Amid Rising Inventories and Falling Sales, Dealers Feel Pressure to Literally Stake Out New Ground

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Unlike components used in new vehicle assembly, the finished product is not shipped to the customer in a just-in-time manner. There’s usually a healthy amount of dealer-ready vehicles on hand, though recent months has seen inventories slide into obesity. Extended downtime and shift cuts at assembly plants are one result of a bloated supply made worse by falling U.S. sales (Fiat Chrysler’s Windsor Assembly is just the latest victim), but autoworkers aren’t the only ones bearing the brunt.

Figures from the beginning of April shows the inventory problem is only getting worse, with pressure growing on the dealers tasked with selling these vehicles.

According to the Automotive News Data Center, inventory stood at 4,188,200 vehicles on April 1st — the highest figure seen since July 2017 and perilously close to the all-time record set in 2004. Only 114,300 vehicles separates April’s tally from that high water mark.

More concerning for automakers is the fact it’s half a million more vehicles than seen just before the Great Recession. All of these vehicles require a home before their trip to the dealer lot, too; AN‘s Larry Vellequette took a flight over Toledo on the weekend, snapping shots of FCA vehicles lining what was once a harness racing track.

The pressures facing dealers are many. Slumping new car sales, the trend towards reduced incentives to protect automakers’ bottom lines, and rising floorplan interest rates are sapping dealers of cash flow, leaving servicing to turn a profit. The need to store vehicles off-site is another growing expense. Your author noted a field of Kias in the middle of nowhere while driving to an Easter dinner last week.

“Right now, there’s excessive inventory out there, and there’s a tremendous amount of pressure from almost all the brands to take additional cars,” David Hult, CEO of Asbury Automotive Group Inc. (America’s seventh-largest dealer group), told AN.

Hult said his group’s floorplan costs grew from $6.6 million to $10.2 million in the first quarter of this year, with two-thirds of the increase stemming from a vehicle supply that grew by 27 days’ worth. The rest of the cost increase arises from floorplan interest rates that now average more than 5 percent — a sharp and unwanted increase from recent years. Like many others, Hult is considering off-site storage.

“Space is absolutely an issue, and we’re bursting at the seams,” he said.

More vehicles in a dealer’s inventory and a slower turnover rate would mean more paid in interest, even if floorplan rates stayed static. Of course, they aren’t. And a longer wait to unload certain vehicles means potentially losing the manufacturer’s floorplan subsidy, hurting profitability further.

“You can afford to make a lot of mistakes when your floorplan interest rate is only 1.5 or 2 percent, but the room for error grows a lot tighter when you’re paying 5 or 5.5 percent,” said Marc Ray, co-owner of a company that operates a pair of Toledo Chrysler-Jeep-Dodge-Ram dealerships. Ray added that his carrying costs rose half a million dollars in the past year.

Of the bloated overall inventory, General Motors, Ford, and FCA make up more than half the tally, and, depending on the brands sold, manufacturer pressure on dealers can be intense and frustrating. Promises can prove fickle.

“I have so many vehicles, I stopped accepting deliveries,” an overwhelmed (and anonymous) FCA dealer in metro Detroit told AN. “First they told us to order [Dodge] Durangos because they were going to put extra support on them, so we stocked up, but the support never came. Then they stuffed us full of [Jeep] Compasses. Then they told us that in order to get [Jeep] Gladiator allocation, we had to order Ram pickups, so now I’ve got those coming out my ears.”

[Image: Janon Stock/Shutterstock, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 55 comments
  • SoCalMikester SoCalMikester on May 01, 2019

    prices are high, interest rates are going up, wages are stagnant. everyones already paying off their $1000 phone and unlimited data plan, and their triple play "bargain bundle" on their rent to own 70" flatscreen. gotta be able to eat out at least twice a day, too! not much money to spare any more for new cars with lousy credit :(

  • Cartunez Cartunez on May 06, 2019

    Too many people are screwed with negative equity and or poor credit to keep playing the buy a new car game.

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next