• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM Ramps Up Risky Subprime Auto Loans

Born Free

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Sonny and Nice
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Did we not just go through this with the housing bubble, now GM is taking a failed approach to raise sales. Here we go again with another GM failure, but please let them fail. No more bailout, bankruptcy, broke, out of business. Period.


President Obama has touted General Motors (GM) as a successful example of his administration's policies. Yet GM's recovery is built, at least in part, on the increasing use of subprime loans.

The Obama administration in 2009 bailed out GM to the tune of $50 billion as it went into a managed bankruptcy.

Near the end of 2010, GM acquired a new captive lending arm, subprime specialist AmeriCredit. Renamed GM Financial, it has played a significant role in GM's growth .

The automaker is relying increasingly on subprime loans, 10-Q financial reports shows.

Potential borrowers of car loans are rated on FICO scores that range from 300 to 850. Anything under 660 is generally deemed subprime.

GM Ramps Up Risky Subprime Auto Loans To Drive Sales; Taxpayers Still Own 26.5% - Investors.com
 
brings back an old memory, from the mid 60's.....a fellow Navy Reserve sailor, an E2 like me at the time, says he had enough money saved for a down payment on a corvette. I asked him how he was going to make the payments. He said he wasn't planning on making the payments, and he had plenty of places to hide the car in case the Repo truck came around....
 
Did we not just go through this with the housing bubble, now GM is taking a failed approach to raise sales. Here we go again with another GM failure, but please let them fail. No more bailout, bankruptcy, broke, out of business. Period.


President Obama has touted General Motors (GM) as a successful example of his administration's policies. Yet GM's recovery is built, at least in part, on the increasing use of subprime loans.

The Obama administration in 2009 bailed out GM to the tune of $50 billion as it went into a managed bankruptcy.

Near the end of 2010, GM acquired a new captive lending arm, subprime specialist AmeriCredit. Renamed GM Financial, it has played a significant role in GM's growth .

The automaker is relying increasingly on subprime loans, 10-Q financial reports shows.

Potential borrowers of car loans are rated on FICO scores that range from 300 to 850. Anything under 660 is generally deemed subprime.

GM Ramps Up Risky Subprime Auto Loans To Drive Sales; Taxpayers Still Own 26.5% - Investors.com

I have mixed feelings about this. A score of 600, as an example, isn't terrible/awful/never-gunna-pay-ya-back-bad. So I wonder how low they go. I understand that some lenders install kill switches in their cars and if a payment's a certain amount late late, they will activate the switch by satellite and the car's a no-go.

People need cars. Once people get too far into a hole, they can never climb out. While I have no sympathy for serial defaulters, it would seem that people need second chances at least as much as the banks loaning to them.

So, in short, I think there's more to the story.
 
There is nothing inherently wrong with subprime loans. Someone may be a higher risk and therefore you charge them a higher rate. This isn't like the realestate market where the value of new cars is suddenly going to fall through the floor.
 
I have mixed feelings about this. A score of 600, as an example, isn't terrible/awful/never-gunna-pay-ya-back-bad. So I wonder how low they go. I understand that some lenders install kill switches in their cars and if a payment's a certain amount late late, they will activate the switch by satellite and the car's a no-go.

People need cars. Once people get too far into a hole, they can never climb out. While I have no sympathy for serial defaulters, it would seem that people need second chances at least as much as the banks loaning to them.

So, in short, I think there's more to the story.

Not to mention the fact that this last bubble made a lot of people go upside down on their mortages combined with boatloads of unemployment creating lots walkouts and bankruptcies.
 
Did we not just go through this with the housing bubble, now GM is taking a failed approach to raise sales. Here we go again with another GM failure, but please let them fail. No more bailout, bankruptcy, broke, out of business. Period.
Pretty sure we just went through bailing them out...
 
There is nothing inherently wrong with subprime loans. Someone may be a higher risk and therefore you charge them a higher rate. This isn't like the realestate market where the value of new cars is suddenly going to fall through the floor.

I'm not arguing with you, as I believe you are 100% correct...but the practice of charging people who are less able to pay you back MORE has always confused me.
 
There is nothing inherently wrong with subprime loans. Someone may be a higher risk and therefore you charge them a higher rate. This isn't like the realestate market where the value of new cars is suddenly going to fall through the floor.

