Skip to content
Andrew Tobias
Andrew Tobias

Money and Other Subjects

  • Home
  • Books
  • Videos
  • Bio
  • Archives
  • Links
  • Me-Mail
Andrew Tobias
Andrew Tobias

Money and Other Subjects

Truth-in-Car-Loan-Promotions

March 25, 1998March 25, 2012

You have heard of the Truth In Lending law. The idea is to provide interest-rate information honestly and consistently so that people know the interest rate they’re paying and can sensibly compare loans.

Now comes reader Erik Sten with a refinement.

With regard to those “2.9% financing or $1,500 cash back” deals one so often sees, Erik suggests that the 2.9% may not be 2.9% after all. Accepting that it means paying $1,500 more than necessary for the car, that foregone $1,500 really should be considered part of the cost of financing the car.

So what is the interest rate really?

Say you are buying a $12,000 Ford Escort LX 4-door, which is more or less the example Erik supplied me with last summer. The dealer was offering 2.9% or $1,500 cash back. The regular 48-month car-loan rate available to people with good credit at the time, Erik says, was 8%.

Well, on a $10,500 48-month car loan (assuming you were financing all but $1,500 of the $12,000 purchase), the payments are $231.95 at 2.9% and $256.34 at 8%. So you save $24.39 a month or $1,170.72 in interest over four years. But you don’t save $1,500 – and what you do save, you don’t save all at once. No, the prevailing interest rate would have to be 9.4% or so for a 2.9% rate to save you $1,500 over four years. And because $1,500 up front is better than $1,500 spread out over four years, the “true” interest rate would have to be nearly 10.5% for this 2.9% rate to represent an equivalent saving.

Still not terrible, and not necessarily something to pass laws or enact regulations over. But to the extent the 1.9% and 2.9% financing deals make the average car buyer even less likely to pay cash, and thus even more likely to pay what may amount to 10% interest that’s not tax-deductible, it compounds a common consumer error; namely, someone who unwittingly earns 5% in a savings account (which may be 4% or less after taxes) while at the same time paying 10% to finance a car. Borrowing at 10% to earn 4% is no quick way to get rich.

Is truth-in-auto-lending a problem? Worth a crusade? Let me know your thoughts and I’ll pass them on to Erik.

Post navigation

← Joe Beats the Bank – Part III
What About Buffett? →

Quote of the Day

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual."

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784

Subscribe

 Advice

The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need

"So full of tips and angles that only a booby or a billionaire could not benefit." -- The New York Times

Help

MYM Emergency?

Too Much Junk?

Tax Questions?

Ask Less

Recent Posts

  • 1.0 Actually Wasn't That Bad, Other Than . . .

    May 15, 2025
  • Of Profits, Protests, and Posters

    May 13, 2025
  • The President's Plane . . . Oh, Brother

    May 12, 2025
  • From Driverless Taxis To Busy Baby And Beyond

    May 11, 2025
  • Three Great Men

    May 11, 2025
  • Doug, Simon, Dave, John, Caitlan, And Pete -- I'm A Fan

    May 8, 2025
  • Fair Harvard

    May 7, 2025
  • Your Future Imaginary Friend

    May 5, 2025
  • Conservative Peggy And Liberal Thom

    May 4, 2025
  • Little Marco Predicts

    May 3, 2025
Andrew Tobias Books
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
©2025 Andrew Tobias - All Rights Reserved | Website: Whirled Pixels | Author Photo: Tony Adams