Short-term lending causes long-term problems
An RV dealer alerted me to an issue he feels has the potential to significantly hurt the RV industry by removing buyers from the market for years.
He was referring to the blossoming practice of making RV loans for at least 125 percent of the value of the RV and extending payments for up to 20 years. In the documents he faxed over to me, it appears this practice is gaining in popularity as several major industry banks are offering the service.
Here’s where he feels it would hurt the industry. John Smith bought a $21,000 travel trailer in 2005. He wants to trade it in now for a new $42,000 trailer, but still owes $16,000 on the first unit. The factory invoice has a “phony” discount packed into it, so the dealer can immediately write $2,000 off the sticker price of the new unit. The dealership offers $10,000 in trade on the old unit, which is $6,000 less than what the owner owes.
So, the bank rolls the $6,000 into the new loan of $39,000 which includes an extended warranty because, with 15-year payments, who knows what will happen. The dealer is happy because he made money on the sale, money on the extended warranty and a little on the loan, too.
John Smith is delighted to have a new trailer, delighted to have been able to unload the older unit and delighted that his monthly payments didn’t increase that much.
Fast forward to 2011, when John wants to trade in his unit for another RV. He still owes much more than the trailer is worth. In fact, unless he comes up with a huge cash down payment, he won’t be able to trade his unit in for eight or nine years — if then.
It appears to me the combination of phony manufacturer discounts, which mask the true value of RVs, and the over extension of credit by lenders could significantly impact the buying cycle for many dealerships.
My source feels the easiest solutions rest with lenders financing only the real or raw cost of a vehicle and requiring more money for down payments. That way the RV industry can ease itself into a correction that prevents buyers from becoming over extended and retains them as active buyers three or four years from now.
Dealers, you tell me, is it more important to have the sale today, or is it more important for dealers to have the ability to sell three to four new units in the 15- to 20-year period covered by a single over-extended loan?
May 7th, 2010 at 2:47 am
Premier Leads Inc. is your one stop connection to the highest quality sub-prime leads in the industry.Premier Leads Inc. specializes in car leads and Internet Marketing. Our mission is to increase sales and exposure, while providing the highest quality products and services to fit every dealership’s needs.
Two out of three consumers use the Internet to buy cars. The Internet has surpassed all other media, including television and print ads, as the place where consumers source for new and used cars. Research shows that 9 out of 10 consumers begin their shopping process online visiting a dealership.
Find out how Premier Leads, Inc. customized product packages are proven to promote marketing and increase sales.
http://www.premierleadsinc.com/
July 24th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
This has freedonroads all over it,this is their way of doing business in the northeast with their so call regional VP’s. Just jam it down the customers throat, get the sale hammer it till they close. Who cares if they come back. Good luck in the future Marcus, you failed once in this business some of us are hoping for a repeat.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:16 am
Business Banking Explained…
No matter where you are within your business, just beginning or have been in business for many years, one thing remains the same; your business needs a banking institution that is solid and great for businesses. Within this article, we will look at som…
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
This practice has always been a problem. The big megadealers are preyed upon by the lenders to send deals to them. They are after volume quotas. As a small dealer I can’t compete on equal terms. No matter what, the big dealers will get concessions from lenders that we can’t. Everything is a numbers game these days. Most of our deals go to credit unions now. They are offering long terms, low rates. But who has the responsibility to educate the consumers? Soon we will have the amount of backend profits capped or disclosed to the consumers. LOnger terms definitely hurt the industry in the long term. I lose lots of deals because I use MSRP stickers in all units. Some large Mfg. don’t have MSRP’S. Then the dealer can make the markup higher than other Mfg’s and show a larger trade-in when he is actually inflating the true figures. Have MSRP stickers and better education for dealers as well counsumers.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Looking at the big picture - There are really 4 parts to our new upside down customers:
They were offered:
“NO Money Down”
“No Payments for 90 Days”
The Dealers markup on the Interest Rate was obscene!
AND the extended terms of the loans.
We do not offer any of the payment incentives that these finance companies offer. When I have a customer come in - quoting these plans from other dealers - I show them what it actually costs them in the long run. Honesty, pays off in the end.
