What's the point of Ford loosening financing requirements?
The article states their reasons pretty clearly, and indicates that some people won't qualify under the new requirements that would have previously, they're not courting people with bad credit, they're just looking beyond credit score at other factors. They aren't opening floodgates for anyone with a pulse to get a car loan, just shifting things a bit to cast a slightly wider net. This is not new in the world of secured debt, the FHA has methodology for establishing a non-traditional credit report based on things like rental history, utility payments, auto-insurance payments, a person can't be declined an FHA loan for lack for lack of traditional credit history. I look beyond credit score as a landlord, a tenant with poor credit but a stellar rental history is more appealing than someone with great credit but a bad rental history. Vehicles and housing are very important to people, so they are likely to prioritize them above credit card payments or hospital bills. Time will tell, but it seems like a solid move in my view, they can refine their model over time and likely find a solid customer base among those who wouldn't qualify on credit score alone. Why then did Ford (and the auto industry in general) suddenly decide to court such buyers?  Clearly when they felt they had a viable solution to the financing and could open up the market of buyers they were previously ignoring. If more sales are desired, surely the same can be accomplished with simply lowering prices? Millions of people have bad credit.  Apparently Ford thinks adding millions of people to the pool of potential buyers is more effective to boosting sales than discounting product for the pool of existing potential buyers. "A repossessed automobile will have lost some value from sale price, but it's not valueless.  They market ""title loans"" to people without good credit on this basis so its a reasonably well understood risk pool."
"as a used dealer in subprime sales, finance has to be higher than cash because every finance deal has a lender that takes a percentage ""discount"" on every deal financed. if you notice a dealer is hesitant to give a price before knowing if cash or finance, because every bit of a cash deal's profit will be taken by a finance company in order to finance the deal and then there's no deal. you might be approved but if you're not willing to pay more for a finance deal, the deal isn't happening if I have $5000 in a car, you want to buy it for $6000 and the finance lender wants to take $1200 as a ""buy-fee"" leaving me $4800 in the end." "That's because Ford - like many other managers of large defined benefit plans - decided that, instead of defeasing its obligations through an [effective immunization program](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunization_%28finance%29), they would just put less money into equities and pray for the equity risk premium to carry the day for them.  Lo and behold, it didn't work for a lot of them.  In the meantime, their liabilities began to far outstrip the assets meant to offset them to the point where even a one-for-one asset-liability match wouldn't help.  So now guess what?  They tell you ""shit, we fucked this up, so here's your payout - good luck.""  As if the worker is going to have a clue as to how to effectively manage his money so as to minimize longevity and savings risk.  Let me make something clear:  It is not beyond the means of modern finance to effectively implement and administer a defined benefit program.  It involves ""doing the right thing"" by employees, which in some cases involves not taking risks with equity and instead simply ensuring that assets meant to offset liabilities are appropriate in both timing and magnitude." I'm a bond trader and we stayed away from this Tesla deal. Tesla is cash flow negative which is a terrible sign for a bond investor and is still relatively young and changing constantly. When assessing fixed income investments you want steady predictable cash flows and positive credit metrics. Tesla has none of that despite the run up in the stock. Even after taking all of these things into consideration the yields aren't even very high reflecting a compression in the amount of spread to treasuries investors are asking for taking on the risk in this kind of name. It speaks to an overvalued high yield market in general.  Ford on the other hand is a mature business with much more favorable credit metrics (debt interest coverage, consistent management, a credit history of borrowing and repaying their loans, etc.). All of these things are reflected in the yield that investors require when buying bonds. However, recently Ford has been making moves to start producing some of their cars in Mexico...and they have been trying to make a case to Trump to not increase the import tariff to 35% on vehicles imported from Mexico because it would eat up all their profits. It is funny how the tables have turned. "It's possible the $16,000 was for more than the car.  Perhaps extras were added on at purchase time; or perhaps they were folded into the retail price of the car.  Here's an example.  2014: I'm ready to buy. My 3-year-old trade-in originally cost $15,000, and I financed it for 6 years and still owe $6500.  It has lots of miles and excess wear, so fair blue-book is $4500. I'm ""upside down"" by $2000, meaning I'd have to pay $2000 cash just to walk away from the car.  I'll never have that, because I'm not a saver.  So how can we get you in a new car today?  Dealer says ""If you pay the full $15,000 retail price plus $1000 of worthless dealer add-ons like wax undercoat (instead of the common discounted $14,000 price), I'll eat your $2000 loss on the trade.""  All gets folded into my new car financing.  It's magic! (actually it's called rollover.)  2017: I'm getting itchy to trade up, and doggone it, I'm upside down on this car.  Why does this keep happening to me?  In this case, it's rollover and other add-ons, combined with too-long car loans (6 year), combined with excessive mileage and wear on the vehicle." "So basically, the bar has been lowered due to the fact that so many people don't qualify for credit. The medical debt issue is one thing, but the fact that only 28% of home purchases these days are first time home buyers instead of 40% says more about our unaffordable higher educational system, labor market and people's ability to earn decent income than it does about credit being ""too tight"".  