3 ms·

I assure you, disabling one's transportation and, thus, reducing one's likelihood to arrive to work on time does not reduce delinquency. Neither are subprime le

I assure you, disabling one's transportation and, thus, reducing one's likelihood to arrive to work on time does not reduce delinquency. Neither are subprime lenders interested in reducing delinquency; rather, they rationalize such abhorrent practices that increase the likelihood of delinquency because it generates more revenue.

modularform123 6y ago
I assure you there are many liberals who won’t pay despite having money in the bank, unless they are forced to do so. It is literally a human right to them.
goldcd 6y ago
Sorry, how is their provoking of delinquency in any way more profitable than getting that 29% APR on an overpriced piece of junk, hitting their bank account each month?
rsync 6y ago
"I assure you, disabling one's transportation and, thus, reducing one's likelihood to arrive to work on time does not reduce delinquency." You are correct, of course, for any one particular borrower. However, I suspect the aggregate delinquencies drop as marginal "delinquents", aware that their car is going to cease functioning, adjust their behaviors throughout the month, etc., to make absolutely sure the car payment is made. I'm not defending the practice, I merely suggest that your (correct) observation about individual borrowers doesn't negate a net-positive result for the lender.
polishdude20 6y ago
Yeah you better believe that if I can't pay off my car and you disable it. It'll make it an order of magnitude more difficult to now pay for the car. People don't miss payments because they have the money but choose not to pay. They miss payments because they can't afford them. Preventing job access is a quick ticket to poverty town.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  That’s all the more reason these devices are effective. If the electric company, gas company, and landlord will take months to take action if you don’t pay them, but the car lender will take action on Tuesday, the car lender gets first crack at the money you do have. It’s harsh, but I suspect that’s the actual calculated business model here.
- smabie 6y ago
  The article suggests otherwise: the lady's car was turned off at a gas station and she paid the money to turn it back on.
MertsA 6y ago
>disabling one's transportation and, thus, reducing one's likelihood to arrive to work on time does not reduce delinquency. The amount of people who would pay, if only they could drive to work, is less than the people who won't pay, unless they're stuck with an inoperable car. There's plenty of repossession channels on YouTube like RepoNut just showing the day to day life of a repo man. There's plenty of videos where clearly the debtor can't pay but there's quite a few where the debtor comes out the second the car is lifted and calls the bank to pay the repo fee and enough to make the account current immediately. Not to mention the videos where the car is blocked in in an attempt to keep it from being towed with something like a new looking jet ski. One big benefit here for lenders is that in cases where the debtor can pay they're probably going to immediately pay it without having to go through the expense of hiring a repossession company and where the debtor can't pay and it needs to be repossessed, they have the location and there won't be any attempt to drive the car somewhere to hide it or park it inside a fence, etc. Also cuts down on the motivation to stifle a repossession attempt as well if it's already a brick.
SilasX 6y ago
I assure you, evicting someone from a home, throwing their life and family into disarray, does not reduce delinquency. Neither are home lenders interested in reducing delinquency Therefore, all home loans should be unsecured, and anyone who demands the home as collateral is evil. /s
- nulbyte 6y ago
  The biggest difference here is that there are processes for evictions and foreclosures. Evictions require notices, and foreclosures require legal processes. Lenders don't attach a device to your home when you sign the dotted line to automatically lock you out if you miss a payment.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    That's not a difference your original comment depended upon. Obviously, putting someone through the foreclosure process hurts their earning power (stress and lost time), just as repoing their car does. That's not an argument against making loans secured by assets, nor against seizing them when the debt is in arrears, nor against measures that make said repossession easier.

modularform123 6y ago

I assure you there are many liberals who won’t pay despite having money in the bank, unless they are forced to do so. It is literally a human right to them.

goldcd 6y ago

Sorry, how is their provoking of delinquency in any way more profitable than getting that 29% APR on an overpriced piece of junk, hitting their bank account each month?

rsync 6y ago

"I assure you, disabling one's transportation and, thus, reducing one's likelihood to arrive to work on time does not reduce delinquency." You are correct, of course, for any one particular borrower. However, I suspect the aggregate delinquencies drop as marginal "delinquents", aware that their car is going to cease functioning, adjust their behaviors throughout the month, etc., to make absolutely sure the car payment is made. I'm not defending the practice, I merely suggest that your (correct) observation about individual borrowers doesn't negate a net-positive result for the lender.

polishdude20 6y ago

Yeah you better believe that if I can't pay off my car and you disable it. It'll make it an order of magnitude more difficult to now pay for the car. People don't miss payments because they have the money but choose not to pay. They miss payments because they can't afford them. Preventing job access is a quick ticket to poverty town.

sokoloff 6y ago
That’s all the more reason these devices are effective. If the electric company, gas company, and landlord will take months to take action if you don’t pay them, but the car lender will take action on Tuesday, the car lender gets first crack at the money you do have. It’s harsh, but I suspect that’s the actual calculated business model here.
smabie 6y ago
The article suggests otherwise: the lady's car was turned off at a gas station and she paid the money to turn it back on.

MertsA 6y ago

>disabling one's transportation and, thus, reducing one's likelihood to arrive to work on time does not reduce delinquency. The amount of people who would pay, if only they could drive to work, is less than the people who won't pay, unless they're stuck with an inoperable car. There's plenty of repossession channels on YouTube like RepoNut just showing the day to day life of a repo man. There's plenty of videos where clearly the debtor can't pay but there's quite a few where the debtor comes out the second the car is lifted and calls the bank to pay the repo fee and enough to make the account current immediately. Not to mention the videos where the car is blocked in in an attempt to keep it from being towed with something like a new looking jet ski. One big benefit here for lenders is that in cases where the debtor can pay they're probably going to immediately pay it without having to go through the expense of hiring a repossession company and where the debtor can't pay and it needs to be repossessed, they have the location and there won't be any attempt to drive the car somewhere to hide it or park it inside a fence, etc. Also cuts down on the motivation to stifle a repossession attempt as well if it's already a brick.

SilasX 6y ago

I assure you, evicting someone from a home, throwing their life and family into disarray, does not reduce delinquency. Neither are home lenders interested in reducing delinquency Therefore, all home loans should be unsecured, and anyone who demands the home as collateral is evil. /s

nulbyte 6y ago
The biggest difference here is that there are processes for evictions and foreclosures. Evictions require notices, and foreclosures require legal processes. Lenders don't attach a device to your home when you sign the dotted line to automatically lock you out if you miss a payment.
- SilasX 6y ago
  That's not a difference your original comment depended upon. Obviously, putting someone through the foreclosure process hurts their earning power (stress and lost time), just as repoing their car does. That's not an argument against making loans secured by assets, nor against seizing them when the debt is in arrears, nor against measures that make said repossession easier.