I explained it above. The dual risks in a loan are credit risk and term risk (look those up and learn about them). Since the term is 5 years, the investment with no credit risk is the 5 year treasury (this is the credit risk-free rate). All loans have credit risk. Bundling loans does not eliminate credit risk (this is what 2008 taught us), though it does reduce credit risk. Selling loans with rates below the risk-free rate has negative expected return.
The proper analogy is this: treasuries vs. corporate bonds. Here is the current yield spread (difference in interest rate: corporate minus treasury): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLC0A0CM
The spread is always positive, because investors demand extra yield for taking on credit risk.
My explanation is that they've done the math on how more generous financing encourages more people to buy cars, and that the losses they take on the loans is less than the extra profit they make from the additional car sales.
I guess my cynicism has just grown to the point that I feel some industries have settled on never taking a known loss. That is, this seems like it is the easy answer, and is certainly what folks would do in the small. At large, though, I feel like they are able to have other options.
(I fully ack that just because I feel it, does not mean it is the case.)
I explained how they're not really taking a loss, since it increases their profits overall. Companies make these decisions frequently; a closely related concept is a loss leader.
If you ever see me being uncivil, please call me on it! I consider it a safe assumption that I was mistaken on anything I'm not an expert on. And on those things, I think the odds might actually increase. :)
Same as with Nespresso machines, the machine is cheap (Probably sold at a loss but I have no numbers on that) because over a lifetime the customer will buy grossly overpriced capsules which will make the money back and more. Game consoles work the same way early in the cycle.
What do folks buy as additions to their car? I could see an argument for taking it to dealer's shop. They certainly do what they can to lock out other mechanics.
Would be curious on numbers to know how successful that is.
I did not state that what the car companies are doing is offering the loan as a loss leader; I am saying it is a related concept. I was offering it to help in understanding that companies make tradeoff decisions of this kind. Please don't take my comment as making a direct equivalence between the two.
There is no need to "give up." My questions are not trying to prove you wrong, but to help educate me.
So, my specific question here is what makes it closely related to loss leaders? A concept which actually makes a lot of sense for me. If that was meant in the broadest of terms, then I understand. But "closely" does not imply "broadly" to me.
The proper analogy is this: treasuries vs. corporate bonds. Here is the current yield spread (difference in interest rate: corporate minus treasury): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLC0A0CM
The spread is always positive, because investors demand extra yield for taking on credit risk.