Nothing inherently wrong with sub-prime loans you say. Then I guess the housing collapse had nothing to do with sub-prime loans, or the ability to even pay the loan back, causing banks all over the nation to fail. Interesting how you try your spin to make the Ugly Duck look beautiful.
 
Nothing inherently wrong with sub-prime loans you say. Then I guess the housing collapse had nothing to do with sub-prime loans, or the ability to even pay the loan back, causing banks all over the nation to fail. Interesting how you try your spin to make the Ugly Duck look beautiful.
Let's stop pretending that auto and home loans are in any way comparable.
 
I have mixed feelings about this. A score of 600, as an example, isn't terrible/awful/never-gunna-pay-ya-back-bad. So I wonder how low they go. I understand that some lenders install kill switches in their cars and if a payment's a certain amount late late, they will activate the switch by satellite and the car's a no-go.

People need cars. Once people get too far into a hole, they can never climb out. While I have no sympathy for serial defaulters, it would seem that people need second chances at least as much as the banks loaning to them.

So, in short, I think there's more to the story.

People need cars, why? Do we not have public transportation? Sub-prime loans, put the housing market upside down. Now GM after going broke once, wants to do it again by giving away cars that won't be paid. And worse yet it's the tax payer who ends up paying for it in the end as we already did once. Maybe your OK with that but I'm not.
 
Nothing inherently wrong with sub-prime loans you say. Then I guess the housing collapse had nothing to do with sub-prime loans, or the ability to even pay the loan back, causing banks all over the nation to fail. Interesting how you try your spin to make the Ugly Duck look beautiful.

The collapse of the real estate market is far more complicated than, "Hey! They were making subprime loans!"


People need cars, why? Do we not have public transportation? Sub-prime loans, put the housing market upside down. Now GM after going broke once, wants to do it again by giving away cars that won't be paid. And worse yet it's the tax payer who ends up paying for it in the end as we already did once. Maybe your OK with that but I'm not.

Do you have any idea how difficult life is without an automobile? Mom goes to work in one direction; dad in another; kids need to be dropped off at the sitter; groceries need to be toted home; doctor appointments; et al. Public transportation (even if it is available, is a poor substitute for one's own car. You seem to think everyone has a bus stop within walking distance of their home. They don't.

We have no evidence that GM is "giving away cars that won't be paid." Subprime lending, if proper underwriting standards are adhered to, is a very profitable business.
 
Last edited:
Let's stop pretending that auto and home loans are in any way comparable.

Your having a hard time with econ 101, when you make a loan to a sub-primer the likelihood of being paid back is sub-par. I don't care what your borrowing money for, a house, or a car, or anything else.
 
Your having a hard time with econ 101, when you make a loan to a sub-primer the likelihood of being paid back is sub-par. I don't care what your borrowing money for, a house, or a car, or anything else.

But the reward for the salesman/dealrship and the home/car/appliance producer is immediate. The gov't has a vested interest now in "helping" keep this from having any negative consequences as WE THE SHEEPLE are 26% owners of GM, so they (GM) have little REAL risk of losing anything. Yes they can!
 
People need cars, why?

Do we not have public transportation?

Sub-prime loans, put the housing market upside down.

Now GM after going broke once, wants to do it again by giving away cars that won't be paid. And worse yet it's the tax payer who ends up paying for it in the end as we already did once. Maybe your OK with that but I'm not.
An answer to a question of such complexity may not be found in our lifetimes.

Yes, but hardly in large enough capacity to fulfill the needs of the population at large.

The housing market and the auto market don't operate on the same terms, if a handful of your neighborhood defaults on their mortgages, or fails to properly maintain their place of residence, the loss of value spreads like wildfire, as demonstrated a scant few years ago. No such phenomenon will result from an isolated increase in sub prime auto loans, this is simply apocalyptic crowing aimed at an entity coincidentally linked to the current President.

Yes, I'm positive that GM is simply itching to undergo another bankruptcy, and further damage their reputation. Your also ignoring the fact that loosening credit standards is a mechanism used to broaden their consumer base to avoid such an occurrence, hardly a unusual practice in the auto industry. If an individual does indeed default on a vehicle, it can also be repossessed and sold for profit in order to recoup a chunk of the aforementioned loss, something depicted in your own source towards the tail end of the article.
 
