Edmunds reports Cash for Clunker real cost :$24,000 per car sale

[ModerateVoice]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm?section=money_topstories

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales.............yet the Obama administration spins....

"It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone," said Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation. "There can be no doubt that CARS drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most.:wall::wall::wall:

The source for this article, Edmunds, is one of the key auto industry analysts that auto industry professionals rely upon for non-biased data on trends, sales, projections, etc.

Having personally run car dealerships, I've been saying for months that this program was a failure. I made that statement on the simple and accurate assertion that the only thing Cash for Clunkers accomplished was to create a short-term falsely stimulated economy that stole sales from the future. Thank you Edmunds, for underscoring that point precisely.

[See It Clearly]

Quote:
"It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone," said Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation. "There can be no doubt that CARS drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most.


I think the key term in that article is the phrase "drummed up". It sure seems like a lot of things are "drummed up" now adays.

I am anticipating a campaign against Edmunds in the coming days. If they are part of the Chamber of Commerce they are in double "drummed up" trouble!

[misterblue]

Quote:
"It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone," said Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation. "There can be no doubt that CARS drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most.


I think the key term in that article is the phrase "drummed up". It sure seems like a lot of things are "drummed up" now adays.

I am anticipating a campaign against Edmunds in the coming days. If they are part of the Chamber of Commerce they are in double "drummed up" trouble!

This is what the democrats call a successful program. And they want to run Healthcare!

[fava]

Evyl Edmunds.

[LouC]

Okay that is just about the worst bit of reporting and analysis I have ever seen.

Edmunds.com makes up a completely untested formula for "estimating" what sales might have been during that period and people are acting like it is an edict from God.

That is just freaking crazy.

Then the alleged $24,000 amount spent per car is not based on the total number of cars processed under the program but on the $3 billion being divided between some made up estimate of 125,000 cars that allegedly were sold that would not have been sold.

$3 billion divided by 125K cars comes out to $24,000 per car.

But 690,000 (approximate) cars were actually sold under the program which is an average of $4,348 per car.

There is so much wrong with this story that it isn't even funny.

The story doesn't address whether Edmunds used the number of sales that were generated at dealerships by people who had come for the CARS programs but did not qualify yet still purchased a car because of other large incentives being offered.

This is all bunk.

The bottom line is this illegal redistribution of current and future wealth taken from American taxpayers is costing us $3 billion plus untold interest.

[fjccommish]

"
This is all bunk."

Agreed. The program was bunk.

[ModerateVoice]

Okay that is just about the worst bit of reporting and analysis I have ever seen.

Edmunds.com makes up a completely untested formula for "estimating" what sales might have been during that period and people are acting like it is an edict from God.

That is just freaking crazy.

Then the alleged $24,000 amount spent per car is not based on the total number of cars processed under the program but on the $3 billion being divided between some made up estimate of 125,000 cars that allegedly were sold that would not have been sold.

$3 billion divided by 125K cars comes out to $24,000 per car.

But 690,000 (approximate) cars were actually sold under the program which is an average of $4,348 per car.

There is so much wrong with this story that it isn't even funny.

The story doesn't address whether Edmunds used the number of sales that were generated at dealerships by people who had come for the CARS programs but did not qualify yet still purchased a car because of other large incentives being offered.

This is all bunk.

The bottom line is this illegal redistribution of current and future wealth taken from American taxpayers is costing us $3 billion plus untold interest.

Go back and re-read the whole article.

[LouC]

Go back and re-read the whole article.


I had read the whole entire article before I posted what I posted, that is why I posted what I posted, thank you very much.

If there is something you think I am 180 on do please let me know.

[ModerateVoice]

I had read the whole entire article before I posted what I posted, that is why I posted what I posted, thank you very much.

If there is something you think I am 180 on do please let me know.

The math is correct; its just a different way of looking at it.

The whole point was that the 3 billion only netted an additional 125,000 sales............sales that were "stolen" from later in the year. The cost of that false stimulus = $24,000 per car.

[WhiteHatBobby]

Remember the real goal was to appease the greenie-weenies who have run amok in this Administration. Getting people out of trucks and into the tiny 2-seat putt-putts is the ultimate goal.

