This news report states that dealers were only given one month to clear out
their inventory. Chrysler will not be buying back cars or parts. Does this
mean that after a month, the dealer is no longer authorized to sell a
Chrysler vehicle, with GMAC financing, etc.? Will they have to sell their
remaining inventory to other dealers or to consumers on a clearance basis?
Will struggling dealers go Chapter 7, forcing an immediate auction sale of
cars on the lot? Will we see an overlap of stranded inventory when GM closes
dealerships? This is not good news for an orderly restructuring.....
They are closing an 80 year old dealer ship in Portland Oregon. (Timberline
Dodge) I think the number of people that will be out of work is 79. It was
on the 6:00 news.
I don't see how closing down dealer ships saves Chrysler any money. All that
I see that's going to happen is a spike in new unemployment claims across
the country. This is happening when we need more good paying jobs.
It doesn't and that isn't the purpose.
The portland area had ten Chrysler dealerships. Hannah sells both Chrysler
There are also ten Honda and ten Toyota dealreships.
Honda and Toyota combined sell three times as many cars each as the Chrysler
By that measure - market share - the Greater Portland area should have, and
won't support, nore than three or four Chrysler dealers.
"How do you get to be a dealer? Pay the manufacturer for the right to
sell his car? "
Yes. Those renew anually.
"Who owns the cars on the lot?"
The dealers do.
" And the building?"
The dealers either own or rent their facilities.
Depends on the car company but that is true for Chrysler dealers..
On May 16, 1:11 pm, email@example.com wrote:
So there's no obligation from the manufacturer other than allow the
dealer to purchas cars for resale? I don't think I'd enter into a
relationship without some guarantee that I would be able to stay in
business as long as I could pay the francious fee. No doubt a dealler
pays millions to be able to sell cars and has millions more invested
in his dealership site
Business is a gamble. The automotive buisiness is a BIG gamble.
Over the last 30 some years it, like many other things, has paid off
well. The gravy train has run off the rails.
A GM or Chrysler franchise right now isn't worth a plug nickel. A Ford
franchise might still get a few bids from an optimist.
Even Toyota, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Kia and Hyundai dealerships are a very
ANd the manufacturer has other obligations than just allowing the
dealer to buy vehicles to resell. There is advertising support,
training support, and other related support services/programs that are
"John R. Carroll" wrote in reply to, "Who owns the cars on the lot?"
The dealers do.
There is more to it than that. Normally, a dealer "floors" his inventory,
which means that the bank has loaned him the money to stock his showroom.
The dealer pays interest on each car until it sells, pays off the loan with
the proceeds of the sale, and keeps the difference. I don't know how the
bank/dealer contract usually reads, but it is inconceivable that they would
provide such loans without repo protection. So they're going to wind up
with "foreclosed" new cars that will affect the market just the way
foreclosed houses do.
Floor planned inventory is typically financed by the manufacturers lending
division when it's shipped.as full recourse financing.
Dealers can "take out" that financing if they have arranged better rates or
terms from a bank.That was the way it worked 30 years ago for GM dealers
The real problem with floor planned inventory at that time was that the
dealers couldn't stop vehicles from coming in because, ultimately, they are
contractually obligated to take anythnig the manufacturer ships. Starting
Monday, that lender will be ALLY. That's GMAC's new name. I'd bet you
dollars to doughnuts Chrysler dealers have a better chance of contracting
AIDS from a door knob or toilet seat than they do getting bank financing for
ploor planned inventory today.
I mean really, think about it.
Chrysler really jammed their dealers when the K car came out in exactly this
way and it backfired on them.
Depends. MOST dealership properties are owned by the dealer principal
or franchisee. The cars are owned by the dealer principal in most
cases, but quite often by a finance company - like GMAC.
And yes, you pay for the franchise to sell their vehicles.
In the case of Ford/Mercury in Canada I think there was some redress
to Mercury dealers that were closed down when Ford dropped the Mercury
line here in Canada.
Dealership franchises are NOT cheap!!
First you go to the company you're interested in selling. They will look
at the area and decide if another dealer is needed. If there is already
a high volume dealer in the area you can forget it.
If you get a franchise you will need to pony up a chunk of money.
That will cover the franchise minimum vehicle purchase and the base set
of required dealership service equipment and tools.
You and your finance company will own the inventory on the lot. If
you're doing it OOP then you will own the inventory.
Building is either yours or leased.
Then you need to meet a minimum sales level to remain a dealer, that
gets reviewed yearly and you can lose your franchise if your sales are
In reality if you want to sell cars it is almost better to start a used
lot. The catch there is that you have to buy GOOD vehicles or you will
lose your shirt in warranty repairs and complaints.
But if the dealerships are privately owned, why is Chrysler killing certain
ones? I would
think lack of profit would cause a dealer ship to exit the market or sell an
line of product.
What is the mechanism to determine who lives, who dies? Is it sales volume,
profitablility, who the dealer contributed to politically?
In some parts of the country, that is the model. How far apart will be
Was that an improvement? Going from real hardware stores to places that sold
I'd buy from Howard Cunningham. I doubt Howard would try to sell me some China
car, undermining his fellow citizens trying to earn a living.
I would think most dealers would be interested in building their business.
I'm looking at this as in a world of decreasing sales, GM and Chrysler are using
punish dealers that might actually have tried to honor the customer and pass on
costs back to the producers.
I pay my credit bill off each week and am known as a dead beat in the industry.
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Probably about as far apart as they are now. The Great State of Wyoming has
a single Chrysler dealer.
White's Energy Motors in Gillette.
