Cash on the Hood: Huge Incentives Are Back, Baby!

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

As our own Tim Cain reported this morning, if not for the mid-sized truck sector, total U.S. new vehicle sales volume would have risen by less than one-tenth of one percent. Now, forecasters are reducing their outlook for the remainder of 2016, leading some automakers to start fighting the stagnating market by deploying aggressive incentives.

Sound dangerously familiar? It should. A quote from George Santayana is very appropriate at this juncture: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

According to Automotive News, the Detroit Three spent $655 more per vehicle on incentives last month than in July 2015, an 18 percent increase. The average industry incentive in July was $3,225 – a year-over-year increase of $159 per vehicle sold.

Through July, incentives on full-sized pickups from Ford, Chevrolet, and Ram — traditionally a high incentive segment — were over $1,000 higher than in the first seven months of 2015. Yet, sales of the Silverado and Ford F-series declined in July, while Ram posted a gain of just 1.7 percent.

In seven months this year, automakers sold over 10 million vehicles to American consumers, nearly matching the twelve-month total of 10.4 million during the dark days of 2009. This past July was the fifth consecutive month in which sales topped 1.5 million units — the third time in history this has happened, according to numbers from the Automotive News Data Center.

As we well know, massive incentives was one of the reasons some automakers struggled mightily to post profits in the late ‘90s and beyond. A plateau is a comfortable and profitable place in which to find oneself. However, the auto industry is predicated on the ceaseless demand of year over year sales increases, so incentives are a quick and tempting fix to juice sales numbers. The trouble is, manufacturers have played this game before, and we all know how it ended. Today’s cartoon at Automotive News sums it up well.

[Frankieleon/ Flickr)

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 51 comments
  • FordMan_48126 FordMan_48126 on Aug 09, 2016

    No need to panic yet folks. The Big Three are much smaller & leaner than 2008/2009, so raising incentives do not automatically crush profits like they used to in the past. In addition, flexible factories assist the Big Three on managing their inventories; as a whole inventory is much better managed in the past. For example, look what FCA is doing with the 200 - instead of adding more and more incentives to it to keep a factory running like they would have done pre-2008, they killed it and moved product around to make better use of the factory capacity for models that are selling. None of the big three had that kind of flexibility pre-2008. Yes, they are adding incentives to help sell what they have already built or planned to build for 3rd qt, but most of the big three have already downgraded their forecasts for full year sales and are planning on build less product in the 4th qtr of this year. So, overall they are acting more sensible then they used to in the past.

    • VoGo VoGo on Aug 09, 2016

      "Look what FCA is doing with the 200" FCA is dropping the 200 and Dart for capacity to produce more SUVs. That makes sense today when gas is cheap. But if gas prices rise significantly, or if the EPA stands firm on CAFE targets, FCA is toast. From a corporate governance perspective, this is terrible risk management.

  • BrunoT BrunoT on Aug 10, 2016

    If you want to make an intelligent column on incentives, you should include WHY these over-abundances of vehicles exist. They are caused by boom bust cycles which are caused by easy credit. Years of 0% financing (again) and ridiculous 72 month loans send signals to the market to buy more car than otherwise. This causes manufacturers to assume this is normal and ramp up production, just in time for the bust to come and leave them with massive inventories to get rid of.

  • Varezhka I have still yet to see a Malibu on the road that didn't have a rental sticker. So yeah, GM probably lost money on every one they sold but kept it to boost their CAFE numbers.I'm personally happy that I no longer have to dread being "upgraded" to a Maxima or a Malibu anymore. And thankfully Altima is also on its way out.
  • Tassos Under incompetent, affirmative action hire Mary Barra, GM has been shooting itself in the foot on a daily basis.Whether the Malibu cancellation has been one of these shootings is NOT obvious at all.GM should be run as a PROFITABLE BUSINESS and NOT as an outfit that satisfies everybody and his mother in law's pet preferences.IF the Malibu was UNPROFITABLE, it SHOULD be canceled.More generally, if its SEGMENT is Unprofitable, and HALF the makers cancel their midsize sedans, not only will it lead to the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ones, but the survivors will obviously be more profitable if the LOSERS were kept being produced and the SMALL PIE of midsize sedans would yield slim pickings for every participant.SO NO, I APPROVE of the demise of the unprofitable Malibu, and hope Nissan does the same to the Altima, Hyundai with the SOnata, Mazda with the Mazda 6, and as many others as it takes to make the REMAINING players, like the Excellent, sporty Accord and the Bulletproof Reliable, cheap to maintain CAMRY, more profitable and affordable.
  • GregLocock Car companies can only really sell cars that people who are new car buyers will pay a profitable price for. As it turns out fewer and fewer new car buyers want sedans. Large sedans can be nice to drive, certainly, but the number of new car buyers (the only ones that matter in this discussion) are prepared to sacrifice steering and handling for more obvious things like passenger and cargo space, or even some attempt at off roading. We know US new car buyers don't really care about handling because they fell for FWD in large cars.
  • Slavuta Why is everybody sweating? Like sedans? - go buy one. Better - 2. Let CRV/RAV rust on the dealer lot. I have 3 sedans on the driveway. My neighbor - 2. Neighbors on each of our other side - 8 SUVs.
  • Theflyersfan With sedans, especially, I wonder how many of those sales are to rental fleets. With the exception of the Civic and Accord, there are still rows of sedans mixed in with the RAV4s at every airport rental lot. I doubt the breakdown in sales is publicly published, so who knows... GM isn't out of the sedan business - Cadillac exists and I can't believe I'm typing this but they are actually decent - and I think they are making a huge mistake, especially if there's an extended oil price hike (cough...Iran...cough) and people want smaller and hybrids. But if one is only tied to the quarterly shareholder reports and not trends and the big picture, bad decisions like this get made.
Next