[JerryN]

Well it did prove one thing:
Anytime there is "FREE" government money involved, the money grabbers all come out of hiding.

There were company incentives as high as $6000 available BEFORE this program.
But given a chance for taking a swipe at Uncle Sam for only $4500, they were ON it!
Some even cheated to get some of that gub'mint dough!

Look at the response in Detroit for some Obama dough.
And the rate of cheating on the First Time Homebuyers Credit.

This is what our society has degraded to.
Watch for future campaigns as the even sicker politicians fine tune our price points.

[Mike88]

Okay that is just about the worst bit of reporting and analysis I have ever seen.

Edmunds.com makes up a completely untested formula for "estimating" what sales might have been during that period and people are acting like it is an edict from God.

That is just freaking crazy.

Then the alleged $24,000 amount spent per car is not based on the total number of cars processed under the program but on the $3 billion being divided between some made up estimate of 125,000 cars that allegedly were sold that would not have been sold.

$3 billion divided by 125K cars comes out to $24,000 per car.

But 690,000 (approximate) cars were actually sold under the program which is an average of $4,348 per car.

There is so much wrong with this story that it isn't even funny.

The story doesn't address whether Edmunds used the number of sales that were generated at dealerships by people who had come for the CARS programs but did not qualify yet still purchased a car because of other large incentives being offered.

This is all bunk.

The bottom line is this illegal redistribution of current and future wealth taken from American taxpayers is costing us $3 billion plus untold interest.

Gee, you getting it completely wrong in an effort to defend the indefensible democrats. Haven't seen that before.

[ogibillm]

I had read the whole entire article before I posted what I posted, that is why I posted what I posted, thank you very much.

If there is something you think I am 180 on do please let me know.

one of the questions i raise is whether or not the benefit of the CARS programs was just in car sales.

sure, some people may have purchased their car anyhow, but that $90 a month the $4500 rebate saved them (and that's before the fuel savings) sure could go towards a lot of other things.

the point is this is a poor stick to measure the success of the program on.

[LouC]

The math is correct; its just a different way of looking at it.

The whole point was that the 3 billion only netted an additional 125,000 sales............sales that were "stolen" from later in the year. The cost of that false stimulus = $24,000 per car.

You can spin and say the math is correct, sure you can.

When the math comes from a totally unproven formula, which derived a totally estimated and unverifiable guess, and you then manipulate that guess to how you want it manipulated, then yeah I guess the math is correct.

The report is bunk but it makes for good and very misleading talking points.

Even Rush had it wrong today on his show, but it made for good solid faux outrage.

From the article: While auto sales in September were hurt because auto dealership inventories were drained of products by the program, sales this month are already back on track or better, Pipas said.

Drained by the program some, yes, but also because car manufacturing had been idled for the summer at several plants.

[ModerateVoice]

You can spin and say the math is correct, sure you can.

When the math comes from a totally unproven formula, which derived a totally estimated and unverifiable guess, and you then manipulate that guess to how you want it manipulated, then yeah I guess the math is correct.

The report is bunk but it makes for good and very misleading talking points.

Even Rush had it wrong today on his show, but it made for good solid faux outrage.

From the article:

Drained by the program some, yes, but also because car manufacturing had been idled for the summer at several plants.

You don't like Edmunds forecasting model? Well, you better tell the auto industry, because Edmunds & their analytics are considered standards in the car industry.

[fava]

I agree the math is sketchy and assumes that some cars would have been sold anyway.
It is fairly impossible to arrive at that number.
I am sure you would admit that dividing the stimulus money by the amount of cars traded is also a phony number.
It is a given that some cars would have been sold or the economy would have collapsed before this day.

[LouC]

one of the questions i raise is whether or not the benefit of the CARS programs was just in car sales.

sure, some people may have purchased their car anyhow, but that $90 a month the $4500 rebate saved them (and that's before the fuel savings) sure could go towards a lot of other things.

the point is this is a poor stick to measure the success of the program on.

One of the key points of the program was to permanently remove from the road a used vehicle with X estimated mpg exchanged for a new vehicle with X+ estimated mpg.

In that finite role the CARS program was a resounding success 690,000 times.

