GM - General Motors

[Dalal.Holdings]

GM buys Strobe (Solid state Lidar-On-Chip technology) as a bolt-on acquisition for Cruise Automation. Acquisition was likely initiated by Cruise's CEO Kyle Vogt:

 

https://medium.com/kylevogt/how-were-solving-the-lidar-problem-8b4363ff30db

 

To solve these problems we’ve acquired Strobe, a company that has quietly been building the leading next-generation LIDAR sensors. Strobe’s new chip-scale LIDAR technology will significantly enhance the capabilities of our self-driving cars. But perhaps more importantly, by collapsing the entire sensor down to a single chip, we’ll reduce the cost of each LIDAR on our self-driving cars by 99%.

 

Technical (in depth though partly speculative) article on the many possible benefits of this technology, potentially big pay off that would put Cruise far ahead in LIDAR:

 

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/10/a-deep-dive-into-the-tech-behind-gms-new-lidar-on-a-chip-company/

 

Cruise already seems pretty far ahead on autonomy, having its employees hail its self driving Bolts in SF (with a driver in the seat), rolling out more vehicles to add its 3rd Generation autonomous Bolt fleet.

 

Hard to value, but GM management seems open to allocating the resources that Cruise needs to forge ahead while maintaining a safe distance (ie. allowing it to operate with relative independence) which is mutually beneficial for both parties. Let the firm maintain its Silicon Valley culture rather than just folding it into GM.

[hyten1]

this is interesting

 

https://www.thestreet.com/story/14344990/1/general-motors-to-test-self-driving-cars-in-manhattan.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO&yptr=yahoo

 

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gm-to-test-fleet-of-electric-cars-in-new-york-1508212801

 

GM’s Cruise operation has been testing more than 100 self-driving Bolts in various markets, but its work in San Francisco is seen as particularly valuable because it offers a congested environment with a high concentration of hairy situations that fully automated cars must learn to navigate. New York will present similar challenges and offer new hurdles, including bad weather and more-aggressive drivers, which will “improve our software at a much faster rate,” Mr. Vogt said.

 

Funny after one of the posters on here recently said that testing in SF was not impressive...

 

GM is still among the cheapest stocks in the entire S&P 500, has a highly profitable business where management is focused on margins and return on capital while implementing a significant buyback program. Their EPS has been growing significantly year after year as well.

 

On top of that, they have these positive black swan opportunities whose probability of success grows with each milestone. Its biggest competitor in this area (arguably Tesla) is busy with doing lots of other stuff (model 3 production, solar, etc) and has its resources strained. If GM can take a clear lead in this area, it would mean massive prospects. It's still an "IF", but IMO, management has created the right setup here: a fully owned Silicon Valley subsidiary operating with relative independence and provided with the resources it needs to grow and develop its technology (while also taking advantage of GM's technology and mass production capabilities as you see with the Chevy Bolt usage).

 

Hard to find all of that at a P/E of ~7 in this market.

[txvalue]

Dalal - I generally agree with the main ideas of your posts, but it's healthy to have a touch of skepticism when analyzing investments. A few of your posts read tend to read like they were written by a GM employee.  This is not a personal attack or anything, but if you are going to challenge other peoples comments it is only fair that all of your assertions are supportable.

 

For example - the significant buyback comment. We keep hearing about how they are going to buy back shares by the truck load but it has yet to happen. The outstanding share count has hardly budged over the past several years. It still might, but as a shareholder I wanted them to buy stock at $30 not $45 if management is truly focused on allocating efficently.

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

Dalal - I generally agree with the main ideas of your posts, but it's healthy to have a touch of skepticism when analyzing investments. A few of your posts read tend to read like they were written by a GM employee.  This is not a personal attack or anything, but if you are going to challenge other peoples comments it is only fair that all of your assertions are supportable.

 

For example - the significant buyback comment. We keep hearing about how they are going to buy back shares by the truck load but it has yet to happen. The outstanding share count has hardly budged over the past several years. It still might, but as a shareholder I wanted them to buy stock at $30 not $45 if management is truly focused on allocating efficently.