It was for Home Depot and the rest. They now own the market, sort of like
the Big Three used to.
He wouldn't be selling you a Javelin either. AMC finally had so little
market share that they couldn't sell a Gremlin for less than $50 grand
without losing money and they dissapeared. This is part of what has happened
Well they aren't, not beyond the point where they have a decent home, a
Shalet at Boyne and a cottage on Houghton Lake.
Thier ambition typically ends there and they stop investing in efforts to
grow their franchises.
No they aren't. Dealers that do stuff like that are't dealers for long.
Automakers also don't just run around punishing dealers beyond a certain
point, at least it's very rare.
You ought to see a dealer agreement some time. The inside politics are also
Automakers don't reward the employees that run their dealer channel unless
that channel grows.
Having a significant proportion of dealers that have stagnant sales means
you get a bunch of guys running the dealer channel for an automaker that
can't get jobs anywhere else. They would if they could. Pretty soon you have
a car company losing market share even though sales remain the same and
nobody cares. That's what happened to GM, Chrysler, Ford, Nash and
Ford was the only one to actually take action and that's because they have
been through this before. They recognized the actual situation.
That's right and Chrysler feels the same way about dealers, even reputable
well behaved ones, that stagnate. Neither of you are worth the investment of
resources so they invest where it will produce the best return. Double a
Howard Cunningham's sales and he'll go out and buy another rental property.
Gene Merrolis, on the other hand, built an automotive empire. So did Penske.
Not so much. In fact, you've probably never even heard of Fox Cheverolet
unless Connie, his daughter, made something of the place.
She might have and brother, she was hot. Smart too.
You seem a little confused about all of this Wes. That isn't a bad thing and
you have a lot of company.
You'll really be conflicted by health care reform. Medicare and Medicaid
costs could be cut in half tomorrow.
As a practical matter it would be easy. 50 percent of every health care
dollar spent in America is focussed on the last year of peoples lives and
for extremely expensive procedures that don't extend those lives on minute.
They frequently shorten them. Why would I, as a taxpayer, want to pay for a
terminal womans hip transplant knowing that the six months she had left to
live would be cut in half if she didn't die on the operating table,
especially when her family had the resources to fund such a surgery? I
wouldn't, of course. What I'd also not want to do is have to stand before
anyone and tell him or her their Grandmother would just have to do without
because she would be dead in less than six months and the surgery wasn't
going to be covered under those circumstances.
Can you do that Wes? I could, even though I wouldn't like it at all. This is
the health care debate American's are going to have to have at some point so
gear up and get your game face on.
Medicare paid for the old womans hip surgery Wes so don't feel to bad. She
died three months later right before the fellow she'd raised was elected to
be our President last November.
Oh so they only want mega dealers now. Sorta how they only wanted mega
they thinned out the smaller suppliers years ago.
I'll keep that in mind.
I don't doubt I have company.
Terminal? A hip replacement for someone that is terminal is nuts. The concern
is if they
say, you are 75, statistically only this much time left and deny treatment.
live longer than others.
Doctors can't seem to do it. That isn't what they are about. Could I do it?
great risk to my heart, mind, and soul.
I never read or heard in the press that she was terminal before the hip
Google finds reference to it though. She made it to 86, a pretty good run.
The debate will be interesting. The population has a lot of older people in it
expect to get health care that they paid into all their lives and the ones
behind them will have an interest in how the debate goes.
Like social security, Medicare has been a ticking time bomb ready to explode. I
contacts are about ready to close.
I think this national heath care thing is Congress's way of reshuffling the deck
don't get tagged with a failure of Medicare.
I can't remember what union leader I was listening to yesterday but he was all
national health care. I wonder if that is because the union was responsible for
care for retires or if they wanted to get heath care and divert their health care
investments to pay for pensions.
Lots of interests in this game.
Sure you didn't hear about it.
Rush was going on with the rest at full volume that Obama went back to "fix"
his Birth Certificate.
You don't "pay into" Medicare" to provide for your future Wes.
Every dime that comes out of your check is immediately used to pay existing
medical bills for someone that's covered - like your parents.
The real problem is that payroll deductions only add up to $.57 of every
dollar in claims so the balance is made up out of general tax revenue.
No other country in the world offers unlimited care on demand the way we do
and nearly every civilised first world country offeres basic care to every
citizen. The government provides health care to all up to a certain point
and then it's up to individuals to have their own coverage for anything
beyond. They have all drawn a line.
I understand how that really works. With the age demographics it is bit of a
scheme. So if we are underfunding .43 cents on the dollar now, what will it be
I was listening to Cspan Washington Journal on delay last night on my
what the dealer said that was on the show, he has cars that Chrysler will not
That puts a former dealer in a hard place, no factory service trying to peddle a
that he can't support.
I didn't fully understand when he said he would have to sell his new cars on his
used cars. Perhaps since he won't be a dealer anymore it is treated as if I am
car I just bought yesterday. Currently a dealer to dealer transfer is
considered a new
car. Maybe Congress ought to help these guys out with some quick legislation.
If he was
correct, that is insult to injury.
What was interesting is that he indicated that once upon a time, Chrysler did
not want all
brands at a single dealership. Seems a bit too faced to limit which brands a
sell and them jam them for not growing their dealership.
Is there more to this?
That's one of the things I was wondering about. I think he meant if he did
NOT sell his inventory to another dealer he would be put in the position of
having to sell the cars as "used cars". Perhaps more accurately, it would
become like a gray market channel with some reduced level of factory
support? Seems rather short-sighted of Chrysler to so hastily close the
dealerships with insufficient time to move existing inventory.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.