[LouC]

Gee, you getting it completely wrong in an effort to defend the indefensible democrats. Haven't seen that before.

The poster wears blinders and then talks about what they saw.

Priceless... :))

[LouC]

I agree the math is sketchy and assumes that some cars would have been sold anyway.
It is fairly impossible to arrive at that number.
I am sure you would admit that dividing the stimulus money by the amount of cars traded is also a phony number.
It is a given that some cars would have been sold or the economy would have collapsed before this day.

Max WAG

[See It Clearly]

One of the key points of the program was to permanently remove from the road a used vehicle with X estimated mpg exchanged for a new vehicle with X+ estimated mpg.

In that finite role the CARS program was a resounding success 690,000 times.


Ha ha ha, way to go, lower the bar on success. Oh hell, let's get rid of the bar all together.

[waynevan]

Okay that is just about the worst bit of reporting and analysis I have ever seen.

Edmunds.com makes up a completely untested formula for "estimating" what sales might have been during that period and people are acting like it is an edict from God.

That is just freaking crazy.

Then the alleged $24,000 amount spent per car is not based on the total number of cars processed under the program but on the $3 billion being divided between some made up estimate of 125,000 cars that allegedly were sold that would not have been sold.

$3 billion divided by 125K cars comes out to $24,000 per car.

But 690,000 (approximate) cars were actually sold under the program which is an average of $4,348 per car.

There is so much wrong with this story that it isn't even funny.

The story doesn't address whether Edmunds used the number of sales that were generated at dealerships by people who had come for the CARS programs but did not qualify yet still purchased a car because of other large incentives being offered.

This is all bunk.

The bottom line is this illegal redistribution of current and future wealth taken from American taxpayers is costing us $3 billion plus untold interest.

Hey.

You aren't supposed to mention the interest, that's the dirty little secret that doesn't get mentioned.

Get back in line you!

[ModerateVoice]

The poster wears blinders and then talks about what they saw.

Priceless... :))

Tell me where I'm blinders, because I would be glad to clear up YOUR misunderstanding.

[LouC]

You don't like Edmunds forecasting model?

I do not hold their estimate as anything more than an unverifiable guess.

Well, you better tell the auto industry, because Edmunds & their analytics are considered standards in the car industry.

Type in "experts surprised" into a search engine and see how often the "experts" or industry "standard" bearers get things completely wrong.

[LouC]

Tell me where I'm blinders, because I would be glad to clear up YOUR misunderstanding.

Are you Mike 88?

Or just confused?

[LouC]

Hey.

You aren't supposed to mention the interest, that's the dirty little secret that doesn't get mentioned.

Get back in line you!

Sorry... :redface:

[davetexas]

One of the key points of the program was to permanently remove from the road a used vehicle with X estimated mpg exchanged for a new vehicle with X+ estimated mpg.

In that finite role the CARS program was a resounding success 690,000 times.


Go on youtube and watch the dealer destroying a volvo by replacing the oil with sodium silicate and running it wide open till it is destroyed. Then tell me Obama is not totally insane.
That car took over 15 minutes to destroy. It could have served someone well for transportation. Just absolutely insane,like the one that thought up this cash for clunker stupidity.

[LouC]

Ha ha ha, way to go, lower the bar on success. Oh hell, let's get rid of the bar all together.

Me?

I lowered no bars.

[LouC]

Go on youtube and watch the dealer destroying a volvo by replacing the oil with sodium silicate and running it wide open till it is destroyed. Then tell me Obama is not totally insane.
That car took over 15 minutes to destroy. It could have served someone well for transportation. Just absolutely insane,like the one that thought up this cash for clunker stupidity.

I have seen the youtubes of cars being prepped for recycling.

The object was to remove that car permanently from our roads.

It was removed.

That is a success if that was a goal, and it was.

Your opinion of the President's sanity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the argument I have against the OP article.

[ModerateVoice]

I do not hold their estimate as anything more than an unverifiable guess.

That's why things are labelled forecasts - and not certainties.

Type in "experts surprised" into a search engine and see how often the "experts" or industry "standard" bearers get things completely wrong.