 

https://www.gm.com/investors/stocks/stock-repurchase-program.html

 

Tracking their repurchase history right on their website. They surely did not buy back stock the same way I would have wanted them to either, but I recognize many realities why: 1) they run a huge, capital intensive business that needs large amounts of maintenance capex just to keep their share of the market, 2) they had/have many money losing businesses (Europe a key example, but many others)--management has taken the often difficult decision of exiting these businesses and has freed up more future capital 3) they run a cyclical business and need to keep capital on balance sheet to weather the down cycle (management has been keeping $20B pre-Opel sale, now they say only $18B is needed after sale of Opel, freeing up $2B about 2 mo ago for buybacks), 4) They need to invest in growth capex: developing cadillac, cruise automation, etc etc will require lots of growth capex (cadillac alone has been allocated about $10B over several years for growth prospects), 5) The ignition switch recall drained a lot of the cash resources during its time, 6) The outstanding stock count may have risen a bit recently to counter the buybacks some due to stock awards to new managers, cruise employees, etc.

 

Regarding #2 and #3, those issues are gone and more free cash should be available for buybacks in the open market (which might actually partially explain why the stock has been on a tear since Opel was sold late in July). Regarding #5, no longer an issue. #6 should be limited but depends on future acquisitions by mgmt.

 

You can continue judge my posts on whether they are biased, but I am viewing my assessment (as in the paragraphs above) as pretty objective. Furthermore, unlike many "pro" stock analysts who are gushing over electrification/autonomous prospects, I do not use these areas in valuing the firm.

 

The "skepticism" that I like is one that is basic of value investing: investing with a large margin of safety, so even if you are wrong, your downside is limited. That's what I'd call an investment in GM at P/E of 7.

 

I am open to debating any idea on here based on the merits of the idea. I'm not here for fluff, so if I come off as abrasive, it's not meant to be that way.

[Simple Investor]

I'm long GM. 

 

Has anyone looked at the tire companies (somewhat related).  I'd start a new thread if there was interest.  Cooper is 4 times EBITDA -10 PE.  Goodyear is 6 times EBITDA - 7 PE. 

[gokou3]

Lyft Is Said to Explore I.P.O. as It Raises $1 Billion Led by Alphabet

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/technology/lyft-capitalg-alphabet.html

 

The funding values Lyft at $10 billion

 

GM invested $500M at a valuation of $5 billion in Jan 2016.  A pretty quick double?

[Dalal.Holdings]

Dalal - Where did you see that Greenlight has been winding down their position?  Q2-16 Whale Wisdom 13F shows 30% of the portfolio in GM, although I may be misreading that.

 

Thanks,

Chris

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-14/einhorn-s-greenlight-cuts-stake-in-general-motors-by-one-third

 

Greenlight Capital, the hedge fund firm led by David Einhorn, sold 20.2 million shares of General Motors Co. last quarter, decreasing its position by more than a third as the automaker’s stock rallied.

 

GM rallied in September, the last month of the 3rd quarter. Impossible to know at this point whether Einhorn sold before/after the rally, but probabilistically it's more likely that most of this position was sold before the rally, not into it. And these sales are on top of his sales in Q2...GM still remains as Greenlight's largest position.

 

Turns out GM might not have needed his wild dual-share structure to rise after all...

 

[johnpane]

Has anyone here exercised the warrants using the "Net Share Settlement" method? I am curious how long it typically takes for the Transfer Agent (Computershare Trust Company) to turn the transaction around with a broker. Obviously, this has implications for how precisely the warrant holder can control the Net Share Settlement Price and receipt of any upcoming dividend.

[Cigarbutt]

Not familiar with the specifics at GM but in 2013 was involved in a cashless exercise of warrants.

In my situation, there was a period during which this exercise could be done, and I called directly the information agent in order to determine the actual trading day when the transaction would occur.

In your situation, I see that the warrants are trading, so you may simply have to call the broker in order to determine the actual transaction day.

Usually, in these scenarios, a formula using a volume weighted average trading price of the shares over a defined period (number of trading days) before the transaction day is applied in order to determine the share settlement price.

Hope that helps.

[johnpane]

My broker only said it could take a couple of weeks.

 

In this case it is a volume-weighted 20-day average price, but even that has fluctuated substantially. For example, it increased 16% from the first trading day of October to the first trading day of November. Missing out on a single dividend can account for another ~1% difference in realized price. When the dividend x-div date is approaching, all the transfer agent has to do is drag their feet a few extra days and GM profits by that amount at my expense.

