read this.

FCA is accused of inflating its monthly sales numbers by adding sales at the end of the month, then rolling them back at the beginning of the next. An Illinois dealer group alleges racketeering, with dealer payouts in exchange for false sales reports.

A report published by Automotive News yesterday claimed that the automaker uncovered the practice during a review. Internal sources claim the review turned up between 5,000 and 6,000 uncompleted sales that found their way onto sales tallies. U.S. sales chief Reid Bigland reportedly put a stop to the practice.

In a statement, FCA said the new methodology will be applied to July 2016 sales:

The objective of this new methodology is to provide in FCA US’s judgment the best available estimate of the number of FCA US vehicles sold to end users through the end of a particular month applying a consistent and transparent methodology. It continues to include some level of estimation in respect of, for example, unwound transactions that straddle a month end and fleet deliveries, which may be placed into service at various times after shipment and delivery. FCA US believes, however, that the consistency in application and transparency of this new methodology provides the most appropriate data for the limited uses to which the monthly vehicle unit sales data should be applied.

FCA took the methodology and applied it to data collected between January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2016. When the “unwound” sales were removed, the numbers differed from those it reported at the time.

“Annual sales volumes under the new methodology for each year … are within approximately 0.7% of the annual unit sales volumes previously reported,” the automaker stated.

Responding to claims of sales tampering, FCA claims it used the previous methodology for 30 years, which was similar to that used by other manufacturers. However, a problem exists with its New Vehicle Delivery Report (where retail sales data is collected from dealers) and unwound sales.

“It is admittedly also possible that a dealer may register the sale in an effort to meet a volume objective (without a specific customer supporting the transaction),” FCA stated. “There is, however, no obvious economic incentive for a dealer to do so, since FCA US’s policy is to reverse all incentives due or paid to a dealer that resulted from the unwound retail sales transaction.”

[Image: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 24 comments
  • BuzzDog BuzzDog on Jul 26, 2016

    Sigh, another round of sales shenanigans on the part of an entity that produces Chryslers. Makes me wonder if there's a sales bank of unsold vehicles piling up at the Michigan State Fairgrounds.

  • Wolfman3k5 Wolfman3k5 on Jul 27, 2016

    FCA still builds vehicles of questionable quality, never mind bellow average reliability. To say that many of their products are POS vehicles would be high praise... They are terrible, and the cost cutting is obvious to the point that many FCA built cars are at least as flimsy as Russian cars. Don't believe me? Stop by any Dodge/Chrysler dealer and see for yourself. Better yet, rent a low mileage Chrysler Town&Country, or a 200, or even a Dart and just see for yourself how dreadful their products are. If FCA goes belly up it's because of the craptastic products that they're pedling.

  • SaulTigh Unless we start building nuclear plants and beefing up the grid, this drive to electrification (and not just cars) will be the destruction of modern society. I hope you love rolling blackouts like the US was some third world failed state. You don't support 8 billion people on this planet without abundant and relatively cheap energy.So no, I don't want an electric car, even if it's cheap.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Lou_BCone of many cars I sold when I got commissioned into the army. 1964 Dodge D100 with slant six and 3 on the tree, 1973 Plymouth Duster with slant six, 1974 dodge dart custom with a 318. 1990 Bronco 5.0 which was our snowboard rig for Wa state and Whistler/Blackcomb BC. Now :my trail rigs are a 1985 Toyota FJ60 Land cruiser and 86 Suzuki Samurai.
  • RHD They are going to crash and burn like Country Garden and Evergrande (the Chinese property behemoths) if they don't fix their problems post-haste.
  • Golden2husky The biggest hurdle for us would be the lack of a good charging network for road tripping as we are at the point in our lives that we will be traveling quite a bit. I'd rather pay more for longer range so the cheaper models would probably not make the cut. Improve the charging infrastructure and I'm certainly going to give one a try. This is more important that a lowish entry price IMHO.
  • Add Lightness I have nothing against paying more to get quality (think Toyota vs Chryco) but hate all the silly, non-mandated 'stuff' that automakers load onto cars based on what non-gearhead focus groups tell them they need to have in a car. I blame focus groups for automatic everything and double drivetrains (AWD) that really never gets used 98% of the time. The other 2% of the time, one goes looking for a place to need it to rationanalize the purchase.
Next