Lou,

I ran dealerships for 10 years. The first dealership I ran, I took from the brink of bankruptcy, sold off one franchise, and built the other into one of the sales leaders in CA for its brand. With that preamble, I know a thing or two about the subject.

I've been critical about this program from DAY ONE. From Day One, I have agreed with industry experts on how the net result of the program would be to create a short-term, falsely created, stimulated economy for the retail industry. Every report following the Clunker program has reported exactly what the industry experts have been saying -- the cars sold from the clunker program were simply taken from future sales. I believe WSJ covered this topic last week.

I recently spoke with one of my former sales managers to ask him about Cash for Clunkers, and he told me that the sales people were not getting rich off from the program. Instead, the salespeople were working their tails off & selling more cars -- but at a lower average commission per vehicle sale. Now that the dust has settled, the sales people are watching tumbleweeds rolling across the showroom floor because no one is coming in to buy cars -- remember the "sales stolen from the future part?" Had these sales people sold the same number of cars without the stimulus, it is likely that these sales people could have made more commission -- one reason being that they would have made higher commissions from selling used cars that went unsold because of the stimulus (used cars net higher commissions for a variety of reasons to long to list here)

On the dealer level, the dealers had to float hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of money to cover their floorplan that has to be paid off when the car is sold. Well, for every car sold under clunkers, dealers had to float that rebate..........then there is the issue of interest LOST by dealers because they had to float money instead of earning interest on it. These factors hurt a lot of dealers already struggling....I'm sure a couple just didn't make it.

This gets us back to the report.........it was a forecast, it wasn't a statement of fact. It was based upon the indicators that Edmunds has found to reliably allow them to project the market. The report is in line with what dealers have been saying, the report is in line with what industry journalists have been saying --- 125,000 cars were sold and the net cost per sale becomes $24,000 per vehicle.

I can keep going....

[davetexas]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm?section=money_topstories

............yet the Obama administration spins....

:wall::wall::wall:

The source for this article, Edmunds, is one of the key auto industry analysts that auto industry professionals rely upon for non-biased data on trends, sales, projections, etc.

Having personally run car dealerships, I've been saying for months that this program was a failure. I made that statement on the simple and accurate assertion that the only thing Cash for Clunkers accomplished was to create a short-term falsely stimulated economy that stole sales from the future. Thank you Edmunds, for underscoring that point precisely.


Not only did it steal sales from the future,it derailed the chain of economic events that follow any mass series of car sales. IE the used car market.
On a normal dealer trade,the raw trades are bought up wholesale by used car dealers.
Then starts the mass economic boom to upolstry shops,mechanic shops,parts supply houses,body shops,and on and on down the line.

Enter Obama to destroy this windfall. That put the losses in wages,and products,and services at several thousand per car. Not to mention the fact that used car scarcity has driven up used cars dramatically. Hurting the poor that need cheap transportation.
Hey a new stimulus is born! Money given to help buy used cars now that the market is soured by stupidity.

The only real advocate for the little guys are the conservatives . Protecting capitalism and a free America

[davetexas]

I have seen the youtubes of cars being prepped for recycling.

The object was to remove that car permanently from our roads.

It was removed.

That is a success if that was a goal, and it was.

Your opinion of the President's sanity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the argument I have against the OP article.

Destoying a perfectly good automobile is totally and completely insane.

Edit; Ya know what we can expect if loony INC. healthcare passes

[ModerateVoice]

Not only did it steal sales from the future,it derailed the chain of economic events that follow any mass series of car sales. IE the used car market.
On a normal dealer trade,the raw trades are bought up wholesale by used car dealers.
Then starts the mass economic boom to upolstry shops,mechanic shops,parts supply houses,body shops,and on and on down the line.

In my previous post, I didn't even touch on the used car angle. I have heard that there were loop holes on the wholesale side of the industry for some graft.........and whispers of cars being reported destroyed but instead shipped to Mexico and Asia for gray market resale.

Enter Obama to destroy this windfall. That put the losses in wages,and products,and services at several thousand per car. Not to mention the fact that used car scarcity has driven up used cars dramatically. Hurting the poor that need cheap transportation.
Hey a new stimulus is born! Money given to help buy used cars now that the market is soured by stupidity.

