Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / June 2008
'Like house of cards,' used trucks fall
|
|
Thread rating:  |
C. E. White - 23 Jun 2008 18:18 GMT 'Like house of cards,' used trucks fall
Donna Harris and Arlena Sawyers
Automotive News
June 23, 2008 - 12:01 am ET
Dealer Poncho Redfern sees big used trucks that were worth $20,000 just a few months ago valued today at $12,000. And he winces.
"It's not like prices are just a little soft," says Redfern, president of Thomason Auto Group, of San Francisco, which owns seven dealerships in California and Texas. "The values have dropped extraordinarily. We are having a hard time adjusting."
Many new-vehicle dealers grew accustomed to raking in big profits on large used pickups and SUVs. But now those trucks are sucking out cash as they gather dust.
Soaring fuel prices have toppled the market for big used trucks "like a house of cards," says Tom Kontos, executive vice president of analytical services for the ADESA auction company.
In the past three months, values of large used trucks have depreciated more than ordinarily would be expected in a year, according to CarMax Inc., the largest used-vehicle retailer in the United States. Some full-sized used trucks now fetch as little as half their wholesale book value.
Dealers say they can't offer customers much for trade-ins of big trucks - and some are refusing to take those pickups and SUVs at all. Sales and prices of large used trucks continue to slump.
Last month, used full-sized pickups sold at auction for an average price of $9,343 - a 21.3 percent decline from May 2007, ADESA says. The average wholesale price of large SUVs plunged 19.7 percent to $11,271.
The market for big used trucks shifted "overnight," says Patrick Walsh, a Ford dealer in rural Atwater, Minn. "I don't think any of us were ready for that."
Truck dump
Wholesale prices of used big pickups and SUVs plunged by one-fifth last month.
Change AVG. Price FROM MAY '08 MAY '07 Full-sized pickups $9,343 -21.3% Large SUVs $11,271 -19.7% Source: ADESA Analytical Services
Earnings plunge
Late last week, Ford Motor Credit Co. said it will take a pretax loss this year, mainly because of "further weakness in large truck and SUV auction values."
Last week, CarMax said its net income for the three months that ended May 31 fell 55 percent from the year-ago period, to $29.6 million. Company CEO Tom Folliard cited a 25 percent drop in wholesale prices of big trucks in the quarter.
The steep decline has continued in June, Folliard said. "This is the longest-lasting depreciation of a large segment we've ever seen," he said during an earnings call last week.
DCH Auto Group, of South Amboy, N.J., owns 31 dealerships in California, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Last year, sales of large pickups and SUVs accounted for 25 to 30 percent of the private group's used-vehicle sales. Now it's 15 to 20 percent, the company says.
"This collapse is a major issue for us," says DCH CEO Susan Scarola.
Big losers
How wholesale prices of some used big trucks fell between January and June. All vehicles are 2005 models.
15-Jun Jan. 1 CHANGE BMW X5 4.4i $24,200 $31,400 -22.9% Toyota Tundra Ltd. - Double 4wd $16,525 $21,425 -22.9% Ford F-150 Lariat - SuperCrew 4wd $16,100 $20,500 -21.5% Chevrolet Silverado - 1500 LT Crew 4wd $15,675 $19,875 -21.1% Infiniti QX56 awd $23,800 $30,000 -20.7% Nissan Armada SE awd $15,150 $18,800 -19.4% Source: Black Book
Wreaking havoc
Dealer Redfern says his dealerships typically have earned gross profits of $1,500 to $2,000 on the sale of a used truck, not including finance and insurance. On a new car, he says, the typical profit margin is $300 to $700. The collapse of used-truck sales is especially painful, he says.
"You can't outrun it in F&I," Redfern says. "There's only so much you can honestly earn in that department. This wreaks havoc on the bottom line."
In May, an informal Automotive News survey found that one out of 10 dealers no longer accepted big SUVs and pickups as trade-ins. Other dealers said they didn't have that option but were offering far lower trade-in prices.