 

I have a query in to the transfer agent but no reply, and they seem oriented to serving account holders, which I am not because I hold the warrants in street name.

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

G.M. Unveils Its Driverless Cars, Aiming to Lead the Pack

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/gm-driverless-cars.html

 

For 20 minutes, the self-driving Bolts traversed the hilly, narrow and congested streets of the city’s Dogpatch neighborhood — stopping for pedestrians, slowing to pass double-parked vehicles, navigating gently away from bicycles.

 

A Cruise employee was behind the steering wheel, ready to assume control of the car if it misjudged traffic or was headed for a collision. But during a reporter’s ride, no driver intervention was required.

 

The car traveled more slowly than driver-operated vehicles on the road, and seemed to exercise extreme caution rounding corners or avoiding obstacles. Yet it covered more than two miles without a hitch, despite encountering what its onboard computer said were 265 people, 49 bicycles and 489 cars.

 

Mr. Ammann beamed when details of the test ride were shared, declaring, “This technology is coming along faster than anyone thinks.”

 

The cruise acquisition and integration looks to be brilliantly executed. Full announcement from GM tomorrow.

[hyten1]

johnpane

 

you thought about the tax consequence of exercise? base on my understanding (i can be wrong), the year you exercise, your gain is tax as ordinary income, which is good if you income tax rate is lower than your capital gain tax rate for selling the warrants.

 

https://finance.zacks.com/taxation-stock-warrants-7458.html

 

 

 

Has anyone here exercised the warrants using the "Net Share Settlement" method? I am curious how long it typically takes for the Transfer Agent (Computershare Trust Company) to turn the transaction around with a broker. Obviously, this has implications for how precisely the warrant holder can control the Net Share Settlement Price and receipt of any upcoming dividend.

[dutchman]

Dalal, have you been taking profits after this run up?

Its still crazy cheap, but i can see market sentiment turning negative again.  Looks like pabrai sold too, not that it matters.

[Dalal.Holdings]

Dalal, have you been taking profits after this run up?

Its still crazy cheap, but i can see market sentiment turning negative again.  Looks like pabrai sold too, not that it matters.

 

Price to value gap still large. Not taking profits. Too bad for Pabrai— like einhorn, bunch of those warrants probably sold before/during initial stages of September rally (though impossible to know). In this market, one of the few stocks out there without signs of frothiness. Interesting that holders get nervous when a chronically undervalued stock advances a little. Pabrai made nice absolute returns on his warrants, but his annualized returns not nearly as impressive as he held those for a while.

[johnpane]

you thought about the tax consequence of exercise? base on my understanding (i can be wrong), the year you exercise, your gain is tax as ordinary income, which is good if you income tax rate is lower than your capital gain tax rate for selling the warrants.

 

I am still grappling with this. Here is some additional information:

 

Tax Consequences of an Investment in the Warrants

Exercise of a Warrant. Except as discussed below with respect to the cashless exercise of a warrant, upon its exercise of a warrant, a holder will not be required to recognize taxable gain or loss with respect to the warrant. The holder’s tax basis in the share of our common stock received by such holder will be an amount equal to the sum of the holder’s initial investment in the warrant and the exercise price. The holder’s holding period for the share of our common stock received upon exercise of the warrant should begin on the date following the date of exercise of the warrant and will not include the period during which the holder held the warrant.

The tax consequences of a cashless exercise of a warrant are not clear under current tax law. A cashless exercise may be tax-free, either because the exercise is not a gain recognition event or because the exercise is treated as a recapitalization for United States federal income tax purposes. In either tax-free situation, a holder’s basis in the common stock received would equal the holder’s aggregate basis in the warrants used to effect the cashless exercise. Holders should consult their tax advisors regarding the consequences of a cashless exercise of the warrants.

If the cashless exercise were treated as not being a gain recognition event, the holder’s holding period in the common stock would be treated as commencing on the date following the date of exercise of the warrant. If the cashless exercise were treated as a recapitalization, the holding period of the common stock would include the holding period of the warrant.