Computers and finance programs are wonderful, when you can spit out payment numbers in the blink of an eye. We use a local bank for most of our customer financing - as I can save them up to 1% on the rate, vs. our big RV Finance Companies. You know 1% on a $20,000 loan is over $1,300 in interest charges (so take that difference to a $100 or $200K loan, it is pretty scary). We require at least 10% down. And we sell our rigs with a reasonable profit. We must be doing something right our sales for 2007 are currently up over 30% from 2006. Most dealers in our region are flat or down.
Unfortunately our must have now at any cost buyers, are also doing this to themselves.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
This issue and the inherent long time problems for “immediate satisfaction of the wants” is a long time in the making..
The customer of course bears the ultimate responsibility.. The “Industry” on the other hand, didn’t (and still don’t) care about “educating customers” as long as they could sell.. This is just the hallmark of a “capitalistic” structure..
Rest assured the credit market will be completely revamped very soon.. The RV industry should take a more “educational” posture once dealing with potential customers..I also think that RV dealers can/should create a kind of “certification seal” that certifies them to be an “honest” and “realistic” financial broker in your (customer) interest….
Bottom line.. only buy what you can afford and “educate” yourself about the differences between “wants” - “needs” and “affordability”….but that doesn’t seem to be “cool” anymore.. instead a lot of people want it all NOW..
November 26th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I have seen this problem coming from the beginning.As a long time respnsible R V dealer ( since 1961 ) we try to discourage any loans over 60 months. We are losing more and more deal with upside down trade ins. It is past time for the industry to adress this problem which if not taken care of will impact our industry adversely for many years to come
Jim Rau
U S R V Center Jefferson City and Columbia Mo.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Most lenders have advance requirements that should help eliminate some of the negative equity positions but the demand for loans and if a person has good credit they usually relax the requirements some. On the other hand we have caught a couple of dealers changing the manufactures invoice which in todays market of computers is not that hard to do. They just sent the cost to what ever it needs to be and nobody from the lenders side has a way of catching it. Unless there would be some punishment severe enough to prevent this practice and techically it is illegal, it will continue.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Jim, you may be missing the point here. It isn’t about this specific deal. I have no idea if the numbers work or not. However, I do know people that have bad loans that will impact their ability to buy ANY new RV in the future.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:04 am
The RV industry is following the same path as the autos did years ago. We have been in the auto side since 1962, 36-48-60-84 month financing. Always pushing the limit so the buyer could make the payment. Why do you think the ” buy here/ pay here side of the car business has seen 1000 % growth in the last few years ? The American consumer doesn’t know how to say no ! Bankruptcy doesn’t carry the stigma that it did in the 60’s. Even with marginal credit the consumer can find an outlet for financing. On the banking side, lenders that I have had this conversation with, come back saying they would rather take their risk financing an RV than on the credit card side where they have ZERO chance of having anything to recover if and when the consumer goes bad.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I have one problem with your scenerio, Greg. If the list price was $42,000, then the max any indirect loan company would lend is $35,000 plus extended warranty, assuming a cost of $28,000. Unless the customer comes up with some cash, how would this deal be possible?
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
This huge problem has been created by a combination of aggressive competition and customer ignorance/willing compliance (READ GREED). Anyone choosing to do the “right thing” and inform their customer of negative equity runs the very real risk of losing business in the near term (THATS WHY THEY CALL IT NEGATIVE - ITS BAD FOR BUSINESS). Dealers and customers are both suffering from an overdose of greed, and the piper is coming soon to demand payment. Our government cannot legislate common (or should I say “uncommon”?) sense, although it will try when pushed by consumers and their attorney’s looking for a way out (MORE GREED). As always, any real change will be up to the individual dealer and customer willing to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in working together to create POSITIVE EQUITY. Meanwhile the lemmings will all rush headlong over the cliff TOGETHER, running over anyone and everyone in their path.
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Once again Greg has struck a chord with me.
I disagree with a few of you that are in essence placing the blame on the buyers. It is our responsibility to walk the customer through the process of equity from the onset. If we educate the customer from the start, I truly believe we will earn their trust going forward.
For many more years than I can remember, we have had a policy of showing a customer the “Cash Sales Price” on every order and follow that with the “Net Trade-in Allowance”, to get to the “Trade Difference”.
