Anyone else feel like we are being gamed by the automakers?

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to Driven5 :

The question asked was "is the public being gamed by the automakers?" insinuating there is game playing going on by the makers to purposely defraud the consumer. I stand by the following concerning that question:

1. The manufacturer is different from the dealer

2. The public is not the manufacturers customer, so they have no incentive to defraud the public.

3. A supplier does not benefit from keeping supply low, a retailer does. The suppliers would love to build and sell more cars to the dealer

4. Supply will not get back to previous levels for at least 2 years, and might not get back to "surplus" levels for much longer because buying habits are changing. 

And I have not disagreed with any of your  4 points. My thoughts are more in line with what Driven5 has written above. 

And I seem to have missed where I used the word "Fraud" in my original post.

Steve_Jones said:

3. A supplier does not benefit from keeping supply low, a retailer does. The suppliers would love to build and sell more cars to the dealer

I won't argue any of your other points, because I don't disagree with them. This is the recurring falsehood (most absolutes are absolutely false) I have been arguing against the whole time. Perhaps in this particular case the retailer is benefiting more than the supplier, and that there may be more ideal positions to be in overall, but to keep saying there are NO benefits to suppliers is quite simply not true.  I have detailed multiple demonstrable benefits of demand exceeding supply, which are the only characterizations I have encountered that are able to explain the auto industry data I've seen, and of which none have yet been reasonably or directly refuted. 

There are as many benefits to a manufacturer or supplier having demand mildly to moderately exceed supply, as there are benefits to having supply mildly to moderately exceed demand... Individuals may have preference of one over the other, but the key to success lies more in knowing how to use each to the greatest effect than it does in which you face. Likewise there are as many detriments to having supply moderately to severely exceed demand, as there are detriments to having demand moderately to severely exceed supply... And correspondingly, individuals may have preference for protecting against one over the other, but the key to not failing lies more in knowing how to respond to each to the greatest effect than it does which you face. 

One of the issues with your links is they use 2021 data. 2022 data is very different. 
 

I pulled some numbers for 2022 vs 2021 monthly sales. I used trucks since those are a big profit center for the manufacturer. I went back to May, so people wouldn't say "but gas prices". May is a random month, but other months are similar numbers. I also chose trucks because they're selling every single one they make. 
 

Comparing May 2021 to May 2022 the manufacturers sold:

F-150 - 14,785 less or 22% down 

Silverado - 9310 less or 17% down

Ram - 16,663 less or 30% down

Sierra - 4,980 less or 20% down
Tacoma - 3572  less or 14% down

Gladiator - 3257 less  or 32% down. 
 

That's 52,567 highly profitable vehicles they did not sell because they could not build them in May. That's 630,000 lost sales over a year simply because they can't produce them. 
 

In reply to Driven5 :

Steve_Jones said:

3. A supplier does not benefit from keeping supply low, a retailer does. The suppliers would love to build and sell more cars to the dealer

I won't argue any of your other points, because I don't disagree with them. This is the recurring falsehood (most absolutes are absolutely false) I have been arguing against the whole time. Perhaps in this particular case the retailer is benefiting more than the supplier, and that there may be more ideal positions to be in overall, but to keep saying there are NO benefits to suppliers is quite simply not true.  I have detailed multiple demonstrable benefits of demand exceeding supply, which are the only characterizations I have encountered that are able to explain the auto industry data I've seen, and of which none have yet been reasonably or directly refuted. 

There are as many benefits to a manufacturer or supplier having demand mildly to moderately exceed supply, as there are benefits to having supply mildly to moderately exceed demand... Individuals may have preference of one over the other, but the key to success lies more in knowing how to use each to the greatest effect than it does in which you face. Likewise there are as many detriments to having supply moderately to severely exceed demand, as there are detriments to having demand moderately to severely exceed supply... And correspondingly, individuals may have preference for protecting against one over the other, but the key to not failing lies more in knowing how to respond to each to the greatest effect than it does which you face. 
 

I've been trying to find more info on the topic of this discussion, and what I've found- or haven't found- is leading me to more questions than answers. The whole premise of this discussion is that automakers are making record profits. I'm not finding evidence that that is the complete truth. Maybe I'm missing it, and someone can point me in the right direction? Maybe I missed it in this thread? I have found lots of articles claiming automakers are making record profits. But they all appear very similar, and reference "10 major car makers." There are a lot more than 10, and I'm having trouble finding data on everyone else. The articles also highlight Ferrari as one of the leaders in profit growth. So only 10 automakers were selected, they put Ferrari in the mix, and the articles look like they copied each other's homework. Can anyone fill in the blanks? Otherwise, reporting "automakers making record profits" when you just chose 10 at the pointy end is misleading. It would be like saying home runs are up in Major League Baseball only using the numbers from the top 10 teams. If Ford can produce cars that Chevy can't, and sells all of the premium versions it can produce, then I can see Ford making record profits while Chevy suffers. And Ford wouldn't be benefiting primarily from their own shortage, but from their competitor's shortage. If they could make more cars, they would benefit even more.