The only real advocate for the little guys are the conservatives . Protecting capitalism and a free America

One of the guys hired to restructure GM is a 31 year old Yale Law drop out who has never worked one day in the car industry prior to Obama's appointment to that position. :wall:

[ModerateVoice]

I have seen the youtubes of cars being prepped for recycling.

The object was to remove that car permanently from our roads.

It was removed.

That is a success if that was a goal, and it was.

Your opinion of the President's sanity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the argument I have against the OP article.

Is this how you are validating the $24,000 per car?

Would it make you feel better if the cost was $20K, $15K, $10k per car? The point is that the program DID NOT accomplish any goal that can be called fiscally responsible.......it was a "gift" to anyone in the market for a new car -- at the expense of the taxpayer.........and it paid lip service to the green weenies with another feel good, but do nothing recycling initiative. (Do you honestly think that the environment is magically saved now that 690,000 cars have been destroyed?) If so, let me wrap up Cap & Trade and put that little monster under your Christmas tree.

[davetexas]

In my previous post, I didn't even touch on the used car angle. I have heard that there were loop holes on the wholesale side of the industry for some graft.........and whispers of cars being reported destroyed but instead shipped to Mexico and Asia for gray market resale.



One of the guys hired to restructure GM is a 31 year old Yale Law drop out who has never worked one day in the car industry prior to Obama's appointment to that position. :wall:
Thats like putting a Illegal alien in the commander in Chief's position.........Oh,never mind

[ModerateVoice]

Lou?

Lou?

Where did he go?

[LouC]

...I can keep going....

Don't bother.

None of that changed a thing.

The whole $24,000 per car figure is still a spin city guess.

No one can say with certainty that the program "took" away future sales.

Sales are never guaranteed.

Edmunds had predicted a Saar of 8.3 for 2009 immediately after CARS, now they are predicting 10.35 Saar for the year.

Edmunds had predicted an 8.8 Saar for September before September, Goldman Sachs predicted 9.3 Saar for September.

Edmunds re adjusted their Saar for September to 9.3 on September 24th.

Sachs is placing their FY2009 Saar estimate at 10.5.

Before the recession Saar had averaged 14 to 17 for the last decade.

Can anyone point out the sales that were stolen from the future by CARS?

[LouC]

Destoying a perfectly good automobile is totally and completely insane.

Edit; Ya know what we can expect if loony INC. healthcare passes

Destroying perfectly good cars is done day in and day out in this country and has happened long before the CARS program was even a glimmer in President Obama's eye.

The argument that these cars could have gone to people that desperately need them is specious.

[LouC]

Lou?

Lou?

Where did he go?

Sorry I saw something shiny and got distracted. :)

[jimjames418]

Can anyone point out the sales that were stolen from the future by CARS?
I can point out the used car market in this area. There is a dealership of used cars that at one time advertised "1,000" vehicles available at all times, and they had a lot that held that many vehicles.

I drove by the lot a week ago and there were less than 100 cars on the lot. When they destroyed the cars traded in they destroyed this business. The business had over 300 employees who are now out of work.

[LouC]

Is this how you are validating the $24,000 per car?

What?

I am not the one validating any $24,000 per car, I am the one saying the $24,000 figure is bogus.

Would it make you feel better if the cost was $20K, $15K, $10k per car?

What?

Why would other "pulled out one's backside" guesses be any different?

And why on earth do you think they would make me feel better?

The point is that the program DID NOT accomplish any goal that can be called fiscally responsible.......it was a "gift" to anyone in the market for a new car -- at the expense of the taxpayer.........and it paid lip service to the green weenies with another feel good, but do nothing recycling initiative.

Well that evidences that we do agree on some things.

(Do you honestly think that the environment is magically saved now that 690,000 cars have been destroyed?)

No.

Never have.

Because this was an exchange and not a net reduction in vehicles.

I also predicted there would likely be a slight increase (if it were measurable) in fuel usage because people with new cars tend to drive more often and farther distances, especially if the new car has better gas mileage.

So using less foreign oil as a talking point for CARS was only plausible for the Obama acolytes.

If so, let me wrap up Cap & Trade and put that little monster under your Christmas tree.

No thanks.

I don't understand why my position here makes people think I approved of CARS?