We do this for two reasons:
1) We are truly disclosing and educating the customer of what their trade-in allowance really is, even if they are upside down.
2) If for any reason we ever had to take that unit back (aka “Lemon Law”), we only have an obligation to refund that true cash price, before the trade-in allowance.
Dealers need to be aware that they can be on the hook for that fully inflated cash price and trade-in allowance in this type of situation.
As others have alluded to, the banks know full well if they are advancing money for negative equity and it is disclosed to the consumer on the finance contract.
Every member of our team is trained to sit the customer down and make sure they fully understand what we are showing them for numbers. Some customers truly don’t get it; but the vast majority do understand it and even appreciate us taking the time to educate them.
The ones that don’t get it, usually end up going to the Mega store where they can see this inflated trade value and make the deal there. Those are the payment buyers and will also be the ones that phone you in the fall to see if you will consign or buy their unit back!!
It hurts to lose a few, but I know we sleep well at night knowing we didn’t screw anyone over.
Also, make the term fit the payment. If you spend the time earning the customer’s respect and learning their financial situation (before the closing), more often than not they will understand the merits of a higher payment and shorter term.
We even sell quite a few people on the benefits of a balloon payment and set them up with ACH payments through the lenders. The ACH payment (set up bi-weekly and 7-10 days in advance of the due date) will actually accelerate the term and will normally reduce the payment when the balloon expires, because they are re-financing a lower principle amount than what is originally amortorized at the outset of the loan.
Sorry if I’ve run on too long, but this is a VERY important issue for the longterm survival of our industry.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
This has been a practice of the auto dealers for many years, usually to the customers that are buying more car than their income allows. Look what is happening now to the sub-prime mortagage industry, do You want to be there too?
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I agree with J. Davis that the customers are responsible for their decisions. However, there has to be a foundation of professional responsibility from the RV dealer in offering the basis for the customer responsibility. Otherwise, there can never be customer responsibility.
If I own the light switch in a dark book store I can’t tout that it is your responsibility for the reading light. If I do tout that it won’t take long for me to be sitting on a pile of books that will never be sold.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
This is more of a response to the responses, than a response to Greg. RV Dealers are not responsible for a consumer’s decision to buy and to the terms that they want to buy under. Nor, should they be responsible for the bank’s decision to loan and what conditions the loan will be under. The banks do require you to submit invoices of what is being purchased. As well, many are requiring the NADA value of the camper being traded to the dealership, or they have a NADA guide themselves. It seems fairly apparent to me that when you sell a camper for $8,000 more than invoice, and you show the customer $6,000 more than wholesale value that you are not showing real numbers. Any bank should understand this. All the “phony” discount did was allow you to have a higher retail price (what the customer sees.) You still have to show the bank what the actual invoices are. Otherwise, you are committing fraud. There are police for this, they are called auditors. What next? Should we have to disclose the invoice of the camper to customers and tell them the actual interest rate that the dealer gets. Then, make sure that they are comfortable with our profit margins. I do understand that long loan terms could cetainly relay to less buying potential in the future, but is that really the dealerships responsibility or the customers and the banks? Yes, Greg, the only way that this can be corrected is to limit the lending institutions terms. Unfortunately, that will immediately have a negative response for all those buyers that are upside down, and incapable of coming up with a large down payment to make up for it. Is this a new epidemic, and is it going to wreck the industry? No, it has been going on for a long, long time (especially in the car industry.)
November 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Back in 1998 when I went to work as an F&I manager for one of the top RV dealers in the US, I was told I had to have either the owner’s or president’s signature in order to extend a customer’s financing beyond 120 months. This was to ensure they would be either in an equity position, or at least not upside down, when they wanted to trade in 4 years.
That was a great concept but it didn’t last too long. Customers would tell us they wanted to buy our unit, but our competitors were quoting 15 and 20 year payments. Our short-term policy was short-lived once we started losing sales.
Even the best intentions are abandoned in the face of lost profits.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I also think E.T. is right on track and believe it is all backed by the problem Bob touches on about about “selling.”
We have way too many people calling themselves a salesperson that aren’t anywhere near a sales PROFESSIONAL. The symptoms, like these financing practices, all manifest in one big customer screwing.
