Bailout Watch 565: Small Business Adminstration Dealer Bailout Grows

by Robert Farago

Published: October 30th, 2009

bailout watch 565 small business adminstration dealer bailout grows

Car dealers are some of the most politically connected people in America. As we reported yesterday, more than a few axed GM store owners demonstrated their political muscles by forcing the nationalized automaker to rescind their franchise terminations. Further back in time, we highlighted the Obama administration’s “stealth” dealer bailout: a car dealer-specific Small Business Administration (SBA) loan program. Under the program, the SBA guarantees 75 percent of a car dealer’s floor-plan line of credit, ranging from $500,000 to $2 million. The SBA’s network of private-sector lenders make the loans. In theory. In practice, it’s been what the Brits call a damp squib. Although Automotive News [AN, sub] fails to put any hard numbers to the program’s failure, they acknowledge that the SBA dealer deal “has had trouble attracting lender participation since its May launch.” Needless to say, the “answer” to the SBA lenders’ entirely understandable reticence/prudence is . . . bigger loans and more federal backing.

The House measure [passed yesterday by a 389-32 vote] would provide federal guarantees of as much as 90 percent on these loans through the end of September 2010 . . . The administration wants loan limits of $5 million and permanent federal guarantees of 90 percent.

To be fair, the higher limit will make the program much more attractive to cash-strapped dealers. Only 30 percent of American auto dealers have vehicle inventories worth less than $2 million, the current maximum line of credit available through the SBA.

Then again, let’s revisit the reason for the [relatively] low loan limit and the limited federal guarantee [via The Charlotte Business Journal].

[Associate administrator for the Office of Capital Access Eric] Zarnikow says the SBA decided to offer a lower guarantee on floor-plan loans because the agency has never made those types of loans before and didn’t want to take “undue risks” on a new, pilot program.

Also, to be honest, why are the feds “investing” in car dealers anyway? And what’s the cost of this program? I mean financially, not politically.

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 8 comments

AMXtirpated on Oct 31, 2009

If you've ever looked out a passenger jetliner window with a view of the wing during a takeoff or approach, if the meteorological conditions are right, you'll see pretty much the same thing - water vapor condensing in low pressure regions created by the passage of the aircraft. Either that, or this B-2's got a Hemi.

Like Reply
Carsncars on Oct 31, 2009

Like AMXtirpated said, Prandtl–Glauert singularities can happen at speeds significantly lower than the speed of sound, and should not be used as an indicator that an aircraft has broken the sound barrier.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Tassos Obsolete relic is NOT a used car.It might have attracted some buyers in ITS DAY, 1985, 40 years ago, but NOT today, unless you are a damned fool.
Stan Reither Jr. Part throttle efficiency was mentioned earlier in a postThis type of reciprocating engine opens the door to achieve(slightly) variable stroke which would provide variable mechanical compression ratio adjustments for high vacuum (light load) or boost(power) conditions IMO
Joe65688619 Keep in mind some of these suppliers are not just supplying parts, but assembled components (easy example is transmissions). But there are far more, and the more they are electronically connected and integrated with rest of the platform the more complex to design, engineer, and manufacture. Most contract manufacturers don't make a lot of money in the design and engineering space because their customers to that. Commodity components can be sourced anywhere, but there are only a handful of contract manufacturers (usually diversified companies that build all kinds of stuff for other brands) can engineer and build the more complex components, especially with electronics. Every single new car I've purchased in the last few years has had some sort of electronic component issue: Infinti (battery drain caused by software bug and poorly grounded wires), Acura (radio hiss, pops, burps, dash and infotainment screens occasionally throw errors and the ignition must be killed to reboot them, voice nav, whether using the car's system or CarPlay can't seem to make up its mind as to which speakers to use and how loud, even using the same app on the same trip - I almost jumped in my seat once), GMC drivetrain EMF causing a whine in the speakers that even when "off" that phased with engine RPM), Nissan (didn't have issues until 120K miles, but occassionally blew fuses for interior components - likely not a manufacturing defect other than a short developed somewhere, but on a high-mileage car that was mechanically sound was too expensive to fix (a lot of trial and error and tracing connections = labor costs). What I suspect will happen is that only the largest commodity suppliers that can really leverage their supply chain will remain, and for the more complex components (think bumper assemblies or the electronics for them supporting all kinds of sensors) will likley consolidate to a handful of manufacturers who may eventually specialize in what they produce. This is part of the reason why seemingly minor crashes cost so much - an auto brand does nst have the parts on hand to replace an integrated sensor , nor the expertice as they never built them, but bought them). And their suppliers, in attempt to cut costs, build them in way that is cheap to manufacture (not necessarily poorly bulit) but difficult to replace without swapping entire assemblies or units).I've love to see an article on repair costs and how those are impacting insurance rates. You almost need gap insurance now because of how quickly cars depreciate yet remain expensive to fix (orders more to originally build, in some cases). No way I would buy a CyberTruck - don't want one, but if I did, this would stop me. And it's not just EVs.
Joe65688619 I agree there should be more sedans, but recognize the trend. There's still a market for performance oriented-drivers. IMHO a low budget sedan will always be outsold by a low budget SUV. But a sports sedan, or a well executed mid-level sedan (the Accord and Camry) work. Smaller market for large sedans except I think for an older population. What I'm hoping to see is some consolidation across brands - the TLX for example is not selling well, but if it was offered only in the up-level configurations it would not be competing with it's Honda sibling. I know that makes the market smaller and niche, but that was the original purpose of the "luxury" brands - badge-engineering an existing platform at a relatively lower cost than a different car and sell it with a higher margin for buyers willing and able to pay for them. Also creates some "brand cachet." But smart buyers know that simple badging and slightly better interiors are usually not worth the cost. Put the innovative tech in the higher-end brands first, differentiate they drivetrain so it's "better" (the RDX sells well for Acura, same motor and tranmission, added turbo which makes a notable difference compared to the CRV). The sedan in many Western European countries is the "family car" as opposed to micro and compact crossovers (which still sell big, but can usually seat no more than a compact sedan).
Jonathan IMO the hatchback sedans like the Audi A5 Sportback, the Kia Stinger, and the already gone Buick Sportback are the answer to SUVs. The A5 and the AWD version of the Stinger being the better overall option IMO. I drive the A5, and love the depth and size of the trunk space as well as the low lift over. I've yet to find anything I need to carry that I can't, although I admit I don't carry things like drywall, building materials, etc. However, add in the fun to drive handling characteristics, there's almost no SUV that compares.