It is also possible that a cashless exercise could be treated as a taxable exchange in which gain or loss would be recognized. In such event, a holder could be deemed to have surrendered a number of warrants with a fair market value equal to the exercise price for the number of warrants deemed exercised (i.e., the number of warrants equal to the number of common shares issued pursuant to the cashless exercise of the warrants). The holder would recognize capital gain or loss in an amount equal to the difference between the fair market value of the warrants deemed surrendered to pay the exercise price and the holder’s tax basis in such warrants deemed surrendered. In this case, a holder’s tax basis in the common stock received would equal the sum of the fair market value of the warrants deemed surrendered to pay the exercise price and the holder’s tax basis in the warrants deemed exercised. A holder’s holding period for the common stock would commence on the date following the date of exercise of the warrant.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Sports_Properties_Acq_CP_(HMR)/Tax_Consequences_Investment_Warrants

 

and...

 

U.S. Holders

Exercise of Warrants

A U.S. Holder generally will not recognize gain or loss on the exercise of a warrant and related receipt of a warrant share (unless cash is received in lieu of the issuance of a fractional warrant share). A U.S. Holder’s initial tax basis in the warrant share received on the exercise of a warrant should be equal to the sum of (i) the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in the warrant plus (ii) the exercise price paid by the U.S. Holder on the exercise of the warrant. A U.S. Holder’s holding period for the warrant share received on the exercise of a warrant will begin on the day after the warrant is exercised by the U.S. Holder.

The U.S. federal income tax treatment of a cashless exercise of warrants into warrant shares is unclear, and the tax consequences of a cashless exercise could differ from the consequences upon the exercise of a warrant described in the preceding paragraph. U.S. Holders should consult their own tax advisors regarding the U.S. federal income tax consequences of a cashless exercise of warrants.

http://ir.gevo.com/mobile.view?c=238618&v=202&d=3&id=aHR0cDovL2FwaS50ZW5rd2l6YXJkLmNvbS9maWxpbmcueG1sP2lwYWdlPTEwMjczMTYyJkRTRVE9MSZTRVE9NjAmU1FERVNDPVNFQ1RJT05fUEFHRSZleHA9JnN1YnNpZD01Nw%3D%3D

[gokou3]

Dalal, have you been taking profits after this run up?

Its still crazy cheap, but i can see market sentiment turning negative again.  Looks like pabrai sold too, not that it matters.

 

Price to value gap still large. Not taking profits. Too bad for Pabrai— like einhorn, bunch of those warrants probably sold before/during initial stages of September rally (though impossible to know). In this market, one of the few stocks out there without signs of frothiness. Interesting that holders get nervous when a chronically undervalued stock advances a little. Pabrai made nice absolute returns on his warrants, but his annualized returns not nearly as impressive as he held those for a while.

 

May I ask your valuation of this company, including how much value you assign to the autonomous / electric vehicle businesses if you have a separate line item for them?

[hyten1]

check out this GM slides, outlining their AV/EV tech

 

http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gm/events/docs/5265893-685163-Chartset-11-30-2017

 

 

one observation, look at page 67 which layout some of the hardware needed for GM's AV, the redundancy, this makes teslas hardware on their vehicles a joke. either gm is totally out of whack adding hardware that is not needed, or teslas is completely delusional (or teslas have some genius folks). I would not feel safe in the tesla AV, at least not in their current vehicles that is so call hardware ready.

 

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

check out this GM slides, outlining their AV/EV tech

 

http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gm/events/docs/5265893-685163-Chartset-11-30-2017

 

 

one observation, look at page 67 which layout some of the hardware needed for GM's AV, the redundancy, this makes teslas hardware on their vehicles a joke. either gm is totally out of whack adding hardware that is not needed, or teslas is completely delusional (or teslas have some genius folks). I would not feel safe in the tesla AV, at least not in their current vehicles that is so call hardware ready.

 

Likely delusions on the part of Tesla: their breakup with Mobileye has severely set back the company's autonomous forays, and their current issues with Model 3 production and other aspects of the business mean they'll likely muddle through this while GM forges ahead. IMO, it's Waymo and GM in the top 2 spots on deploying this tech. Tesla in 3rd place, but not anywhere close to Waymo and GM as far as mass deployment.

