Data analysis of the government's Cash for Clunkers program is beginning to surface. That analysis, coupled with some not too impressive projections, is beginning to paint a murky, if not dismal, picture of the auto industry's future. I read an excellent break down of the data, which was provided by Michelle Krebs via Edmunds Automotive Network.
First off, some analysts are claiming that while the Clunkers program did boost auto sales for the month of August, those sales were most likely moved forward on the calendar by auto buyers who were already contemplating a purchase. The supposition is that these consumers simply bought earlier to reap their government vouchers (you're welcome). Dismal September sales numbers are being projected for auto makers.
Analysts are also pointing out that consumers who purchased vehicles during this period paid higher prices on average for those vehicles than purchasers in the previous month. It is believed that the Clunker vouchers dampened the spirit of wheeling and dealing by helping to reduce initial sticker shock.
The data also shows that the average age of traded-in vehicles during this period almost doubled. In this regard, the Clunkers program was a great success. While consumers put new cars into service, saving themselves fuel expense and short-term maintenance costs, they also created a flurry of new consumer debt. However, negative equity of trade-ins dropped to its lowest point of the year, thereby considerably reducing the "rollover debt" factor.
Another noteworthy sales dynamic I garnered from the article is the fact that the value of vehicles sold during this period actually trended downward, indicating that the program's vehicle value cap did in fact limit or direct consumer choice. People bought less car for more money. The facts speak for themselves.
In composite, I see the results like this: Cash for Clunkers moved cars that were bound to sell anyway. Consumers paid more for those cars than they would have without government incentive. Consumers tended to buy below their standards on average. Banks netted a smaller debt package overall than they would have without government interference. And, the government placed effective restrictions on consumer choice.
Well, it was a good run while it lasted.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-19-2009 @ 3:15PM
huh? said...
the feds even named this.... unintended results.... in other words.... fubar.... the government HAS NEVER accomplished what they started out to do, because, while it 'looked good' on paper (not unlike socialism) in reality, it doesn't work.
9-19-2009 @ 3:56PM
huh? said...
my bad.... unintended consequenses
9-19-2009 @ 7:39PM
Troy Smith said...
I wonder how many consumers traded-in their vehicle for just the value of the voucher when the vehicle had additional value. For example, I saw a 2004 Dodge Quad Cab that had been traded in. Sure it had a ton of miles (200K) but even with that, the body was in excellent condition. I can see a salvage yard bidding $2500 for what was left just for the parts. A bed should sell for $800 or so, a front clip for $2000, interior parts, especially airbags have considerable value....etc. This was a windfall for dealers in ways that have not been discussed.
9-19-2009 @ 11:16PM
Dennis Gamble said...
Read WarningtoAmerica.com
9-20-2009 @ 6:12AM
al coholic said...
When the program was getting big headlines, my ex-wife called and asked me if maybe she shouldn't trade in her RX300 as a clunker.
Since it is still worth way more than $4500 I tried to explain to her that it would be stupid to trade a vehicle which is still in virtually showroom condition and gets about 22mpg (hwy) and take on more debt since she owns it free and clear.
People read only the headlines and make foolish decisions because they don't bother to do any kind of due dilligence. Unfortunately many Americans fall into this category.