We are in a world that is becoming more transparent by the minute and we are stuck in an old school paradigm of “closing deals.” The industry is in dire need of leadership to raise the bar. Yes, that may mean not “closing a deal” here and there but our long term health requires it.
From the manufacturing floor to the sales floor, and all points in between, we should all aim for FULL disclosure in our businesses. Full disclosure requires confident, trained professionals.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Another typical problem we Americans are creating for ourselves. We buy a house that we can not afford and then bitch when all of sudden the interest rate resets, wow who saw that coming. We buy a big expensive car oh and yes we have to buy another for the wife and another for the kid who just turned 16 and we get the lowest payment for the longest term loan we can, who sees a problem there right? Then we want all the toys, motorcycles, Quads, Motorhome, trailer, boat and of course again the cheapest longest loan we can get. Again who sees a problem with that? Oh the kids need to go to college now oh what to do, let us refinance the house and get another 30 year loan never thought the housing bubble would burst. Run the credit cards to the max to buy all the big televisions, IPODS, computers etc. When are we going to learn to try and live within our means and not bury ourselves in debt, I guess we are the same people who have buried our country in mountains of debt. So it is no surprise that mortgage brokers, credit card companies, car loans, R.V. loans and dealers would stoop to the same level me me now now lets not look to the future we want it all now anyway we can and worry about tomorrow later. No more building customer loyalty and being interested in keeping the customer for the long term. Buyers and dealers are both to blame. Greed is killing this country.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Selling to people that really don’t understand their financing arrangements isn’t selling at all - it’s simply taking advantage of your customer. I’d like to think that most professional dealers are above this practice but given the contributions to the blog so far, the practice may be more pervasive than most people realize.
These are the same banks that gave us the credit union scandal in the late 80’s and our current sub-prime foreclosure problem.
How could a banker with a conscience let a 25 year old take out a 100% financed mortgage on a new home such as I just saw on TV - in Stockton, CA where 1 out of every 31 homes is in foreclosure. Banks are no different than the rest of us, they sell money and we sell products and/or services. There are just as many bad bankers as there are bad RV dealers.
E.T. is on the right track. Put all the numbers down on paper and make sure that the customer understands the ramifications of their purchase decision. If they opt for lower rates and extended terms and know they can’t afford the product but are going to buy it anyway …. well, you just can’t fix stupid!
Regardless, this is a dangerous practice that has got to be reversed on RV dealerships are going to be the next Stockton, CA.
Even worse, there will be a lot more court cases, a lot more public disclosures of bad business practices, a lot more banks and dealers facing litigation, and a scandal that the RV industry can ill afford in today’s economy.
The people you really have to feel sorry for are the professional dealers that do advise their prospects of every financial detail and lose the sale because the dealer up the street, or on the web, has no business ethics at all and will gladly write the sale and send the buyer down the road to financial ruin.
Amazingly, they go to bed at night and sleep well. I guess some of us, make that most of us, are above that and will hopefully lead the charge to make the bankers do business the way we do.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
This is a “banking” issue. The financial institutions have to make the decision, whether that be good or bad, about how to finance an RV loan. Every bank representative that is approving the loan has the same access to the “book value” of the trade in. If that buyer and dealer have put together a good enough deal on trading in the upside down vehicle on a new vehicle that is often the only way to get out from under the upside down position. Some dealers (and most salespeople) love nothing more than to brag about slamming the buyer and making a 20, 30, 50 pounder or more. Those are the dealers that are hurting the industry long term. The dealer trying to get that trade into a position that makes sense for the person in an upside down position, I would argue, are the dealers looking to the future of the industry and keeping the RV lifestyle alive.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:49 am
None of us, dealer, manufacturer, lender can fix this alone. Recognizing the issue is the first step. How many prospects have we walked out the door that were so upside down? 30%? We walked one just yesterday, still owes $19,000. on a non-slide expandable that is in the book retail for about $9,000. This practice is out of control whether we want to admit it or not.
A saying I think of often from a previous sales manager rings true:
“NEVER LET YOUR GREED EXCEED YOUR NEED”
Well here we are!
