What's the point of Ford loosening financing requirements?
The article states their reasons pretty clearly, and indicates that some people won't qualify under the new requirements that would have previously, they're not courting people with bad credit, they're just looking beyond credit score at other factors. They aren't opening floodgates for anyone with a pulse to get a car loan, just shifting things a bit to cast a slightly wider net. This is not new in the world of secured debt, the FHA has methodology for establishing a non-traditional credit report based on things like rental history, utility payments, auto-insurance payments, a person can't be declined an FHA loan for lack for lack of traditional credit history. I look beyond credit score as a landlord, a tenant with poor credit but a stellar rental history is more appealing than someone with great credit but a bad rental history. Vehicles and housing are very important to people, so they are likely to prioritize them above credit card payments or hospital bills. Time will tell, but it seems like a solid move in my view, they can refine their model over time and likely find a solid customer base among those who wouldn't qualify on credit score alone. Why then did Ford (and the auto industry in general) suddenly decide to court such buyers?  Clearly when they felt they had a viable solution to the financing and could open up the market of buyers they were previously ignoring. If more sales are desired, surely the same can be accomplished with simply lowering prices? Millions of people have bad credit.  Apparently Ford thinks adding millions of people to the pool of potential buyers is more effective to boosting sales than discounting product for the pool of existing potential buyers. "A repossessed automobile will have lost some value from sale price, but it's not valueless.  They market ""title loans"" to people without good credit on this basis so its a reasonably well understood risk pool."
"I somewhat agree to Alex B's post.  I was a finance manager for 7 years both prime and sub-prime(special)(in other words bad).   The parts he's 100% right on.  Hit up you local credit union then your bank.  Get your financing done first if you can.  Now 690 credit score is one of 3 bureaus, not all banks and lending institutions use all three or the same one.  Also the score isn't everything.  That could be good or bad.  The 2-3% range is normally for the 720+ crowd unless its a manufacture.  (GM, Ford, so on)  With rates capping out at around 30% depending on state laws.  However 690 should not be 19% on a new or late model car.  At 690 at 19% you would have be going for a 70,000+ mile 6 year or older car if I had to guess. Assuming you have no BK's and repos.   Some times dealerships have to pay banks to get people financed.  Its hidden in the cost and they by law are not allowed to tell you about it because it cannot be passed on to you.  However the banks don't just fund any crazy amount of money either say like 115% of book and  that it.  That is where and why they want that big down payment because that is used to off set the finance amount and what you pay.  Making the dealership money.  and i can go on and on and on...   But you should always try to get the funding prior.  Your credit union won't charge the hidden fees and they only care about your down payment to see that you are making a commitment.  If you are buying used.  Save out 1500 for future repairs and tires and such.  Don't buy paint protectant and such.  If you finance thru the dealership and put less than 20% down DO buy Gap Insurance but thats it.  I can go on and on but I won't.  Feel free to ask though.   And to answer your original only question with not context. ""Is there any reason not to put a 35% down payment on a car?"" Yes if the money is better served paying off credit cards or long term mortgage, assuming you don't need the write off." "It is.  If the salaries were higher more bright college students would consider it a no-brainer to pursue computer programming degrees, in the same way that they do finance degrees.  Top talent should start in the mid sixes and high end talent should be making tens of millions a year.  Their businesses share more in common with financial firms than manufacturing.  But the pay hasn't caught up because salaries are artificially deflated by selective immigration.  I'm all in favor of loosening immigration restrictions, but not when it's targeted to prop up the bottom line of one, already very profitable, economic sector.  