vedubin, I'd never fault you for being someone who actually reads entire articles... but making sweeping generalizations about car buyers based on a tiny fraction is pretty weak. As is being completely ignorant of the circumstances and never bother to consider business reasons:
Anyone with good credit probably would do much better with their own bank than the dealer. And since Ally went independent, there wasn't really a good in-house lending option, so the only people who generally could get loans were those with good credit and from their own bank. And as the following article will state, subprime AUTO lending can be profitable and lower risk than housing (how many repo shows are there??). GMAC was definitely a profitable part of the business, and there was a big hole left after it was ripped out.
So GM was in a bad position to pay back its loan if it didn't take action to be competitive with other manufacturers: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...redit-gm_N.htm
Most important quote from that article: "Some 40% of U.S. car buyers are categorized as non-prime or subprime borrowers, says Melinda Zabritski, director of automotive credit for Experian Automotive."
So they had a smaller share of their sales going to subprime buyers because they lacked in-house lending, which meant they were also missing out on almost HALF the market! Do you think it is a good business move to completely disregard nearly HALF of the market? If numbers were below average and increased, does that necessarily mean that they are now worse than average... or could they be on par with the rest of the industry. (or rather, competitive?)
GM Financial provides just over 8% of GM's financing.
So GM was in a bad position to pay back its loan if it didn't take action to be competitive with other manufacturers: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...redit-gm_N.htm
"For some time, our dealers and customers have said that not having an in-house finance arm hurt our ability to offer sales and leases," said GM CEO Ed Whitacre on a conference call. "As a result, we were not as competitive as we could be. ... Now we are going to fix that."
With the recession, job losses, bankruptcies and foreclosures, the number of people with subprime credit scores has grown, while GM was less able to serve them. GM says about 4% of its buyers now are subprime — a smaller percentage than other big automakers, indicating the company has been losing buyers to other automakers that can get the customers loans.
With the recession, job losses, bankruptcies and foreclosures, the number of people with subprime credit scores has grown, while GM was less able to serve them. GM says about 4% of its buyers now are subprime — a smaller percentage than other big automakers, indicating the company has been losing buyers to other automakers that can get the customers loans.
So they had a smaller share of their sales going to subprime buyers because they lacked in-house lending, which meant they were also missing out on almost HALF the market! Do you think it is a good business move to completely disregard nearly HALF of the market? If numbers were below average and increased, does that necessarily mean that they are now worse than average... or could they be on par with the rest of the industry. (or rather, competitive?)

Comment