3 ms·
So instead of borrowing $1000 for a remote-disableable phone, you borrow $1500 for a phone that comes with less efficient on-site repo service. Is that better?
by srtjstjsj 6y ago
So instead of borrowing $1000 for a remote-disableable phone, you borrow $1500 for a phone that comes with less efficient on-site repo service. Is that better?
- im3w1l 6y agoI think ideally people should not borrow with the phone as collateral at all, since it is a necessity for modern life, rather only use their future income as security. Making repo more inefficient will disincentivize it. Are there any current phone-loans doing repo?
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoThat pricegap is absolutely fictional, the extra I'd have to pay to finance a phone varies from 15% to 0%, probably because the operator is getting bulk/discounted pricing.
- imtringued 6y agoCustomers who pay off their phone receive no benefit from this policy. The business model is purely built around customers who can't pay the phone off and that you must lock the phone to get it back. The end result is that a lot people who shouldn't have gotten a financed phone in the first place will get their phones locked instead of simply getting a cheaper phone. Making financing more accessible to risky customers means more repossession. The repossession rate is simply a matter of company policy and not a matter of personal responsibility. The economic downsides of people having their phones locked will far exceed the benefits of being able to buy a slightly better phone.