The collapse of the real estate market is far more complicated than, "Hey! They were making subprime loans!"




Do you have any idea how difficult life is without an automobile? Mom goes to work in one direction; dad in another; kids need to be dropped off at the sitter; groceries need to be toted home; doctor appointments; et al. Public transportation (even if it is available, is a poor substitute for one's own car. You seem to think everyone has a bus stop within walking distance of their home. They don't.

We have no evidence that GM is "giving away cars that won't be paid." Subprime lending, if proper underwriting standards are adhered to, is a very profitable business.

The idea that someone needs a car is not the responsibility of GM, or the tax payer.

"IF" is a big word, proper underwriting standards sure collapsed the housing market.

The collapse of the real estate market is NOT far more complicated than giving out sub-prime loans. No job, no credit, no money and you got a housing loan, that no one could pay back. Seems pretty simple to me. I can elaborate in more detail, but that is the foundation of the collapse.
 
An answer to a question of such complexity may not be found in our lifetimes.

Yes, but hardly in large enough capacity to fulfill the needs of the population at large.

The housing market and the auto market don't operate on the same terms, if a handful of your neighborhood defaults on their mortgages, or fails to properly maintain their place of residence, the loss of value spreads like wildfire, as demonstrated a scant few years ago. No such phenomenon will result from an isolated increase in sub prime auto loans, this is simply apocalyptic crowing aimed at an entity coincidentally linked to the current President.

Yes, I'm positive that GM is simply itching to undergo another bankruptcy, and further damage their reputation. Your also ignoring the fact that loosening credit standards is a mechanism used to broaden their consumer base to avoid such an occurrence, hardly a unusual practice in the auto industry. If an individual does indeed default on a vehicle, it can also be repossessed and sold for profit in order to recoup a chunk of the aforementioned loss, something depicted in your own source towards the tail end of the article.

All what you said has nothing to do with anything. Sub-prime loans are high risk loans, thus the name "sup-prime". And the likelihood of being paid back is sub-par. GM is making sub-prime loans to boost sales. If making sub-prime loans was so profitable they would have been doing that on day one.
 
The collapse of the real estate market is NOT far more complicated than giving out sub-prime loans. No job, no credit, no money and you got a housing loan, that no one could pay back. Seems pretty simple to me. I can elaborate in more detail, but that is the foundation of the collapse.

There have always been subprime loans. They're not going away any time soon -- most especially for cars. It is only when mortgage fraud, lack of regulation, rating agency lies, consumer and lender greed entered the picture that home mortgage subprime loans became the easy scapegoat for the real estate collapse. Mortgage fraud was a primary factor in the real estate crisis. Lack of lender regulation was another.

There is no earthly reason to believe that GM's financial arm (car loans) is structured anywhere near the same way as home loans. In fact, it is completely different. And that's the subject of this thread. GM did not require a bailout because of its automotive subprime lending business. In fact, GMAC was specifically loaned $6 billion so they could continue financing cars -- and subprime has always been a part of that business model.
 
All what you said has nothing to do with anything.

Sub-prime loans are high risk loans, thus the name "sup-prime". And the likelihood of being paid back is sub-par. GM is making sub-prime loans to boost sales.

If making sub-prime loans was so profitable they would have been doing that on day one.
Yikes, a complete non response? I would've settled for a personal insult or even a off topic tangent sourced from an opinion piece.

I think you might just be on to something here, especially when coupled with a quote from your own article:
"The subprime market grew as a result of the recession," said GM spokesman Jim Cain. "Our experience, however, is that with proper management they are very good risks."
Simply put, credit standards are typically loosened to broaden said companies consumer base during prolonged periods of lackluster consumer activity, hardly a foreign or amoral concept by any standards.

This statement has prodded me to use a quote of yours that you happened to invoke erroneously a handful of posts back.

Your having a hard time with econ 101
 
Last edited:
Let's stop pretending that auto and home loans are in any way comparable.

^^ This.

Maggie's already pointed out that kill switches and repo men can solve an delinquent car payment problem really fast. It's not like all the red tape that has to be gone through for a foreclosure. Foreclosures can take months and months, up to years. Cars can be repossessed normally after 30 to 60 days late.

As someone who went through an awful divorce, and had to spend years rebuilding credit, I know how important it is to be given a chance. I started out going to "buy here, pay here" lots, then moved up to sub-prime finance company loans, and now my credit is good enough that I can get a loan just about anywhere. Had it not been for those subprime loans, though, I wouldn't have been able to.
 
