The Industry's Leading Source For F&I, Sales And Technology


Why Aren't There More Nonprime Finance Companies

December 2006, F&I and Showroom - Feature

by Jim Bass - Also by this author

Many times, the F&I managers in dealerships become frustrated because they believe quality deals are being offered to nonprime finance companies, yet there seems to be difficulty in getting many of the deals bought. Although it seems all the published guidelines are being met, there’s something in the mysterious score cards killing deals. An obvious question is: Aren’t there any companies that like nonprime applicants any more? If not, why doesn’t someone start such a company?

Recently, there has been a general move toward consolidation of nonprime companies into depository institutions (banks), which has limited the variety of available programs. For example, what once was Auto One, Arcadia and TranSouth is now a single program handled by CitiFinancial Auto. Likewise, WFS Financial has been absorbed by Wachovia, Wells Fargo Special Finance by Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Bank One Special Finance by Chase Auto Finance, etc. In practically every case, these companies have also, more or less, abandoned the general FICO range below about 560 in favor of moving up the credit scale, seeking lower overall losses in their portfolios.

There are finance companies still buying low scoring paper, but those companies pay practically no attention to FICO scores and instead rely more on down payment and underwriter judgment for their decisions. Typical advances in those cases are significantly below 100 percent of wholesale value, many times as low as 75 percent of wholesale value. Obviously, it takes a strong down payment to make that structure work.

In the FICO range between 500 and 550, finance companies are few and far between. Yet, many successful companies started and prospered in that range. So, if they have become too loss conscious to purchase in that range, why doesn’t someone start a company that prefers that range? In the past, this was a profitable proposition.

Matching Expectations With Capabilities

An interesting fact is that investment firms, hedge funds, investment bankers and private equity firms are more interested in nonprime financing these days than in the last 10 years. So what’s the hold up? Are there no management guys out there wishing to start a company? Is there a problem getting management people together with investment finance sources? The answer to both questions is there are plenty of people who wish to start companies and there are investment sources who wish to invest. The problem seems to be one of matching expectations with capabilities.

Most investment companies look for opportunities with relatively high expected returns and relatively low risk of losing their investment. One way to judge a potential investment is to look at the track record of the company being invested in. This is where we have a disconnect as a start-up company. No matter the quality, in-depth experience and personal track records of management, it has no track record. It just hasn’t had any finance paper on its books long enough to determine what the loss picture looks like.

Consequently, financial models that attempt to forecast the success of a company are largely based on industry information instead of data that is unique to the company at hand. What makes the investors uncomfortable is that every finance company develops a culture of underwriting and collection that makes its portfolio performance somewhat different from the norm. If the new company does better with its financial result, that’s good. If it doesn’t, that costs the investor his or her return on investment, which is a bad thing. So, being able to look into the crystal ball and seeing a favorable outcome is important to investors, a difficult task without the finance company having some actual history to prove its philosophy is a profitable one.

Investors Want to See Some “Skin”

Another question that arises when attempting to attract capital is

whether the founders have enough “skin” in the game, and whether it’s enough that the founders are taking a significant personal risk. My experience has been that the investing institutions will provide great amounts of money, but they also expect the founding group of managers to have stretched their investment in the company so they will be highly motivated to make the new venture a success. In other words, if the business fails, the investment folks want the founding group to suffer in greater proportion than the investment group will. In a phrase, founding managers should have a significant portion of their personal net worth tied up in the new venture.

Typically, the management group that wishes to start a company is

composed of people who have been in exec

utive positions with successful finance companies, and who were probably holders of little to no equity in those companies. These are individuals who have become convinced that they can do it better than their current employer, the very reason behind their desire to start a new finance company. However, when they figure out how much they can pull together as beginning capital, the several tens of thousands of dollars required might put those ambitions into question. In the grand scheme of things, this may still be insignificant.

Your Comment

Please note that comments may be moderated. 
Leave this field empty:
Your Name:  
Your Email:  


So Here's the Deal

Ronald J. Reahard
Help! My Dealership Is Packing Payments

By Ronald J. Reahard
Top trainer comes to the rescue of an F&I manager who fears an antiquated, discredited, and deceptive sales tactic has taken root at his store.

Sharing the Profit

By Ronald J. Reahard
After losing members of his sales team, a dealer asks the magazine’s resident F&I expert for his take on paying salespeople on F&I income.

Menus Don’t Work Miracles

By Ronald J. Reahard

Avoiding the AAA Objection

By Ronald J. Reahard

Done Deal

Gregory Arroyo
Red Flags Alert

By Gregory Arroyo
The editor believes recent regulatory activity should serve as a warning to dealers who haven’t dusted off their Red Flags compliance programs in the years since the rule took effect.

GAP Suffers Another Setback

By Gregory Arroyo
The editor reveals the truth behind an NPR report critical of the industry’s efforts to undo the Military Lending Act guidance that put the brakes on GAP sales.

Car Buyers Need F&I

By Gregory Arroyo

Protecting F&I’s Future

By Gregory Arroyo

Mad Marv

Marv Eleazer
Readers Are Leaders

By Marv Eleazer
Do you know the minimum amount of tread depth a tire must have for a tire-and-wheel claim to be approved? If you don’t, His Madness has a message for you.

Comply Like Nobody’s Watching

By Marv Eleazer
His Madness wants F&I pros to commit to ethical dealings with customers and finance sources because it’s the right thing to do, not just for the very real threat of reprisal.

'We Never Buy This Stuff'

By Marv Eleazer

Stop Painting Dealers With a Broad Brush

By Marv Eleazer

On the Point

Jim Ziegler
Bound to Fail

By Jim Ziegler
Da Man returns with a message to vehicle manufacturers jumping into the subscription waters: It ain’t gonna happen.

Sharpen Your Survival Skills

By Jim Ziegler
‘Da Man’ has a plan you can use to survive the collapse of the car business and remain profitable through the dealer apocalypse.

Sales Rock Stars Still Exist

By Jim Ziegler

The New Stooges

By Jim Ziegler