[ModerateVoice]

I can point out the used car market in this area. There is a dealership of used cars that at one time advertised "1,000" vehicles available at all times, and they had a lot that held that many vehicles.

I drove by the lot a week ago and there were less than 100 cars on the lot. When they destroyed the cars traded in they destroyed this business. The business had over 300 employees who are now out of work.

A dealer like that is most likely an owner who makes most of his money via wholesale buys from the dealer & then makes their money flipping these same cars at auction. If the car sells while on the lot, then the owner(s) make more profit per vehicle.......if it goes through the auction, the wholesale/retail dealer still makes a handsome sum.

You are right, there C4C destroyed the availability of wholesale buys. In my area, all but a few of these types of dealers are wiped out.

[LouC]

I can point out the used car market in this area. There is a dealership of used cars that at one time advertised "1,000" vehicles available at all times, and they had a lot that held that many vehicles.

Thanks but that is anecdotal observation that proves nothing towards my query.

I drove by the lot a week ago and there were less than 100 cars on the lot. When they destroyed the cars traded in they destroyed this business.

The recession has damaged the used car market, not CARS.

The business had over 300 employees who are now out of work.

There is no proof the CARS program put that lot out of business but there is overwhelming evidence that the recession has deeply affected the used car business nationwide.

[Cutiepie]

Remember the real goal was to appease the greenie-weenies who have run amok in this Administration. Getting people out of trucks and into the tiny 2-seat putt-putts is the ultimate goal.




I don't think that worked. I am seeing bigger trucks and SUV's then I have ever seen before.

[ModerateVoice]

Don't bother.

None of that changed a thing.

The whole $24,000 per car figure is still a spin city guess.

No one can say with certainty that the program "took" away future sales.

Sales are never guaranteed.

Edmunds had predicted a Saar of 8.3 for 2009 immediately after CARS, now they are predicting 10.35 Saar for the year.

Edmunds had predicted an 8.8 Saar for September before September, Goldman Sachs predicted 9.3 Saar for September.

Edmunds re adjusted their Saar for September to 9.3 on September 24th.

Sachs is placing their FY2009 Saar estimate at 10.5.

Before the recession Saar had averaged 14 to 17 for the last decade.

Can anyone point out the sales that were stolen from the future by CARS?

Husband: I know we talked about waiting until October to start thinking about replacing your Camry, but this Clunker program will save us another $4500.

Wife: You're right. I ran the numbers, and with the economy the way it is, I think we should buy the car now. We don't know what the incentives are going to be in October.

..........and so another couple buys during C4C, instead of October. All it did was compress the same economy, depress PPV, and lead to quieter showrooms at present. Furthermore, it will likely further depress the market in the next several months -- if you adjust for year end rebates and incentives.

[ModerateVoice]

Thanks but that is anecdotal observation that proves nothing towards my query.



The recession has damaged the used car market, not CARS.



There is no proof the CARS program put that lot out of business but there is overwhelming evidence that the recession has deeply affected the used car business nationwide.

Your assertion that C4C didn't effect the used car market shows what little you know about the sales cycles of the retail car market. In down economies, as a percentage, used car sales rise.

My previous post addressing the Used Car lot referenced in this post, speaks to other economic consequences of C4C on the used car market.

[LouC]

Husband: I know we talked about waiting until October to start thinking about replacing your Camry, but this Clunker program will save us another $4500.

Wife: You're right. I ran the numbers, and with the economy the way it is, I think we should buy the car now. We don't know what the incentives are going to be in October.

..........and so another couple buys during C4C, instead of October. All it did was compress the same economy, depress PPV, and lead to quieter showrooms at present. Furthermore, it will likely further depress the market in the next several months -- if you adjust for year end rebates and incentives.

Thanks.

That was enjoyable but it did nothing to answer my query.

Anecdotal news articles are proving sales are rebounding.

September was down but it bounced back some and took "experts" by surprise who never expected it would.

Edmunds themselves had predicted 8.3 for the year at the end of CARS but in 3 short weeks after that they were back to 9.3 prediction and now they say 10.35 for the year.

No one can say CARS stole future sales.

[ModerateVoice]

Thanks.

That was enjoyable but it did nothing to answer my query.

