response 172 of 217:

Feb 24 20:42 UTC 2003

Who cares?

response 174 of 217:

Feb 28 20:32 UTC 2003

Why?

response 176 of 217:

Mar 4 17:14 UTC 2003

Affirmative Action Car Financing

Does anybody know the details on a lawsuit that is supposedly resulting 
in reduced-rate loans on car purchases financed through Nissan, as long 
as you happen to be correctly pigmented?

response 178 of 217:

Mar 5 02:39 UTC 2003

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Nissan's financing arm has agreed to stop marking up 
loan rates offered to qualified minority buyers under a proposed 
settlement of a class-action federal discrimination lawsuit. 

The agreement, filed this week, seeks to settle a 1998 lawsuit by black 
and Hispanic car buyers from Tennessee and Florida who said Nissan Motor 
Acceptance Corp. charged them higher interest rates on car loans than 
whites with similar credit ratings. 

Under the settlement, NMAC agreed to institute a credit pre-approval 
program offering "no markup" rates to black and Hispanic buyers who have 
never declared bankruptcy or had cars repossessed. The company said it 
will make 675,000 such offers over five years. 

The "markup" is a percentage in addition to the minimum percentage rate 
at which NMAC approves credit. It usually is split between the dealer 
and NMAC. 

Studies prepared for the plaintiffs by researchers from Yale and 
Vanderbilt showed that rates for minorities could be 30 percent to
50 percent higher than what whites paid. 

response 180 of 217:

Mar 5 14:48 UTC 2003

The usual standard of accuracy we expect from klg.

response 182 of 217:

Mar 5 19:58 UTC 2003

Did I read the article wrong?  I read it that they'd been adding a
markup to minority loans, and that they were going to stop adding that
markup.

response 184 of 217:

Mar 6 02:40 UTC 2003

jmsaul 2, klg 0.

response 186 of 217:

Mar 6 17:22 UTC 2003

With pleasure:

http://www.oakridger.com/stories/102400/stt_1024000011.html

"Nissan, GM Deny Discrimination in Loan Financing

"NASHVILLE (AP) -- Companies that administer auto loans for Nissan and 
General Motors on Monday denied allegations in two class-action 
lawsuits that black car shoppers are charged higher rates than white 
shoppers. 

"Officials with Nissan Motors Acceptance Corp. and General Motors 
Acceptance Corp. said both companies have zero-tolerance policies 
against discrimination. They said the lenders are never informed of the 
customer's race when a loan application is submitted through a car 
dealer. And they argued that studies cited in the lawsuits to support 
the accusations are flawed.

". . . 

"An analyst for Nissan said the plaintiffs' study . . . didn't control 
for any other factor other than race," said Janet Thornton, who 
conducted NMAC's own statistical analysis.  Thornton said that, when 
the data are analyzed based on credit characteristics, "we find no 
differences by race in the markup charge." . . . ."


(Say, Russ - Have you ever served as a vote counter in Florida?)

response 188 of 217:

Mar 6 19:02 UTC 2003

Also from klg's link (left out purely by accident, I'm sure):

-----
The suits...describe an agreement where lenders encourage car dealers to 
inflate the interest rate beyond the risk-related rate when they think a 
customer will pay it.

The lenders acknowledge they share commissions with car dealers, but 
deny inflating the rates based on race.

As for the markup policy, officials with both companies say it is a 
standard way to compensate the dealer for arranging the loan.

"The plaintiffs call it a markup. ... We call it a commission," said 
Anne Fortney, an NMAC attorney. "The dealer is performing a
service for the creditor and the consumer. ... If it weren't for this 
arrangement, we would have to have a loan officer at every
single dealership."
----

So, while "both companies have zero-tolerance policies against 
discrimination", and "the lenders are never informed of the 
customer's race when a loan application is submitted through a car 
dealer", the dealer (who quite obviously is aware of the race of the 
buyer) seems to be the one setting the markup/commission.  

Hard to believe such a foolproof system could ever break down.  

Here's my favorite part:  "GMAC's Farmer said it is 'an industry 
practice, and it's not illegal. We assume when we go to a store and buy 
something that it's marked up.'

"Not illegal"--I like that; it's a wonderful rationale for all sorts of 
moral transgressions.  And somebody should inform Mr Farmer that when we 
go to a store we do indeed assume items are marked up, but we assume 
they are *not* marked up based on the buyer's race.

response 190 of 217:

Mar 6 21:30 UTC 2003

Re #189: Your quotes still don't say that, though.  All they say is that the
companies claim not to have been discriminating, which is exactly what I'd
expect them to say.  They don't say anything about giving minorities a
preferred rate.

response 192 of 217:

Mar 7 03:40 UTC 2003

Re #188:  It's true that there's nothing (theoretically) wrong
with pricing any good (including a loan) at what the market will
bear, and customers for car loans are different just as air
travellers are different.  So long as there is no bait-and-switch
or other unfair practices, it's within the law.

But everything within the law isn't right.  If the dealerships (which
were acting as agents for GMAC in this situation, if I read everything
right) were pushing loan-rate premiums at minority buyers more than
others, they were discriminating.  By the time someone has gone to
the trouble of choosing a vehicle and filling out all the paperwork,
they have a substantial investment in the process.  To abandon that
investment and go to a different dealer (or even choose a different
brand) costs them, especially if they have no more time for car-
shopping.

There have been enough stories in the news of late about loan fraud
that we should be very suspicious of any activity like this where
the rate to be charged is not made clear at the outset.  I doubt
very much that this was the case.  This should probably be stopped,
because it is too close to sharp practices.

response 194 of 217:

Mar 7 17:31 UTC 2003

for you, relevance of past history is apparently only important when it
supports your arguments.  Like in the Iraq items where you gleefully talk
about all the things Saddam Hussein has done in the past?

response 196 of 217:

Mar 7 18:20 UTC 2003

The opposition to affirmative action always strikes me as a ruse by
racists to hold back minorities. The racists have mostly lost the formal
legal battles concerning voting, accomodations, access, etc, but they
realize that by opposing affirmative action they are opposing the final
stages of integration, where it is subtle discrimination that still
limits minority equal access to leadership levels of society. They
never come up with any solutions to the remaining problems of racial
discrimination - they just want to declare that if everyone is EQUAL they
should get equal treatment in everything, conveniently forgetting that
in fact, in the everyday operations of society, everyone is NOT equal
because of racism.