Have We Learned Nothing – GM expands subprime car loans

by Kirk Kinder on July 22, 2010

GM announced today that it is buying Americredit Inc, which makes loans to consumers with credit scores below 620.

GM, majority owned by taxpayers, is buying a company that makes car loans to shoppers with poor credit. Unlike home loans, though, the risk in subprime auto lending is relatively low and may reward GM. The company hopes to boost sales by making loans and leases to buyers that it must now turn away for lack of financing.

Essentially, GM is using bailout dollars to buy this company. This is moral hazard in action. It isn’t GM’s money so if this deal blows up, who cares. It just seems to me that maybe someone who can’t get financing to buy a car shouldn’t get a new car. Maybe they should be buying Fred G. Sanford’s truck (insert funky music here) and driving a clunker until they can actually afford a new or higher cost pre-owned car. The article points out that these loans aren’t as risky as a credit card because it is secured by the auto. If a borrower defaults, they just repossess the car. Ok, then what? Who do they sell the car to then?

Zero percent financing and subprime car loans helped push GM over the edge in 2008. Clearly, we haven’t learned our lesson. It just makes me want to say, “You big dummy!”

  • Rae Halliday
    In these times a person can not get a job without having a car to get to their place of work. Why assume that all low scores will default? Maybe someone would use that car to get a job. Is anything happening to give them support? Actually, it is our human nature for each person to always be doing the best they can with what they have in the situation they find themselves.

    Let's keep it real by considering all aspects of the situation. What if we outsource jobs, give teachers minimal pay, force our youth to memorize disembodied facts for tests and max out our support for prisons. Then, if we torture and/or kill in our prisons, who will get the money when their organs are sold? Are incarcerated citizens government property or do their parts belong to the company that operates the prison system? Maybe it would be better to have our gov profit from wood in our national forests, water flowing, national land for grazing as well as coal and oil from beneath the surface of this great land. Our national resources should belong to our nation.
  • Rae,

    I agree that people need a car when a decent busing system does not exist. Does it need to be a new car, which is considerably more expensive than a junker. The government did a disservice to the poor with the cash for clunkers program. The government destroyed over 1 million used cars, which could have been bought at substantial discounts relative to new cars for those with less than stellar credit.

    As far as the natural resources belonging to the nation, you need to realize the government does not own the land. We don't get our rights from the government in this country as opposed to many European and Asian countries. We were founded on the principles of individual liberty. One of those liberties is the ownership of land and property. So just because timberlands exist within our nation's borders does not make it our nations property. It belongs to whoever owns the land.
  • @Bad Credit Car Loans,

    This is true. I guess my bigger point is none of the auto manufacturers should be doing so...unless they want financial issues down the road. GM should build capacity to fulfill its demand from creditworthy clients. Let the others cater to the sub-600 crowd. It may give the competitors a short term boost, but when the loans default, GM will look much smarter.
  • That viewpoint definitely has merit.
  • Yeah, I know it seems funny, but they really have no choice. When your competitor is giving out loans to people with 600 credit scores, and you can't, then you are at a major disadvantage.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: