Low gas prices have fueled a shift in consumer preferences to larger, more expensive vehicles, such as crossovers, SUVs, and pick-up trucks. This has caused the average transaction price, according to Kelly Blue Book, to increase approximately 15% to $36,442 in 2018 from $31,616 in 2012. Because down payments haven't kept pace with vehicle price inflation, the average financed amount increased 18% to $30,494 as of fourth-quarter 2018 from $25,843 in fourth-quarter 2012, according to The Federal Reserve's G.19 report. At the same time, the average annual percentage rate (APR) for a 60-month bank-originated auto loan increased to approximately 5.4% as of fourth-quarter 2018 from an average of 4.2% in 2014-2017. Holding loan term constant at 60 months, the higher APR and financed amount would cause the average monthly payment to increase roughly $100 to $581 from $478.
This combination of higher financed amounts and more expensive borrowing costs have created an affordability issue, which many lenders are addressing by lengthening loan terms. According to Experian, the most common loan term for a new vehicle is now 72 months, with loan terms in the 73-84 month range now representing 30% of new vehicle loan origination volume as of fourth-quarter 2018. Over the past decade, S&P Global Ratings has observed an increase in longer-term loans in rated U.S. prime retail auto loan asset-backed securities (ABS). The percentage of loans with original terms greater than 60 months increased to 59% through first-quarter 2019, from 42% in 2009 (see chart 1). As a result, the weighted average original term of prime pools has increased to approximately 66 months from 62 months.
Borrower Repayment Risks Increase As Loan Terms Lengthen
Credit risk could increase as the amount of longer-term loans in these pools rises. Because new vehicles depreciate rapidly, especially in the first three years, the loan balance often exceeds the depreciated value of the vehicle for the first few years. Therefore, absent a large down payment, the severity of loss upon a repossession is generally substantial (40%-50%). To the extent that loan terms lengthen, the severity of loss could increase due to the slower amortization of the loan balance.
Additionally, because longer-term loans delay the point at which a borrower starts to build equity in the vehicle (and could sell it to repay the loan), the borrower may have less incentive to continue making payments on the vehicle in the event of financial distress. Moreover, longer loan tenors increase the likelihood of the borrower experiencing a job loss or a medical emergency while the loan is outstanding. These and other such events jeopardize the borrower's ability to make payments on time and in full.
In addition to increasing credit risk, longer-term loans cause securitization losses to become more back-loaded. We analyzed the paid-off transactions from a group of seven auto issuers and found that, as the average term of the pool lengthened to 64.9 months from 62.5 months in 2012, total losses incurred by month 18 contracted to 55.7% from 62.2% (see chart 2). The pools we examined for this part of our analysis were the paid-off 2012 and 2014 transactions from Ally Bank, CarMax, Ford Credit, Honda, Hyundai, USAA, and World Omni. We excluded Toyota from our loss-curve timing analysis due the high level of seasoning in its transactions: approximately 14 and 15 months in 2012 and 2014, respectively.
Our analysis reveals that loss-timing curves can change--in this case due to the lengthening of loan terms--and that projecting cumulative net losses (CNLs) using stale loss curves could underestimate potential losses. For example, if we projected CNLs on a pool that had 18 months of performance and a CNL to date of 1.5% using the 2012 loss timing curve above (62.2%), we would arrive at a loss forecast of approximately 2.4%. However, if we used the 2014 loss timing percentage (55.7%), the loss forecast would be 2.7%.
We also tested the relationship between the weighted average original term of the pool and the percentage of losses taken at month 24 for the 2012 and 2014 securitizations for the above-mentioned issuers, plus Toyota. We found that there was a significant (at the 0.5% level) negative linear relationship (with R-squared statistics of 0.45 and 0.39 for the 2012 and 2014 vintages, respectively) between the weighted average original term of a pool and the percentage of losses through month 24. As the loan terms lengthened, the percentage of losses taken through month 24 generally declined, meaning the losses were incurred later (see the trend lines in charts 3 and 4). The pools with the longest weighted average original maturities, including Ally, CarMax, and World Omni, incurred the lowest percentage of total losses through month 24.
We also observed that greater pool seasoning (i.e., a higher average number of payments that have been made) at closing generally leads to a more front-loaded loss timing pattern (see charts 5 and 6), which potentially offsets the back-loaded effect that longer maturities have on the loss curve. For example, Toyota's 2012 and 2014 transactions had weighted average original seasoning of 14 and 15 months, respectively, which is the highest of all prime securitizers in our study. The Toyota transactions also experienced the bulk of losses earlier than any of the other originators, incurring approximately 90%-95% of the losses by month 24. In contrast, Ford's 2012 and 2014 pools, which had average respective seasoning of five and eight months at closing, incurred approximately 72% and 66% of their total losses through month 24.
Loan maturity and loan seasoning appear (at least in the sample we studied) to have a negative linear relationship (i.e., lower maturities are generally associated with higher seasoning). This collinearity is likely the reason why a multivariate regression (not presented here) between these two covariates and losses taken at month 24 (as dependent variable) failed to yield meaningful, significant results.
Credit Enhancement Levels Could Rise
We believe longer-term loans will become increasingly popular among the auto manufacturers' captive finance companies, and these entities will join certain banks in including 84-month loans in their ABS. The continued shift to larger vehicles and new vehicle technology, including more driver assistance systems, may push median transaction prices higher over the coming months, thus creating demand for longer loan terms. To offset the potential risk that longer-term loans will have higher expected loss rates, lenders may seek to offer these products only to their higher-credit-quality obligors, thereby limiting default frequency. In addition (or alternatively), lenders may try to contain the severity of loss by limiting the loan-to-value ratios on longer-term loans. Higher levels of seasoning could also help to dampen the potential increase in losses associated with these loans.
As the percentage of longer-term loans increase in U.S. prime retail auto loan securitizations, S&P Global Ratings will continue to analyze static pool vintage performance by loan term and adjust its expected loss levels on the pools accordingly. To the extent that these loans represent greater risk for an issuer's pools, our expected CNL is likely to increase, which could result in higher credit enhancement levels.
The authors would like to thank Aaron Dalal for his contribution to this report.
This report does not constitute a rating action.
|Primary Credit Analyst:||Amy S Martin, New York (1) 212-438-2538;|
|Secondary Contact:||Tom Schopflocher, New York (1) 212-438-6722;|
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: email@example.com.