If anything this is a loosening of standards since the banks have no alternative in order to drum up new sales. They're 12% off the mark and they're finding ways to close the gap. Wages probably won't get better, so they're better off accepting lower quality customers and rolling the dice on their ability to pay off debts over the life of the loans they issue.  Sounding familiar?" I've been told by staff in my local car hire agency that they get such big discounts that they actually make money selling the cars, so they replace all their cars every six months (in the UK the number plate indicates when the car was registered, in six month periods). This suits the manufacturers, because it means they can offer a lower-cost product to price sensitive customers, while charging more to people who want something brand new. For example, you could buy a brand new Fiesta for £14,000 or a 6 month old version of the same car with a few thousand miles on the clock for £12,000. This means if you only have £12,000 then you can afford to buy a nearly new Fiesta, but if you can afford a bit more then Ford will happily take that off you for a brand new Fiesta. Ford sell an extra car, and if the car hire company only paid £11,000 then they make some profit too. The dealership is getting a kickback for having you use a particular bank to finance through. The bank assumes you will take the full term of the loan to pay back, and will hopefully be a repeat customer. This tactic isn't new, and although it maybe doesn't make sense to you, the consumer, in the long run it benefits the bank and the dealership. (They wouldn't do it otherwise. These guys have a lot of smart people running #s for them). Be sure to read the specifics of the loan contract. There may be a penalty for paying it off early. Most customers won't be able to pay that much in cash, so the bank makes a deal with the dealership to send clients their way. They will lose money on a small percentage of clients, but make more off of the rest of the clients. If there's no penalty for paying it off early, you may just want to take the financing offer and pay it off ASAP. If you truly can only finance $2500 for 6 mos, and get the full discount, then that might work as well. The bank had to set a minimum for the dealership in order to qualify as a loan that earns the discount. Sounds like that's it. Bonus Info: Here's a screenshot of Kelley Blue Book for that car. Car dealers get me riled up, always have, always will, so I like doing this kind of research for people to make sure they get the right price. Fair price range is $27,578 - $28,551. First time car buyers are a dealers dream come true. Don't let them beat you down!  And here's more specific data about the Florida area relating to recent purchases: "This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and   why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific   discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often   thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and   document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only   for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount   offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent   college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser”   payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A   variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually   thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take   them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s   Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a   financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a ""cost of doing business"" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with ""caveat emptor"" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face).  But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble." In June 2009 Tesla was approved to receive US$465 million in interest-bearing loans from the United States Department of Energy. The funding, part of the US$8 billion Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, supports engineering and production of the Model S sedan, as well as the development of commercial powertrain technology.  No secret, It's on their wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors  Im pretty sure the Gigafactory will be getting some sweet tax breaks and incentives too. Within some limitations, the dealer is allowed to approve or deny lending to anyone that it chooses.  Those constraints are the basics that you'd expect for any regulation in the US:  Race Religion Nationality Sex Marital Status Age  Source of income You can read more about them in this leaflet from the FDIC's Fair Lending Laws office. (Link is a pdf download.) As far as what to do in your mother's case, it sounds like it may be some slightly shady sales tactics, but it isn't entirely illegal... It's just annoying.  One thing you could do to try to head off some of the crazy bait-and-switch sales tactics is to communicate with a handful of dealerships in your area about the specifics of your mother's profile as a purchaser. It's much harder to give someone the run-around if you have already agreed to something in principle by email. I never understood why people lease rather than buy or finance.  I'm financing a new civic 09 @ 0.9%.  At the end of the 5 year terms I will have paid less than $800 in interest. No. As long as you live in the house for 3 years, it's yours to keep. Financing has nothing to do with that. The credits go to the buyers.  TSLA's profit margin does not take into account any emissions credits.  They did receive a nice big loan, and then they paid it back years early + interest.  Currently their sales per square foot is twice of apple, and can increase demand at will.  The federal tax credit to buyers being phased out will most likely be offset by reductions in battery cost when the time comes anyway.  Do you also feel that the Model 3 will not happen?   That car is the reason for the battery factory 'side show'. I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.