Anecdotal news articles are proving sales are rebounding.

September was down but it bounced back some and took "experts" by surprise who never expected it would.

Edmunds themselves had predicted 8.3 for the year at the end of CARS but in 3 short weeks after that they were back to 9.3 prediction and now they say 10.35 for the year.

No one can say CARS stole future sales.

You and I will just agree to disagree. You want to interpret data the way you want to see it, and I seasoned my conclusions with 10 years of retail auto management experience to add to the data provided by Edmunds.

[davetexas]

Destroying perfectly good cars is done day in and day out in this country and has happened long before the CARS program was even a glimmer in President Obama's eye.

The argument that these cars could have gone to people that desperately need them is specious.


You kidding?

There is new demand everyday. Kids becomming of age,wrecks totaling out vehicles,vehicles having motors burn up ,etc.

C'mon man,you think people just destroy their car to "save the planet"?

[MarkyS]

Not only did it steal sales from the future,it derailed the chain of economic events that follow any mass series of car sales. IE the used car market.
On a normal dealer trade,the raw trades are bought up wholesale by used car dealers.
Then starts the mass economic boom to upolstry shops,mechanic shops,parts supply houses,body shops,and on and on down the line.

Enter Obama to destroy this windfall. That put the losses in wages,and products,and services at several thousand per car. Not to mention the fact that used car scarcity has driven up used cars dramatically. Hurting the poor that need cheap transportation.
Hey a new stimulus is born! Money given to help buy used cars now that the market is soured by stupidity.

The only real advocate for the little guys are the conservatives . Protecting capitalism and a free America

You have it exactly correct. One can never advance economically by destroying assets, as this program did. It is also true that there was a green cost to replacing good working vehicle with new vehicles. The assembly line has a carbon footprint, and a green cost, so to say that this advances the green situation isn't necessarily true, either. Failure, failure.

M

[LouC]

Your assertion that C4C didn't effect the used car market shows what little you know about the sales cycles of the retail car market. In down economies, as a percentage, used car sales rise.

That may be true in non recession markets, but it has not been true in this recession cycle.

Plus it must be noted once again that those used cars exchanged in the CARS program were never in the used car market.

They were keepers, exchanged for keepers.

[LouC]

You kidding?

There is new demand everyday. Kids becomming of age,wrecks totaling out vehicles,vehicles having motors burn up ,etc.

C'mon man,you think people just destroy their car to "save the planet"?

No I am not kidding.

Despite everything you stated usable vehicles still go to the crusher.

[ModerateVoice]

That may be true in non recession markets, but it has not been true in this recession cycle.

Plus it must be noted once again that those used cars exchanged in the CARS program were never in the used car market.

They were keepers, exchanged for keepers.

I give, you're right, I'm wrong.........how DO I get back those ten years of my life where I was paid an annual six figure income for my knowledge of an industry I certainly have no clue about?

[MarkyS]

No I am not kidding.

Despite everything you stated usable vehicles still go to the crusher.

Typically, only when their wholesale parts value falls below their intrinsic value as scrap metal, which is extremely rare. Typically, once they become unsalable on even the used car market, they go to a scrap yard, where the value of their individual parts far exceeds their value as a running vehicle.

Cash for clunkers made the engines of these vehicles unusable for parts, or in whole - a destruction of assetts.

M

[LouC]

Typically...

Exactly how many per year is typically?

How many is that per new car dealer?

How many is that for a used car dealer?

How many is that out in BFE where people drive to junk yards get $300 for a vehicle they don't need cause they got a newer used one they bought from a friend?

How many are junked by people moving out of state, and it is an extra car they don't want to haul with them?

How many is that in fleet vehicles from companies that have gone under and there is not any desire to auction them off and they just call a yard and take the scrap amount for each of them?

These questions are all regarding incidences I have witnessed or been involved in.

I know I am not unique.

[MarkyS]

This is what you said


Destroying perfectly good cars is done day in and day out in this country and has happened long before the CARS program was even a glimmer in President Obama's eye.

The argument that these cars could have gone to people that desperately need them is specious.