"We can't turn them away," says Ken Cooper, sales manager of Alex Chevrolet in rural Charles Town, W.Va. "We are in a small town. If it gets around that we weren't taking trucks as trade-ins, we wouldn't be doing any business."
Customers who want to trade in a big truck for a fuel-efficient new car are having the hardest time, Redfern says. Some new trucks carry factory incentives of several thousand dollars, he notes, while the incentive on a car might be just a few hundred dollars.
Owners who owe money on their sharply depreciated big trucks are in for an even bigger shock, he adds.
"We see people with $10,000 in negative equity," Redfern says. "A dealer does not have enough room to help the customer out of it."
Alysha Webb contributed to this report
Jim Higgins - 23 Jun 2008 19:46 GMT > 'Like house of cards,' used trucks fall > [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > Alysha Webb contributed to this report And if the June sales forecast is fulfilled it will be a catastrophic decline in sales and value.
 Signature Civis Romanus Sum
PerfectReign - 23 Jun 2008 20:41 GMT <snip>
> "We see people with $10,000 in negative equity," Redfern says. "A dealer > does not have enough room to help the customer out of it." That's insane!
I've done the calculations. I figure if - instead of commuting in my mid-size Avalanche at 15MPG - I inherited a small econobox that got 25MPG, I could potentially save about $2K/year in gas.
That would be nice.
However, if I were looking at replacing said Avalanche with said econobox I wouldn't even think about loosing $10K in negative equity. It would take five years of driving the econobox just to make up for it.
 Signature www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org
Ted Mittelstaedt - 26 Jun 2008 12:18 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > wouldn't even think about loosing $10K in negative equity. It would take > five years of driving the econobox just to make up for it. You don't understand how the majority of people think, financially. If you really looked at the housing credit crisis and why it happened you might understand.
30 years ago, people would save up money for the big ticket items. They would make sure that their income was higher than their expenses by a fairly wide margin and would sock away as much as they could - because they knew that they had to have a savings to cover those unexpected expenses. Like a set of new tires, or a trip to the emergency room to set a broken leg, etc.
Today, people don't want to save. They have been taught by a generation of shysters that they want to spend as much as they make because somehow if their money sits in a bank somewhere it gets smaller and smaller. (apparently nobody understands compound interest anymore)
Of course, the problem then is that for this to work it's -imperative- that your expenses are the -same- every month. You cannot have any large unexpected shock expenses.
People will go out and buy a new car that's under warranty and also buy an extended warranty - because doing that, you can finance it all, and your car+warranty payment is now the same every month. You won't have unexpected car expenses because the warranty takes care of that.
Obviously, doing it this way costs people more in the long run, but they would rather pay more as long as the costs are the same every month, than pay less and save the difference to use for the unexpected expenses.
The people replacing Avalanchs with econoboxes are doing it because the fuel price rises are unexpected, and have broken their budget. So, the trade in the Avalanch, get a new econobox, and finance everything. Then their uncontrolled variable expenses - fuel - drop. And their non-variable expenses rise, but not as much because they have financed it and thus pushed the additional expenses into the future.
Look at President Bush. He has pushed most of the Iraq war expenses into the future for Obama to deal with when he becomes president. And I will bet that by then the debt will be so large and the deficit so high that even if he wanted to, Obama will have no choice but to push it into the future for the next president to deal with. And so on and so on.
And your amazed that the common citizen is watching this financial gamesmanship and doesen't want to try copying it himself? Where have YOU been?
Ted
Ted Mittelstaedt - 26 Jun 2008 12:21 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > wouldn't even think about loosing $10K in negative equity. It would take > five years of driving the econobox just to make up for it. You don't understand how the majority of people think, financially. If you really looked at the housing credit crisis and why it happened you might understand.
