Car Owners Fall Behind on Payments at Highest Rate on Record
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
I think a major culprit is our social-focused society creating this desire to keep up with the Jonses' in your social/work circles.
> I think a major culprit is our social-focused society creating this desire to keep up with the Jonses' in your social/work circles.
Society may very well pressure individuals to keep up with the Joneses, but individuals do not have to yield to that pressure. Let's retain some individual agency. Nobody has to put themselves in a lot of debt to appear a certain way to their peers.
Agreed, but those outward pressures can be pretty harsh. I left real estate because I was told by my boss I needed to upgrade my car to, at a minimum, 2yr-old Lexus NX or I'd be relegated to internal work rather than meeting with clients. I was driving a 2019 Kia Forte at the time. Some industries just tie your personal life and expenses to your work life way too much.
I was a real estate in Idaho in the mid 00s and the only people I knew who had the super nice cars were the long-time brokers and the real estate school instructors. People that rarely if ever met with clients. That said, I worked low end stuff. I could see high end stuff very much requiring outward signs of "success" otherwise the clients might think you suck at your job.
I left the field because the incentives and commission structure was so out of whack with what it should be. Selling a house and doing 95%+ of the work got you half of half the commission. 6% total, 1.5% to buyer broker, 1.5% to buyer agent, 1.5% to seller broker, 1.5% to seller agent. The agents (not the brokers) did 95% of the actual work, but the law required a licensed broker to "oversee" the transaction. People only got paid when a house sold, so there was heavy incentive on both sides of the transaction to get the right person into the right house, and as the great Lionel Hutz (Phil Hartman) tells Marge Simpson, "I'm going to let you in on a little secret. The right house is the house that's for sale. And the right person is anyone." I could go on for a long time, but suffice to say it seems absurd to me that the fee to a seller is directly proportional to the value of the house, completely disconnected from the amount of labor involved in the transaction.
to which you should be replying "sure, let me send you the receipt so you can expense it". If it is for work, the employee cannot expect to pay for a required piece of equipment.
Yeah, I grant you that is the case in certain occupations. It's funny, because in other lines of work (like accountancy, for example), you're actually discouraged from meeting clients in a flashy car.
I need to buy another used truck, but I'm sort of waiting for the flood of used cars from these people to saturate the market a bit and drive down prices for me when the recession hits.
You can still buy an old Toyota sedan for $2k.
In today's society, you can completely disregard someone based solely on the car they drive (cough, Prius).
How rude.
No, seriously though, a Prius is pretty underrated. Especially when you put it in sport mode and push your passengers into their seat with the acceleration. And you'll still beat 30mpg.
Heck, I bet it has better power:weight than that F-150...
I have always said, however, that if you're looking a for a good value reliable car you should always take note of what cars taxi drivers buy.
Societal wealth indicator trends are stupid in many ways, and what car you own is just the latest stupidity. I'll happily laugh my way past the gas pumps in my pariahmobile.
It's amazing how quickly people's expectations change. Once they get in that new car it's the new normal. They'll get just as angry and frustrated in it as any other, but it's now an essential with an insanely high cost.
It's also full of hidden costs. People can usually tell you how much they're spending on rent, but what about how much they spend on the car? You need to add up any interest, depreciation, insurance, tax, fuel, regular maintenance, repairs, consumables, tolls, cleaning, and that's not even counting your priceless time spent driving.
Car people will just gobble up a random 1k credit repair bill when their gearbox randomly gives out then forget all about it in a few months and never once question if this thing is worth it.
Normal rates are doing to shock consumer consumotion, really soon.
This is a perfect place for a facepalm emoji.
I mean, I get it. When everyone else around you is doing it (and frankly, they probably can't afford it any more than he can), it's a legitimately hard thing to not buckle to the pressure. Especially since it's a huge indicator of your "value" these days.
But for a $1500+ monthly payment... Yeesh.
But the OP's brother is not alone, the problem is there are lots of 35, 45, 55 and 65 year olds making similar decisions.
Not the worst? Perhaps technically. That loan payment is going to be an absurd burden on that young adult for a period of time they can barely relate to. Especially if they lose their job for any appreciable amount of time, or encounter other sudden costs (such as rent being jacked up).