That is NONESENSE. Perfectly good cars are not put in the crusher, unless Oddjob wants to destroy the evidence of the killing he just did for Goldfinger. If the cars are perfectly good, they are put on the market - either the retail or wholesale markets - for used cars. When they reach a level of decline such that they can no longer be viable used car purchases, which can be many, many years, they are TYPICALLY sold to junk yards for their perfectly good parts - including the engines that the C4C program destroyed. Those engines, would have in turn kept other cars that are still acceptable and cheap vehicles on the road. It is indeed the poorest - who need to keep their clunkers running - who were hurt the most by this program, as they never had a chance in hell of buying the vehicles that were replacing the clunkers. We tax-payers gave a tremendously expensive gift to middle-to-rich American car buyers, and screwed the poor out of a chance to keep their cars on the road.

C4C destroyed assets. It's that simple, and it is impossible to claim that any program which destroys assets is an economic success.

The only time a perfectly good car is destroyed is when it isn't feasable or economically viable to get it to any number of secondary markets for such vehicles and their parts - and that is RARE.

M

[LouC]

...That is NONESENSE. Perfectly good cars are not put in the crusher,...
M

Some go directly into the shredders at yards equipped with them.

Others that are perfectly usable get some parts pulled then go into the crushers then transported to processing yards.

Never ever claimed the CARS program was a financial success.

[bloods vs crips]

No thanks.

I don't understand why my position here makes people think I approved of CARS?

Because, on this forum, you're not allowed to disagree with a single premise unless you agree with an entire program.

It's never ending.

If you don't think Obama is a Communist, you must be a Communist.

If you don't think the Democrast are intentionally ruining the country, you must be a Democrat.

Blah blah.

It's logically fallacious, and incredibly tiring. Yet, it never ends.

[LouC]

Because, on this forum, you're not allowed to disagree with a single premise unless you agree with an entire program.

It's never ending.

If you don't think Obama is a Communist, you must be a Communist.

If you don't think the Democrast are intentionally ruining the country, you must be a Democrat.

Blah blah.

It's logically fallacious, and incredibly tiring. Yet, it never ends.

It is disturbing.

Maddening actually.

[JerryN]

It is disturbing.

Maddening actually.

What's disturbing, maddening actually, is that, with your vast knowledge of the new and used car markets ...
Why aren't you out there making a killing???

Instead you grace us internetbeings with your specious knowledge. I don't get it, Lou.
Care to explain?

[LouC]

What's disturbing, maddening actually, is that, with your vast knowledge of the new and used car markets ...
Why aren't you out there making a killing???

Instead you grace us internetbeings with your specious knowledge. I don't get it, Lou.
Care to explain?

I hate cars.

[See It Clearly]

What's disturbing, maddening actually, is that, with your vast knowledge of the new and used car markets ...
Why aren't you out there making a killing???

Instead you grace us internetbeings with your specious knowledge. I don't get it, Lou.
Care to explain?

What's disturbing is that this country has turned into one that will disregard those who actually have experience and expertise in an area and lick the shoes of those they would prefer to agree with.

If Edmunds, or the Chamber of Commerce, or any other "expert" in their field posts a report that is anti-:liar:bama, or anti-eco-terrorist, or anti-algore warming, or anti-(insert your own kook group here)... people in this country automatically think they become the expert.

[JerryN]

What's disturbing is that this country has turned into one that will disregard those who actually have experience and expertise in an area and lick the shoes of those they would prefer to agree with.

If Edmunds, or the Chamber of Commerce, or any other "expert" in their field posts a report that is anti-:liar:bama, or anti-eco-terrorist, or anti-algore warming, or anti-(insert your own kook group here)... people in this country automatically think they become the expert.

On the other hand, if real experts like Edmunds, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. who have actual expertise
publishes the TRUTH of all your causes, you interpret it as being anti-(insert the fad of the month) rather than listening.

In the words of Jack Nicholson: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[See It Clearly]

on the other hand, if real experts like edmunds, the chamber of commerce, etc. Who have actual expertise
publishes the truth of all your causes, you interpret it as being anti-(insert the fad of the month) rather than listening.

In the words of jack nicholson: You can't handle the truth!

fail!

[JerryN]

fail!

You already did.
Is that an argumentative statement or just a feeble effort to get in the last word?