It's considered a win-win for politicians because it ""creates"" jobs, but all it really does is distort markets and make things our economy less efficient." Thanks for helping me gauge my expectations for this project. The more advanced stuff may require an exception then. I guess they are looking to knock off the casual Excel users while making exceptions for the more advanced Corporate Finance/Financial Reporting team. Thanks for your input though, can I ask you what your organization does and what areas you did have success in transitioning to GSuite? "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-china-idUSKBN19B1RO) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; DETROIT/WASHINGTON Ford Motor Co said on Tuesday it will move some production of its Focus small car to China and import the vehicles to the United States in a long-term bet on low oil prices and stable U.S.-China trade relations despite recent tensions.  &gt; In January, after U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Ford for shipping small-car manufacturing to Mexico, Ford said it would kill plans to build a $1.8 billion Focus plant in San Luis Potosi and instead produce the new Focus at an existing plant in Hermosillo.  &gt; No U.S. jobs will be affected by shifting Focus production to China, Ford said, adding that it employs more U.S. hourly workers and builds more vehicles in the United States than any other automaker.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ikh12/ford_bets_on_low_oil_prices_moves_focus/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~149211 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ford**^#1 **vehicle**^#2 **China**^#3 **United**^#4 **us**^#5" I worked at Wells Fargo Home Mortgage right before all the ARM loan stuff hit the news. Everyone on the board was constantly talking about increasing their portfolios.  One of the main ways they aimed to do this was by creating new loan products aimed at non-traditional borrowers (read: people who didn't meet the requirements for their traditional loan products). We had quarterly company-wide meetings to inform us about this kind of thing and it never really seemed like a great plan to me. Two years later, and the banks started failing. They lobbied to get a monopoly on direct to buyer cars (no dealership), they also receive subsidies on each car, as they aren't affordable for consumers. Their goal is more to take over the electric car market, not to put consumer desires first. I'm probably going to hell for pointing this out, but I thought you could know. "&gt; Do you know why it's so popular? I thought other trucks are pretty good too.   Well, for starters because FORD (the company) is considered a more solid brand/firm -- the two chief competitors (Chevy/GMC &amp; Chrysler/Dodge) are considered by some (many actually) to have ""soiled"" themselves in the financial crash of 2008-2009.    I know many previously ""loyal"" GM fans who swore after it became ""Government Motors"" that they would never buy another GM... and the vast majority of them switched over to Ford.  And Chrysler -- having gone through various owners -- is likewise looked at somewhat dubiously by many.  You have to keep in mind that business owners are (generally) not just thinking of a singular vehicle purchase, but of a series of such purchases (often over years and decades), as well as the supply of parts, the availability &amp; consistency of service &amp; support (whether internal in company ""shops"" or at dealers) and so on... anything &amp; everything that brings those things into the ""question mark"" territory, tends to reduce confidence, and thus shift the focus onto other brands that seem to be more ""stable"".  &gt;You're right that they get burned out quickly, although I'd think there'd be a longevity version of trucks by now.   That would be part of the reputation of the F series, and especially the F150... it is widely considered to be one of the BEST (longest lasting, least problematic) vehicles made.  &gt;aren't toyota trucks very long living?  Yes and yet no.  The history/reputation has been a bit more ""spotty"" than with Ford.  The same is true of Dodge, GMC and the other brands.  Certainly there will be people who think/believe/state otherwise -- I myself own a Dodge that I am generally VERY happy with, and I know others who have Chevy/GMC and other brands and are likewise quite happy with them -- but over the years, Ford has undisputably built up a solid reputation with it's truck line." I've been told by staff in my local car hire agency that they get such big discounts that they actually make money selling the cars, so they replace all their cars every six months (in the UK the number plate indicates when the car was registered, in six month periods). This suits the manufacturers, because it means they can offer a lower-cost product to price sensitive customers, while charging more to people who want something brand new. For example, you could buy a brand new Fiesta for £14,000 or a 6 month old version of the same car with a few thousand miles on the clock for £12,000. This means if you only have £12,000 then you can afford to buy a nearly new Fiesta, but if you can afford a bit more then Ford will happily take that off you for a brand new Fiesta. Ford sell an extra car, and if the car hire company only paid £11,000 then they make some profit too.