Remaining employed full time for 7 years at the age of 19 with a wage good enough to make $1500 vehicle payments is... well, I would have failed that test.
Perhaps you're right though. I went to uni etc so didn't have that kind of cash until much later but might be different for those who leave school earlier.
Children in the US can begin work at 14, and assuming he either bought or was gifted a low value project car that he began putting money into from the age of 15 when he would have been eligible for his learner's permit, he could have been earning for up to 5 years before his latest job.
It's also not unheard of for children to own vehicles before they're old enough to legally drive them. There are no license or minimum age requirements for ATVs in some states, and in rural areas, some children begin using them to commute (off-road) as soon as they're large enough to operate them. One of our local schools had stables for horses, and another had chargers for golf carts. While helmets weren't legally required, the schools encouraged them.
In 2020, McDonald's paid cashiers just over $11/hr, so if he worked there just 500 hours each year from the ages of 15 to 18 (10 hours a week), he would have been able to earn over $20K before he was 19 without much effort - or earned all of that in a single year after graduating high school and working full time.
If he was a car enthusiast who wanted to work at an auto shop, like NAPA Auto Parts ($15/hr base), he'd have been able to earn $15K in two years working the same part time schedule. He also would have received full state and federal taxes back each year, so it would have been near to gross earnings.
This isn't really uncommon here. Everything costs something, so most people have to work starting from their teens. Insurance, for instance, is expensive for young men, so if he hadn't been paying on his car's current cash value (or at all) to control costs, he may have received nothing on the vehicle after it was totaled, but he wouldn't have owed anything. By 19, he'd already be used to living paycheck to paycheck.
And while there's no limit to what someone can spend on their car, I'm also taking $15K as an embellishment. $8-10K is more normal for moderate aftermarket work, including labor, and some people buy, sell, and trade up often. I'd believe a teenager spending $3-8K on used aftermarket and then telling people it was "worth $15K", estimating it would have cost around that if they'd bought new and had the work done professionally.
On the other hand, you're not wrong about its capabilities. And honestly, if it's just groceries, one could easily go for a used car or hatchback.
If anyone knows of a left hand drive, all wheel drive diesel hatchback, let me know. That's my unicorn car. I'm not even sure something like that exists.
"Ah no but the used truck doesn't have a touchscreen or a radio with bluetooth or builtin GPS" /s
He's not the best candidate for an insurance policy...
In US its “hey have you seen a car in your life, here have those keys”
Not sure about the US market but this could be a factor?
A 50k vehicle with 10k down at 3% interest for 84 months is $538 a month.
At 8% interest it is $623 a month.
So even with high interest rates, people afford these vehicles by dragging out the loan term to 5-7 years.
Lots of fun creative loans now. I’m not shopping for a car, have excellent credit and I see auto loan ads offering 12-14% interest. The balloon payment ones are just crazy though.
https://www.meche.engineering.cmu.edu/_files/images/research...
The cheapest way to meet the EPA MPG requirements is to INCREASE the vehicle wheelbase and make it larger. This is much easier than making it lighter or adding fuel efficient engines and technology. Plus, Americans have shown a preference for larger cars.
It's a win-win until people can't afford the tin
Idiots who complain about inflation and the price of gas yet who also are spending gobs of money on vehicles that get awful MPG.
You can't fix stupid. I have no sympathy for these people.
1) Many people just like driving a truck as their vehicle. Many of those people are wealthy enough to drive 100k+ vehicles. They like a truck, they just want one with a fancy interior.
2) High value trucks are extremely profitable for OEMs. The margins are huge since the engineering and tooling is amortized across a ton of lower cost and fleet trucks, so there is big incentive to have the best luxury truck as it's a license to print money
3) Tax incentives for 6000+lb vehicles that were intended for truly commercial vehicles. Didn't envision Escalades and luxury trucks being used by regular people and not for hauling goods.
4) Buying vehicles based on monthly cost rather than total. 7-8 year loans keep the monthly cost on huge value trucks pretty reasonable
Instead of a big V8 slab of pig iron for an engine you end up with a smaller turbo charged engine. Coupled with a mostly aluminum body to save weight is how they've been increasing fuel economy of trucks.
There has also been a significant drop in the desire for base model two-seater trucks. Most trucks sold are some variation of extended/crew/king cab. Coupled with a desire to use the truck as a daily driver you end up with a lot of extra like adaptive cruise control, cameras, infotament, etc.
Plus the usual expansion of standard safety features that has been raising the price of all vehicles. Backup cameras being required equipment now comes to mind as an example.
Mostly supply and demand, but it is true that pickups these days are a ton nicer than the cheap and functional single cab, 8 foot bed, rear wheel drive, roll-up windows trucks of yore.
And to be fair, $90k is on the extreme high end of the market currently. I could drive down to my local Ford dealer right now and for $90k, a F-150 Raptor could be mine. It has 450 horsepower and 510 lb-ft of torque, goes 0-60 in less than five and a half seconds, and can carry five grown adults in scrumptious comfort, as well as having a somewhat usable bed for cargo. No one can deny that it's a nice product, though whether it's worth $90k depends on the individual. I certainly wouldn't pay that kind of money.
Most F-150s available on the lot right now are in the $40k range, which is still way more than what I would like to pay, but it's comparable to many other vehicles. That same money would get you a nicely optioned midsize SUV, a sporty car like a Mustang, or an EV on the cheaper side.
https://www.financialsamurai.com/tax-rules-for-buying-a-vehi...
https://i2.wp.com/financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
>Even expensive sports cars like the BMW M3 and Porsche 911 kept up with inflation. A 2003 E46 M3 cost $46,545 ($78,729 today), while a new M4 (the two-door version of the M3) is only $74,300. In those 20 years, power went up from 333 to 473 hp. Even the 911 Carrera, which seems expensive at $106,100, is way cheaper than the 996 model at $72,435 ($122,521 today).
I don't think you appreciate just how incredibly massive this country is. I have to drive 15 miles to work everyday. If I couldn't drive, I would literally just starve and die (or, I suppose start working as a local farmhand).
It's funny, I feel the same way about people who live in small areas and don't have the ability to independently go anywhere they want at any time without having to rely on someone else. The "walkable city" feels like a hellscape archetype for the most captive audience you could ever possibly conceive...
On the other hand, I don’t think you appreciate how much vehicle usage in this country is tied to round trip commutes to and from an urban center
I don’t think anyone is arguing that a rural lifestyle should exist on bikes and trains because that doesn’t make sense. However people who live adjacent to a city and go into the city every day, aren’t living a rural lifestyle.
> It's funny, I feel the same way about people who live in small areas and don't have the ability to independently go anywhere they want at any time without having to rely on someone else. The "walkable city" feels like a hellscape archetype for the most captive audience you could ever possibly conceive...
These are not mutually exclusive concepts unless you live in Manhattan.
I live a 10 minute walk to a subway station that brings me downtown to work. I also have a driveway and a car, and sometimes I drive to the parking garage next to my work. I also drive all over New England on the weekends.
Farms take land, but cities should not. They should be designed to be effective in most ways by minimizing distance travelled for most common trips.
People really, really do not understand what living rural is like.
The same criticism applies equally well to rural dwellers about urban life which is why someone rural could be shocked by the idea someone might actively choose to to travel by high quality public transportation.
I have lived both rural and urban and actively choose urban. Rural is a fine choice too, but rural dwellers shouldn't expect their energy intensive and economically expensive lifestyle to be subsidized by urban dwellers forever. Maintaining a huge road network with relatively low utilization is massively expensive and western rural life is currently among the most carbon intensive lifestyles.
> Maintaining a huge road network with relatively low utilization is massively expensive and western rural life is currently among the most carbon intensive lifestyles.
Yet it's necessary, and cheaper than the alternative when you have industry which must exist in a rural setting (such as farming). Attempting to mandate public transport for rural settings would cost more, and may even be more carbon intensive.
So as much as people who live in rural areas shouldn't dictate how public transport is instituted in dense urban areas, neither should urbanites dictate how transport in rural areas is managed.
Farmers get a pass since they are producing things on the land. Everyone else who chooses to live rural or exurban doesn't get to object to urban dwellers wanting quality transit or to reduce the prominence of cars in urban spaces.
And the people who maintain farmers' equipment?
Purchasers of farmers' goods?
The people who sell food to farmers?
The people who maintain infrastructure?
Mail?
Which is to say, where there are farmers (or ranchers etc), there is a whole city nearby who supports them. And cities imply infrastructure - like roads.
"I would literally starve and die". This is a sad, sad comment. I would laugh but I just find it so sad that you've got all these able bodied adults unable to get around without wheelchairs.
Wall-E isn't about the future.
I suspect that some of this is a result of humans being increasingly unable to estimate true distances. In my city, it can take 45 minutes to drive 3 miles, so most non-bikers understand 3 miles to be an insurmountable distance.
Of course, if you do walk a mile then that's a "hike". In British that's also just called a walk.
Having experienced the public transit systems in Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and the midwest US. It's entirely obvious who is failing.
Though, despite our short comings, in a lot of cities it _is_ possible to use public transit, I did for years and it sucked and I had to compensate with Uber more often then I would have liked but at least I didn't have a car payment (in hindsight I should have just bought a car, but it was a humbling experience that I don't regret.)
> Having experienced the public transit systems in Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore
The Seoul Metro, widely considered to be one of the best in the world, also lost like a billion dollars a year for the past decade or so, with the shortfall made up for by taxes. The story is similar for many transit systems around the world as well as around the US.
Now, you could argue that it's worth it, but let's at least make sure we know that there is also a public transit tax, as well.
That figure, of course, does not include the amount of money that we spent on our cars to drive on those highways. Maintenance. Insurance. Fees.
It does not capture deaths from car accidents (over 4,000, children among them) life changing injuries and maimings (many more than 4,000), choking air pollution, the thousands of tons of tire plastic that washed into the Pacific that year, and obviously the carbon emissions, which probably approached a hundred million tons. Smaller things as well; the stress, the noise, billions of hours spent sitting in traffic. The natural environment that was destroyed to build roads and highways.
If you spent 4 billion to cut that incomprehensible number by just 10 percent you would come out ahead -- not by a little but by a monstrous lot.
Sorry that came off very heated. I really do hate cars, it's not really directed at you.
The Seoul Capital Region is 26 million people crammed in a 4,500 square mile metropolitan area.
California is 40 million spread across 156,000 square miles.
It makes sense that CA gets more funding for roads and highways given that the population is much less dense.
Even when you factor in Metropolitan areas in CA, the distances are much larger - the Bay Area has the same population and area as the state of Massachusetts (9,000 square miles and 9 million people), yet I don't see subway connecting Boston to Worcester or Springfield.
That's functionally the same ask that a lot of Public transit supporters (which I am btw) are pushing for, and it doesn't make sense. The area is way too large for a system like the Boston T or the NYC Subway to be created, and the Bay's current setup of local subways (Muni/VTA) mixed with commuter rails (BART/Caltrain/ACE) makes more sense given the size.
Transportation infrastructure of any mode is massively expensive and is undertaken to facilitate all sorts of economic activity. Public transportation being held to a standard of direct profit is something no other public infrastructure is expected to achieve.
But I do mean to imply that often times comparisons are made between car-centric cities and public transit-centric cities without any close attention to the actual costs involved, nor a sober cost-benefit analysis. It seems like it's usually categorical statements like "public transit is better and cars shouldn't exist" or "you'll pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers".
> Public transportation being held to a standard of direct profit is something no other public infrastructure is expected to achieve.
Perhaps most people don't think about it, but even roads and bridges need to be profitable one way or another. There are many famous examples of "bridges to nowhere"-type public works projects throughout history where some massive infrastructure work was done in a place that won't use that level of infrastructure, usually through corruption. Everyone loses when that happens.
I guess public transit systems seem to be unfairly targeted for (as you said) "a standard of direct profit" because it's usually built and maintained by a centralized authority, vs. roads which are built and maintained by many different layers of government, with more diffuse paths of revenues and expenditures.
You would think corporations would finally place their offices in more liveable areas but for some reason they feel the need to build in city centers, and inconvenience their employees.
> propping up highly toxic industries such as commercial real estate, restaurants, oil, and of course car sales and manufacturing
This reminds me of the assertion that inflation is below 2% now, if we exclude food, energy, shelter, and used cars[0]. Life is great, if we don't meet in person to do work, break bread together, and get ourselves around to provide goods and services?
What's left, if you remove the "highly toxic" industries?