^^ This.

Maggie's already pointed out that kill switches and repo men can solve an delinquent car payment problem really fast. It's not like all the red tape that has to be gone through for a foreclosure. Foreclosures can take months and months, up to years. Cars can be repossessed normally after 30 to 60 days late.

As someone who went through an awful divorce, and had to spend years rebuilding credit, I know how important it is to be given a chance. I started out going to "buy here, pay here" lots, then moved up to sub-prime finance company loans, and now my credit is good enough that I can get a loan just about anywhere. Had it not been for those subprime loans, though, I wouldn't have been able to.

Good for you, Superfly!!!!!!
_________________________

I'm a Realtor and was asked by my church to interview and select a tenant for the parsonage, as the new pastor had his own home. I ended up selecting a husband/wife who'd just declared bankruptcy the year before. Know why? He was honest. He told me he'd left a great job here in Chicago to pursue what he thought was going to be a better job in the south...with his brother-in-law. That didn't work out as promised, and he ended up in a world of hurt. They lost their home, had a credit score in the 500's. On the surface, he looked like a terrible risk.

But as he told me his story with tears in his eyes, I just saw a guy who needed a break. I recommended him for the tenancy. The Board of Trustees at the church thought I was nutz. I really went to bat for this guy, and, being a church, they decided, "Well, we asked Maggie to do it, and here's who she brought. Maybe it's for a reason. We ought to listen to her."

This family never had a late payment. They were tenants for three years and left the house immaculate when they moved out. To buy their own home.

Everyone needs a second chance.
 
Last edited:
Yikes, a complete non response? I would've settled for a personal insult or even a off topic tangent sourced from an opinion piece.

I think you might just be on to something here, especially when coupled with a quote from your own article: Simply put, credit standards are typically loosened to broaden said companies consumer base during prolonged periods of lackluster consumer activity, hardly a foreign or amoral concept by any standards.

This statement has prodded me to use a quote of yours that you happened to invoke erroneously a handful of posts back.

"The subprime market grew as a result of the recession," said GM spokesman Jim Cain. "Our experience, however, is that with proper management they are very good risks."

Interesting, subprime loans are a very good risk, says the GM spokesman. Lets work this out, subprime = a very good risk. Now they are not subprime or they are not a very good risk. Which is it.
 
Interesting, subprime loans are a very good risk, says the GM spokesman. Lets work this out, subprime = a very good risk. Now they are not subprime or they are not a very good risk. Which is it.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive, for one payments are most often quite reasonable, especially given the fact that most loans are predicated upon the individual in question having a stable employment situation with long term viability. Also, the consequence of default in the auto realm is far less than that of similar industries for a variety of reasons which have already been mentioned in this very thread. Refinancing is readily available to a large number of individuals struggling to meet the original payment structure, exceedingly reasonable interest rates, and the ability to both repossess and seize the opportunity to recoup whatever losses may have been incurred during said time period make sub prime loans a viable alternative to sitting on one's hands during a prolonged dip in sales.
 
Last edited:
Good for you, Superfly!!!!!!
_________________________

I'm a Realtor and was asked by my church to interview and select a tenant for the parsonage, as the new pastor had his own home. I ended up selecting a husband/wife who'd just declared bankruptcy the year before. Know why? He was honest. He told me he'd left a great job here in Chicago to pursue what he thought was going to be a better job in the south...with his brother-in-law. That didn't work out as promised, and he ended up in a world of hurt. They lost their home, had a credit score in the 500's. On the surface, he looked like a terrible risk.

But as he told me his story with tears in his eyes, I just saw a guy who needed a break. I recommended him for the tenancy. The Board of Trustees at the church thought I was nutz. I really went to bat for this guy, and, being a church, they decided, "Well, we asked Maggie to do it, and here's who she brought. Maybe it's for a reason. We ought to listen to her."

This family never had a late payment. They were tenants for three years and left the house immaculate when they moved out. To buy their own home.

Everyone needs a second chance.

Great story.
 
Of course. Why not? They're Government Motors now, they'll be bailed out if these loans don't work out, so why not take risks when the only consequence can be reward, never getting burned?


Ugh.
 
Back
Top Bottom