See ya in Louisville
November 20th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Greg, I and many others spoke about the same issues as the lenders and customers got together to agree to loans of 15years! It has presented problems and yet whose to measure the value to that customer or the dealer for that matter. I know you recognize the value of free market forces at play. Those results most often offer the best overall return for most. There are intangible values that can’t be measured so the real market will play on. However you would have a valid point in being concerned about any lack of disclosure on loans and I speak especially of “bought down” financing where the customer is not shown what has to be added to his balance (the actual amount paid up front to the lender) to afford the low rates. That too may be the best for the customer today and as long as the buy downs are disclosed, the seller and buyer could make their decisions freely, and as the APR disclosure is mandated and in the customers interest, so too should the added cost of financing being disclosed. Margins, by the way, are market driven and not phony any more than the 15%/2%10day discounts in the Advertising industry. What do you think, from and industry friend to another?
November 20th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Think - Banks - Sub-Prime, major writedown. Is your lender going to be next. Then the news media, will rip us worst the the FEMA problems,
November 20th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
What if the banks actually started underwriting the collateral instead of just the customer. If the banks were only willing to advance a reasonable amount over invoice or low book wouldn’t this help level the playing field for dealerships and be in the best interest for the industry and customers?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Talk about a deep subject. I got stories! Not enough space here to fully air this subject. In short…I’m a little tired of everything being my (the dealers) fault, or someone elses, as the case may be. What happend to personal responsibility. These units tend not to appreciate in value. Duh! We all know the payment buyer syndrome. Can’t get away from that. So, I say lets develop a finance contract with “two” payments…a MINIMUM or low and an EQUITY payment which will be the higher payment. The period or number of payments will be the same. Simply then we tell the customer that if they think they are enjoying the lifestyle and will be expecting to trade up in the future…they should elect to make the higher payment so they maximize their equity position. In short, they won’t be up side down when they trade. If they follow the lead, now in writing in finance contract form, and take the opportunity…great! If they don’t…IT’S NOT MY FAULT.
p.s. for those of you who think this is a butty idea, I say, this is one of those otherwise unsolveable problems that TAKES a NEW IDEA. I’ll listen to yours.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Whenever a RV dealer packs that large over-allowance into the new camper and ends up financing way more than the MOST banks limit of 115% of the invoice (even with any discounts added back in) it’s called bank fraud.We can’t do that.Ironicly many customers whom don’t have the money to trade with us end up trading with a varity of our competitors.The customers do not understand why we were requiring them to make the down payment that would make the loan meet the banks guidelines and xyz dealer did not require this.I wonder if the banks are aware of their Favorite Dealers defrauding them and fixating the invoices.This “going beyond” banking guidelines is the real problem,one that dealers like me won’t be part of,and one that rewards dealers who partake.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Without knowing more, it sounds like this is an illegal transaction. This is similar to the California Case where the dealer was sued for failure to itemize the negative equity? Was this transaction fully disclosed to the customer? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/d043908.doc
Negative Equity Ruling Calls for Full Disclosure
By Jeffrey Bellant
A California Appellate Court has ruled against a recreational vehicle dealership for failing to tell the customer in writing that it was financing the negative equity on a customer’s trade-in.
The case could put the spotlight on dealers who finance negative equity — when a customer owes more on a trade-in than it’s worth.
The June 28 decision against the San Diego-based business, 10,000 RV Sales Inc., stated that the dealership admitted to inflating the trade-in value in order to get the sale financed, and then rolled that into the cash price of the vehicle without informing the customer.
The lawsuit was originally filed by Reta Thompson, who purchased a 1995 Safari motor home from 10,000 RV Sales Inc. on May 11, 2001, for a cash price of $93,398.
As part of the deal, Thompson traded in a 2000 Shasta motor home, which she still owed $46,000 on.
Although the dealership appraised the motor home at $30,000, it credited the customer with $54,000 on the trade-in.
The $24,000 “over-allowance” allowed the customer to show a net trade-in value of $8,000 (the amount over and above the $46,000 Thompson still owed on her previous loan), which enabled the dealership to get lender approval for the deal.
The customer ultimately provided an additional $13,000 in cash as a down payment.
However, the court ruled that the dealership never told the customer in the sales contract that it was rolling the $46,000 loan balance into the total $93,398 cash price financed.