30 years ago, people would save up money for the big ticket items. They would make sure that their income was higher than their expenses by a fairly wide margin and would sock away as much as they could - because they knew that they had to have a savings to cover those unexpected expenses. Like a set of new tires, or a trip to the emergency room to set a broken leg, etc.
Today, people don't want to save. They have been taught by a generation of shysters that they want to spend as much as they make because somehow if their money sits in a bank somewhere it gets smaller and smaller. (apparently nobody understands compound interest anymore)
Of course, the problem then is that for this to work it's -imperative- that your expenses are the -same- every month. You cannot have any large unexpected shock expenses.
People will go out and buy a new car that's under warranty and also buy an extended warranty - because doing that, you can finance it all, and your car+warranty payment is now the same every month. You won't have unexpected car expenses because the warranty takes care of that.
Obviously, doing it this way costs people more in the long run, but they would rather pay more as long as the costs are the same every month, than pay less and save the difference to use for the unexpected expenses.
The people replacing Avalanchs with econoboxes are doing it because the fuel price rises are unexpected, and have broken their budget. So, the trade in the Avalanch, get a new econobox, and finance everything. Then their uncontrolled variable expenses - fuel - drop. And their non-variable expenses rise, but not as much because they have financed it and thus pushed the additional expenses into the future.
Look at President Bush. He has pushed most of the Iraq war expenses into the future for Obama to deal with when he becomes president. And I will bet that by then the debt will be so large and the deficit so high that even if he wanted to, Obama will have no choice but to push it into the future for the next president to deal with. And so on and so on.
And your amazed that the common citizen is watching this financial gamesmanship and doesen't want to try copying it himself? Where have YOU been?
Ted
Sir F. A. Rien - 26 Jun 2008 15:57 GMT "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> found these unused words:
>Look at President Bush, clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy ... ! They have pushed most of the country's expenses into the future for Obama to deal with when/ IF
>he becomes president. And I will bet that by then the >debt will be so large and the deficit so high that even if he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And your "your" what ???
>amazed that the common citizen is watching this >financial gamesmanship and doesen't want to try copying it >himself? Where have YOU been? He doesn't? Then why are we in this mess, but that Joe Citizen -=did=- copy the DEMOCRATIC created mode of spend now - pay later? Thank you FDR & JFK!
>Ted PerfectReign - 26 Jun 2008 15:59 GMT <snip>
> And your amazed that the common citizen is watching this > financial gamesmanship and doesen't want to try copying it > himself? Where have YOU been? Valid points.
I should mention that - when I bought the Avalanche, I got it for dealer invoice + $100 and had a $6000 GM rebate.
Therefore, I got a truck with a sticker of $36,000 for $24,000 and change. (Plus my contribution to the state and local tax accounts.)
I wouldn't have done otherwise and been further in debt. Yes, I'd love to drive a Navigator or an Escalade but don't want to mortgage my house in order to finance such trucks.
My wife's '05 Vue was paid off in early '06 and I expect the '06 Avalanche to be paid off sometime later this year.
Yeah, I'd like to get 35 MPG in a large-size truck, but I know it ain't gonna happen.
Oddly enough, I noticed something lately. Whereas I used to drive streets to work in order to avoid the over-congested freeways, I'm now driving the freeway all the way into work. I do slow down at times but never come to a complete stop. That alone boosts my mileage a few points.
My thanks to all those no longer driving the LA freeways in the AM. :)
 Signature www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
remember - a turn signal is a statement, not a request
Sir F. A. Rien - 26 Jun 2008 23:30 GMT PerfectReign <theperfectreign@yahoo.com> found these unused words:
>remember - a turn signal is a statement, not a request In which Sears did you buy your license?
PerfectReign - 27 Jun 2008 15:49 GMT > PerfectReign <theperfectreign@yahoo.com> found these unused words: > >>remember - a turn signal is a statement, not a request > > In which Sears did you buy your license? Heh - you like that one?
I heard it on the radio one day.
 Signature www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org
|
|
|