[0]: https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1712494317024026761
There's a macro problem that that cars often are necessary to function in USA cities. With limited public transit, especially in the suburbs/exurbs where below median earners are forced to live, getting to a job requires a car. And cars are expensive, no matter how you slice it. Our city designs make it doubly hard to be poor.
I feel for low income earners - They're least able to afford extra expenses, have the least ability to devote mental/time resources to rate/price shopping, and get hit with the highest rates due to low income / low credit. Even if you want to make a good choice, the finances are stacked against you.
A deeply engrained conspicuous consumption culture and normalization of debt for non-essential purchases keep the great beast fed.
It's expensive to be poor.
My girlfriend in college had no idea how much her student loans were in total, how long they were financed, whether they were private or federal loans, etc. She just let her parents do all the financing work (they couldn't pay for her, but they did all the paperwork for her), and she just struggled with school while going out and drinking every night. Now she's graduated and we've long since parted ways, but she has a Bachelor's Degree yet she's currently working as a dog groomer and refusing to pay her student loans "because the government shouldn't force me to pay, I was only 18".
To see all of these people online now, complaining about how they were "groomed by the banks" to take out student loans drives me crazy. You made a bad decision. Your parents helped you make a bad decision. You need to live with that, and feel some form of "punishment" (in the form of not bailing them out) for not planning better for the future.
- try to save them from their own stupidity
- let the society collapse
We would ofcourse survive the collapse of society but majority of rich and poor ppl would die.
Rich and powerful want to keep the starus quo of power.
So we stay in this limbo of ppl becoming dumber and powerful bailing them out to not lose power.
Pretty simple stuff.
Rising tides lift all boats. Do you know any people who worked on wall street? Then they were helped by a bailout. Do you know any people who worked with the people who worked on wall street? Then they were helped by a bailout. Etc....
Maybe there's a favorite restaurant of yours that stayed open throughout COVID because of PPP. Or there are people who you know who kept their jobs because of PPP.
Maybe there are favorite products of yours that have been created or will be created by people who were able to start companies after their student loans were forgiven.
My point is that these bailouts aren't only helping the people/companies that were directly impacted - we're all connected so it's rare that helping so many people doesn't indirectly affect you in some way.
I had a college econ professor explain that the best way to save money on a car is not to buy used (everyone's first guess). It's to drive it until "the wheels fall off." Depreciation is the biggest cost of car ownership and it stops at a certain point in a car's life. If the car is maintained well, several hundred thousand miles is even doable. I took that advice to heart.
You're still eating a good amount of it at two years. Five is where the curve flattens out. The objectively best used car to buy is a single owner 5 year old Toyota Corolla with 60,000 miles.
Depends if they did all the 60k service stuff or not. That's the first major service interval that could easily run you $2000 (brakes, battery, all liquid changes, belts, etc.)
About $15k: https://www.kbb.com/toyota/corolla/2018/le-sedan-4d/?categor...
And I'm not sure what you consider a good deal, but $10k is a lot of money; nearly half the price of the car which has >80% of its useful life left.
:-) This is why everytime I've had to buy a car I think about getting a used one and end up buying new. And honestly, I tend to agree with the overall sentiment of this thread that cars a waste of money. I just don't want to have to think about the damn - I just want to get in and be able to get to where I'm going.
EDIT: Prior to this car, I had a 2002 Pontiac Grand Am. That was the best car I ever had. Bought it for $2,000 and drove it everyday for 5 years until the engine gave up the ghost. Highly recommended.
Not sure I agree. I've seen people do that and they inevitably end up spending thousands on repair and maintenance the last few years of the cars life. Had they sold 'in time' and bought something used, but slightly newer and more reliable, I'm pretty sure they would have ended up ahead.
If you have the time/skill/equipment to do all your own repairs and maintenance it might be OK, but otherwise keeping an old car on the road gets expensive.
I recently replaced the water pump in the 2014 and the dealer quoted between $4,500-10,000+ for replacing the pump or replacing the engine if the coolant being where it's not supposed to be broke bearings or anything else. I got a second opinion from a small independent shop and he took it step by step and confirmed no engine damage before I committed to the pump replacement. It was around $3,500 total.
Replacing the vehicle would have cost $20k plus, so the math made sense for me to repair. If I was looking at an engine replacement might have gone the other way.
Keeping up with routine maintenance is the most important thing and even then random things do break.