Several months later, Thompson began having problems with the motor home, and attempted to have repairs made under an extended warranty service contract she purchased from 10,000 RV Sales.
The dealership told Thompson the service contract did not cover the problem, and refused to repair the problems or refund the amount paid for the service contract.
Thompson sued the dealership.
In the court’s decision, it reported that the sales manager and vice president of the dealership admitted that over-allowances were made for the purpose of obtaining credit approval for Thompson.
Both also stated that Thompson was not told of this when she purchased the motor home.
The court’s review of the trial stated the sales manager, Matthew Leffingwell, testified that “lenders generally prefer a buyer not be in a negative equity position and require a certain down payment to meet their loan-to-value percentage guidelines.”
According to Keith Whann, general counsel of the National Independent Automobile Dealers Association, the court decision nullified the customer’s contract, and granted punitive damages and permanent injunctive relief to the customer under California’s Automobile Sales Finance Act, the Consumers Legal Remedy Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The Court of Appeals stated that the result of the business’s actions is that the customer was charged $1,800 more in sales tax which, when financed over the life of the 20 year loan at 9.25 percent interest, meant that Thompson would end up paying an additional $2,157.60 in interest.
It also ordered restitution to other customers — whose files were produced during discovery — who had an over-allowance on a trade-in vehicle included in their financed purchases.
Whann wrote a summary of the case for the NIADA’s Legislative Voice legal update, warning dealers to make sure they have the proper paperwork and give customers proper disclosures.
“Most states allow dealers to finance negative equity,” Whann stated, “provided that the customer is informed about what the dealership is doing, and the documents accurately reflect the transaction.”
However, even if all the disclosures are given, some lenders will still not finance negative equity.
“Disclosure of negative equity,” Whann said, “could just be the next issue to come up in class-action lawsuits against dealerships around the country.”
Bankruptcy expert William Mapother, founder of Creditor’s Law Center in Louisville, Ky., has suggested that the financing of negative equity has led to the rise in Chapter 7 bankruptcies over the past couple of years.
He said more consumers are “upside down” on their financed vehicles when they file for bankruptcy.
“Lenders or creditors are now lending in some cases up to 120 percent of the deal,” Mapother said.
Whann’s report on the case noted that while many states allow the financing of negative equity, dealers still must disclose what they are doing in writing, and the paperwork must accurately reflect the transaction.
Whann stated this is just another example of why dealers need to have proper disclosures.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
This is as common as can be. I dont like it, but as the
market goes, thats what happening. It is nothing new. The Auto dealers have been doing it since long term financing came out. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but if you dont do it the next dealer will. Then the customer will tell everyone you wouldnt trade with him (and cost you more business) So, go figure. Its a catch 22…
November 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
As an industry we have been mortaging our future for years. I remember when motorized terms went to 96 months, then 120,then 144, 180, now up to 300!
Your analysis of what happens is correct. The only solution would be for an industry wide limit on loan terms and loan advances (how much over true invoice a bank will finance).
Those limits, though allowing for future equity and the ability to trade up, would put a huge damper on our current business.
No matter how high a road a dealer claims to take, the number of these high-advanced, long-term loans booked by the banks indicate very few dealers are limiting their sales by insuring future equity for their customers.
And very few dealers, in this challenging market, can afford to through those sales over to their competition.
It’s a very difficult situation and one that has no easy way out. it may just be the legacy we current dealers leave to the future generation to figure out. Like global warming and Social Security.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Over financed is only part of the problem as the customer thinks were not giving them enough for there trade so were made out to be the bad guy and down the road they go to the original dealer who sold them the unit and they have already inflated there price to accommadate this situation and whola enother happy customer for them in worse financial trouble then before, and Mr. customer thinks we tried to srcew them and don’t know any better.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I wouldn’t allow any business to do that to me and i am in the RV business. I don’t think we have that many watch dogs to police this practice. I know of some people who are in the situation but you can’t tell them how to spend their money. It’s their life and every day is a new lesson.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
The real question is/Will that customer come back to you for the deal?
The automotive industry has gone through this and the aggressive dealers will take the high road.
The RV dealer that thinks he’s doing a customer a favor is just kidding himself and will be left by the wayside.
I’m not saying it’s right/it’s just business.