Tax Returns and Regulatory Environment Became Main Financing Storylines in First Half of 2013
Moves by the federal government greatly swayed what happened in the dealership F&I office during the first half of the year.
Whether it was how delayed tax returns slowed refunds getting into consumers’ accounts or regulators intensifying their focus on how auto financing is completed, developments out of Washington, D.C., dominated industry conferences, store management meetings and analysts’ reports by the time 2013 reached its midpoint.
The dominoes began to fall on New Year’s Eve when federal lawmakers finally decided what steps to take regarding the highly publicized Fiscal Cliff, which entailed choices about Bush-era tax cuts and a 2-percentage point payroll tax deduction. Finalizing a plan triggered a delay of federal income tax refunds by at least two weeks.
Manheim economist Tom Webb said tax refunds switched from “being a negative to a positive” for the used-vehicle market beginning in March.
Webb pointed out tax refunds in January and February were $31 billion (or 14 percent) lower than a year earlier, according to the Internal Revenue Service. However in March, he noted tax refunds jumped $11 billion (19 percent) from last year’s level.
That influx of cash in potential buyers’ hands helped the industry in part to post the best March used-vehicle sales performance in 11 years.
Used sales surpassed 3 million in March, according to CNW Research. The firm indicated April used sales eclipsed that level, too.
Another example of how late-arriving tax refunds eventually boosted used sales came from the performance of Credit Acceptance, the 40-year-old subprime auto financing company.
After declining 2.9 percent during the first quarter, Credit Acceptance highlighted that its unit volume increased 19.8 percent in April as compared to same month last year.
“We believe a delay in tax refunds in the current year contributed to both the decline in the first quarter and the increase in April. In addition, April 2013 had one additional business day as compared to April 2012,” Credit Acceptance officials said in paperwork filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
However that growth might become subdued if a trend continues regarding the other major element that’s played a role in auto financing during the first half of this year — increasing federal regulations.
CNW indicated that subprime loan approvals softened by 3.94 percent in April as compared to March. President Art Spinella elaborated about the trend in the firm’s Retail Automotive Summary.
“One thing to watch carefully: Month-over-month subprime loan approvals fell in the opening weeks of April compared to March,” Spinella said.
“The near 4-percent decline could have many possible reasons and be nothing more than a single-month anomaly, but some states are beginning to tighten up or threaten the finance industry with additional regulations if there is even the perception of taking advantage of low-income consumers,” he went on to say.
The additional regulatory pressure came in the form of guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in March. The agency focused the document on indirect auto lending, using the theory of disparate impact to urge lenders to watch dealers for potential discrimination in relation to rate markups — a primary F&I income driver.
Then in May, online reports surfaced that extended warranties and other products appear to be the next regulatory target in the F&I office. The CFPB reportedly issued subpoenas to U.S. auto lenders over the sale of extended warranties and other financial products such as gap insurance.
Legal experts and industry associations fervently pushed back against what the CFPB outlined.
David Westcott, current chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, reiterated his concerns in a commentary posted on NADA’s website.
“In March, the CFPB released a bulletin that claims indirect lending through dealerships may result in minorities paying more for auto loans. Dealers are exempt from CFPB oversight, but auto lenders are not,” Westcott said.
“So the bureau’s guidance could drastically change how auto finance sources compensate dealers for arranging auto loans. Keep in mind, no one is accusing anyone of intentional discrimination,” he continued.
Westcott acknowledged if there are problems in the F&I office that result in discrimination, changes should be made.
“If the auto finance system can potentially result in minorities paying more for credit than non-minorities in the same credit tier, then it is considered unintentional discrimination. And the system needs to be addressed,” he said.
“But we have no idea how the CFPB concluded disparate impact exists in today’s marketplace,” Westcott went on to say. “Disparate impact can only be proven through a statistical analysis of past transactions, but the CFPB has not revealed how it is conducting its analysis or what data it’s relying upon.”
With that element in mind, Westcott made a recommendation.
“Before this consumer-friendly model is disrupted, the CFPB should explain how it is conducting its analysis,” he said.
What could be ahead during the remainder of the year regarding vehicle financing is probably difficult to predict. But Damon Lester, president of the National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers, sent a letter to President Barack Obama, articulating three possible ramifications if federal regulations eventually lead to the elimination of dealer markups.
“It is our belief that if the CFPB is permitted to eliminate a dealer’s ability to reasonably markup buy rates and implement flat fees per transaction, these changes may be counter the CFPB’s goal which is to protect the consumer, particularly the ‘protected class,’” Lester said.
Should markups beyond the buy rate issued by a bank or finance company no longer be an option in the store’s F&I office, Lester listed the potential consequences to the president as well as the CFPB, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which were among the 11 entities the NAMAD president copied on delivery of the letter.
The possible outcomes included:
— Small dealerships may be forced to lay off employees and/or close their doors due to their inability to generate income and pay staff.
— The price of the vehicle may increase.
— Dealerships finance and insurance employees may no longer be incentivized to help buyers find financing (particularly those who have marginal to low credit scores).
“As you know, dealerships — both minority and non-minority owned — provide a service to their customers to find affordable financing for those ‘tough deals,’” Lester said. “The relationship between the dealership and financial institutions is one of a true partnership; financial institutions determine the buy rate and the dealership has the discretion to mark up no more than 2 percentage points as compensation for arranging the financing.
“This process provides a win/win to both the customer and the dealership,” he concluded.
Editor's Note: This story ran in the June 1–15 issue of Auto Remarketing, which featured our Used-Car Progress Report. Check out the issue for more on auction prices, off-lease supply and more.