 

Here's a pretty good look at their problems since they broke with Mobileye:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/can-tesla-make-up-for-autopilot-s-lost-year

 

Tesla’s driver-assistance platform, Autopilot, was about to begin a transformation to fully autonomous driving. Every Tesla would come with eight cameras, radar, 12 ultrasonic sensors, and a Nvidia Corp. supercomputer. Once testing and regulatory approval were complete, Musk said, the car would be able to drive entirely by itself....

 

...Maybe not. What followed were months of setbacks, delays, and in-house turmoil. A year later, there’s still no sign of Full Self Driving, and even the less ambitious “Enhanced Autopilot” hasn’t quite reached parity with an earlier, discontinued version. The head of Tesla’s Autopilot division left in January, and six months later his successor did, too. Meanwhile, Tesla owners who paid thousands of dollars for the options filed a class action lawsuit, alleging they were tricked into buying a feature that doesn’t exist and—in some cases—an unsafe car. Tesla has yet to formally respond to those disgruntled drivers who want refunds and punitive damages, and the case is currently in mediation.

[Guest Cameron]

Figured I'd throw some skepticism in.

 

For why they deserve to trade at this low of a p/e, this is a cyclical industry probably the most cyclical no one depends on the business cycle more than the auto industry and we are getting pretty close to being at the top for auto sales, I would argue we are already there. The best management in the world can't fight the business cycle.

 

With that out of the way, a lot of the recovery in auto sales came from subprime sales. You can see this in the annual reports from GM when they describe the credit quality of the loans that they originated. Back in 2013 more than 80% of their originations were subprime, for some reason they describe subprime as a 620 score. I would say using 620 is pretty generous, when talking about auto 640-650 would be a more conservative number but I digress. Though I have to mention they have expanded their prime lending.

 

Around 4M cars will be coming off-lease in 2018 putting even more pressure on used car prices as well as car prices in general.

 

In terms of their balance sheet, DTA's are around 30B of assets on their balance sheet, it makes up a pretty large pie of their shareholder equity and has slowly become more and more of that pie over the years, and if you believe that we get some sort of tax plan then these might have to be written down. Also the debt, an increase from 16B in 2012 to 92B in its latest report, a growth rate in debt that mirrors the increase in Bitcoin is not something to put in the back of your mind. As much as I'd love to say that their cash cushion plan seems like a good idea in reality it really just sounds like some management sales mechanism to bring shareholders in. Cash has actually fallen from 20B in 2013 to 12B today. In the event of a downturn as well as the overall landscape of lending in auto today 12B doesn't seem like a bullet proof plan. In the least the dividend will need to be cut and buy backs stopped.

 

I don't really see how GM has changed, besides not have a mortgage unit.

[hyten1]

hmm, 12bil cash, i guess google only has 10bil in cash or aapl only has 20bil in cash, technically true, but that is not telling the whole story.

 

debt from 19bil to 92bil, yes technically true, but that is due to the addition of the financing arm, where in their past financing arm became ally and they restarted that business.

 

 

 

 

 

Figured I'd throw some skepticism in.

 

For why they deserve to trade at this low of a p/e, this is a cyclical industry probably the most cyclical no one depends on the business cycle more than the auto industry and we are getting pretty close to being at the top for auto sales, I would argue we are already there. The best management in the world can't fight the business cycle.

 

With that out of the way, a lot of the recovery in auto sales came from subprime sales. You can see this in the annual reports from GM when they describe the credit quality of the loans that they originated. Back in 2013 more than 80% of their originations were subprime, for some reason they describe subprime as a 620 score. I would say using 620 is pretty generous, when talking about auto 640-650 would be a more conservative number but I digress. Though I have to mention they have expanded their prime lending.

 

Around 4M cars will be coming off-lease in 2018 putting even more pressure on used car prices as well as car prices in general.

 

In terms of their balance sheet, DTA's are around 30B of assets on their balance sheet, it makes up a pretty large pie of their shareholder equity and has slowly become more and more of that pie over the years, and if you believe that we get some sort of tax plan then these might have to be written down. Also the debt, an increase from 16B in 2012 to 92B in its latest report, a growth rate in debt that mirrors the increase in Bitcoin is not something to put in the back of your mind. As much as I'd love to say that their cash cushion plan seems like a good idea in reality it really just sounds like some management sales mechanism to bring shareholders in. Cash has actually fallen from 20B in 2013 to 12B today. In the event of a downturn as well as the overall landscape of lending in auto today 12B doesn't seem like a bullet proof plan. In the least the dividend will need to be cut and buy backs stopped.