One of ours is a 2006 with just over 230k miles on it (Toyota). The last few trips to the shop for just an oil change and tire rotation has turned into large bills to fix things. I don't think if we sold it earlier we'd come out much ahead but maybe I'm wrong.
We plan to replace this with a similar 2-3 year old model and drive that one into the ground. Our other is a Ford and has not been as reliable. That will be replaced with a Toyota when it's time comes (which sadly may be with a lot less years/mileage than the Toyota).
Presumably there's some cultural difference between me and folks who buy recent vehicles with 5-digit price tags?
Maybe the cultural difference is an aversion to debt. My parents never got a loan to buy a vehicle, and I haven't either.
Of course new under 35K seems hard too.
You can buy a new base model budget sedan (think Kia Rio, Nissan Versa, etc.) for $20k, or slightly under if you can get a good deal. I myself bought a decent hybrid hatchback for under $30k earlier this year without shopping around too much. It gets over 50mph combined and is quiet and comfortable to drive.
I would not have expected to be so fortunate with a Ford but with a Honda I would be, not least because Hondas in the UK are synonymous with senior, careful drivers who look after their cars. As a consequence, it's a much sought after brand in the pre-owned market.
I had a similar experience with the 2001 Honda Accord that I drove for ~7 years before we got the Odyssey.
Obviously you need to be able to “afford it”, but what that means depends a lot on subjective opinion and risk appetite.
For me, I have bought a handful of new and used vehicles in the last several years. Probably something like $300k total in 5 years? They are fun.
Bragging about spending less is no different than bragging about spending more.
Even if I didn't, vehicles are way down the list of sources of fun I would spend money on, especially if we're talking double-digit percentages of my budget.
Presumably these are a part of the cultural difference between me and people who spend so much on vehicles.
How much "fun" do you think the subjects of the article are getting from their vehicles?
Someone struggling to afford a fancy car is prioritizing their perceived status over financial prudence.
Pure anecdote, but that guy left soon after our sale. In his words "I feel dirty facilitating these purchases. It's really screwing people over who are incapable of making sound financial decisions."
Car owners falling behind on payments in record numbers could be nothing in terms of the history of the next global economic crisis. Or it could be among the dominoes.
Take for instance the Nissan Versa: https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan.html. This car starts at $17k new, and is an objectively better vehicle in every single possible way than anything you could have bought 20 years ago short of high end luxury. Cars are one of the few consumer goods that have only gotten cheaper and better over time (particularly when inflation is taken into account). But marketers doing what they do, everyone is now convinced they need a $40,000 luxury vehicle to buy groceries and drive to work. It is entirely a cultural issue combined with predatory lending, not a lack of cheap cars to buy.
Everything.
Safety: Full curtain airbags, LKAS, pedestrian e-stop, better crumple zones, backup camera, blind spot warning
Economy: 40 MPG highway vs 30, better aerodynamics, longer oil change intervals
Performance: Electronic power steering, traction control, full disc brakes with ABS
Features: Apple carplay, cruise control, push button start, power windows/locks, e-parking brake, LED headlights, keyless entry
You really can't even compare a car today to something 20 years ago, and adjusted for inflation the Versa starts at $5k cheaper than that Corolla did new in 2004.
[1] https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-automobiles/releases/relea...
[2] https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-automobiles/releases/relea...
> The total U.S. supply of available unsold new vehicles climbed to 2.21 million units, the highest level since early spring 2021. That is up 60% from the same time a year ago. However, inventory remains 35% lower than pre-pandemic 2019. Inventory numbers include vehicles available on dealer lots and some in transit.
> Days of supply stood at 60 at the start of October, the same as the start of September. Inventory, measured as days’ supply, was 14 days higher than the same time a year ago. Supply has been inching toward that 60-day level, which the industry once considered normal and ideal, throughout the year. It was last in the 60s in March 2021.
Prices have come back a bit too..
> In July, the average transaction price (ATP) – the price paid – rose a scant 0.4% from a year ago, the smallest year-over-year price increase in the last decade. According to Kelley Blue Book, the ATP of a new vehicle in July was $48,334, compared with $48,671 in June. Since the start of the year, transaction prices are down 2.7%, or $1,335, the largest January to July fall in the past decade.*
https://www.coxautoinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Septem...