 

I don't really see how GM has changed, besides not have a mortgage unit.

[Guest Cameron]

I apologize, cash and marketable securities has fallen from 28B to 20B over that period.

 

And yes, Google has 10B in cash with 89B in marketable securities, and Apple 10B with some 250B in cash counterparts, also if the queen had balls she would be the king.

All three of these things have two things in common, one that they are true and two they have nothing to do with analyzing GM.

 

On the issue of debt, when you buy a common share of GM, you are buying that 92B in captive financing arm debt. I looked through a couple of pages of the thread and there is no mention of the credit quality of the receivables considering how fast the financing arm is growing. They seem to be repeating the same mistake that they did last time and instead of being a car company with a finance arm they want to be a bank that makes cars. 

 

 

 

 

 

[rb]

I apologize, cash and marketable securities has fallen from 28B to 20B over that period.

 

And yes, Google has 10B in cash with 89B in marketable securities, and Apple 10B with some 250B in cash counterparts, also if the queen had balls she would be the king.

All three of these things have two things in common, one that they are true and two they have nothing to do with analyzing GM.

 

On the issue of debt, when you buy a common share of GM, you are buying that 92B in captive financing arm debt. I looked through a couple of pages of the thread and there is no mention of the credit quality of the receivables considering how fast the financing arm is growing. They seem to be repeating the same mistake that they did last time and instead of being a car company with a finance arm they want to be a bank that makes cars.

Well really all auto companies are banks that also also make cars. It's just the industry.

 

As for the quality of the receivables I wouldn't expect it to be very high since auto financing is mostly a subprime business. Auto financing has some positives over other subprime lending. People will try to keep making their payments. This is because this is America and people need the vehicles to get to work. If they loose the vehicle they loose their job. As to why people with such shitty credit are buying big expensive trucks instead of a more economical alternative - well this is America.

[Guest Cameron]

I apologize, cash and marketable securities has fallen from 28B to 20B over that period.

 

And yes, Google has 10B in cash with 89B in marketable securities, and Apple 10B with some 250B in cash counterparts, also if the queen had balls she would be the king.

All three of these things have two things in common, one that they are true and two they have nothing to do with analyzing GM.

 

On the issue of debt, when you buy a common share of GM, you are buying that 92B in captive financing arm debt. I looked through a couple of pages of the thread and there is no mention of the credit quality of the receivables considering how fast the financing arm is growing. They seem to be repeating the same mistake that they did last time and instead of being a car company with a finance arm they want to be a bank that makes cars.

Well really all auto companies are banks that also also make cars. It's just the industry.

 

As for the quality of the receivables I wouldn't expect it to be very high since auto financing is mostly a subprime business. Auto financing has some positives over other subprime lending. People will try to keep making their payments. This is because this is America and people need the vehicles to get to work. If they loose the vehicle they loose their job. As to why people with such shitty credit are buying big expensive trucks instead of a more economical alternative - well this is America.

 

I would have to disagree with the idea that auto financing is mostly subprime. About 24% of auto loans are subprime and about 85% of cars are purchased with financing. There are definitely layers.

 

Ford for one has a loan book of prime loans. GM stopped reporting their loan book in 2013.

[JRM]

On the issue of debt, when you buy a common share of GM, you are buying that 92B in captive financing arm debt. I looked through a couple of pages of the thread and there is no mention of the credit quality of the receivables considering how fast the financing arm is growing. They seem to be repeating the same mistake that they did last time and instead of being a car company with a finance arm they want to be a bank that makes cars.

 

In 2010 GM purchased AmeriCredit, which was a sub-prime auto lender.  In the past two years or so the majority or their loan originations have been higher quality near-prime or prime loans.  The percentage of sub-prime loans on the books has been decreasing since 2013.  GM Financial has their own investor relations and material which is a good starting point for looking at the financing arm. 

 

For bad subprime auto loans check Ally.