4. On pages 1085 and 1086 Mr. Arnold says that if GMAC were split off from GM and competed across the board "C.I.T. is going to have to meet the GM rates". With this we agree; the only question is at what level of rates will this be? Mr. Lundell of C.I.T. testified in 1959 that in his opinion if GMAC were divested from GM "discount rates would tend to equalize. It may well be that General Motors would go up $10 and we would go down $10". We believe that GMAC and FMCC rates would go up and the independents' rates would come down somewhat. In fact, our estimates of the increased costs to the consumer are based on such an assumption. 5. Mr. Arnold states (page 1088) that passage of the Bill "would increase it (GMAC's efficiency) because it is a very inefficient organization . . . This assertion is another exhibition of Mr. Arnold's lack of understanding of the facts and issues in this case. Testimony of Charles B. Whiteside, Merchant's National Bank, Fort Smith, 1. There is some confusion on pages 1125-1128 concerning Our information is that the GMAC new car discount rate to 2. Mr. Whiteside says that he understands FMCC rates are 3. Mr. Whiteside presumes that Ford Motor Company is now Moreover, in the 1959 Hearings (pages 344-345), Mr. Lundell - 4. On page 1139 Mr. Whiteside states that "We are not Testimony of R. L. Mullins, Independent Bankers Association of America Mr. Mullins repeats in large part the testimony he gave in 1959 (1959 Hearings, pages 287-298) that he and members of the Independent Bankers Association of America are not getting much automobile paper from GMC dealers. This is not surprising when one examines his 1959 testimony and discovers two things: (1) Mr. Mullins' associates are purchasing "practically all retail paper" and he is not even sure they grant any wholesale assistance (page 296), and (2) Mr. Mullins' associates "rarely purchase from the dealer" (Page 294). In other words, he is in competition with the dealers and makes direct loans. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that dealers do not wish to channel business to these banks; they compete with the dealers and are attempting to eliminate the dealer from the transaction. 1. Mr. Mullins confirms our testimony that, where banks 2. Mr. Mullins states that his bank's auto financing We believe that Mr. Mullins' experience is unique in this 3. Mr. Mullins states that his bank requires liability 4. Mr. Mullins in a confused statement on page 1158 Testimony of David B. Steere, Allied Finance Company Mr. Steere's prepared statement is essentially a portion of the American Finance Conference "White Paper on Automobile Financing". His arguments are dealt with in Mr. T. 0. Yntema's prepared statement, pages 23-31. 1. Mr. Steere substantiates our testimony that "the large 2. On page 1178 Mr. Steere states that his company 3. In Mr. Steere's opinion (page 1181), the rates that "A Threat to Free Enterprise", address by Representative Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, before the 27th Annual Convention of the American Finance Conference, Chicago, Illinois, November 11, 1960, page 8. 4. On page 1182 Mr. Steere refers to customer rates. The Testimony of Richard E. Meier, Interstate Finance Corp. (Ind.) In our opinion Mr. Meier's statement can best be referred to as "general demagoguery". It follows pretty much the party line of the American Finance Conference. The best refutation to this type of attack, we believe, is the testimony of dealers and dealer associations, the persons who have firsthand knowledge of the situation. We believe that the NADA statement and the statement of the three Ford dealers refute Mr. Meier's position. 1. On page B-1, Mr. Meier attempts to steer the discus- 2. On page B-8, Mr. Meier has switched his argument from preceding pages and concedes that GMAC charges to the dealers are lower than other finance companies. He states, however, that these savings are not passed on to the consumer and implies that other finance companies do not provide a dealer reserve. Both charges are ridiculous as proved by the NADA and dealer statements. In fact, Mr. Meier's own statements at the bottom of the page concerning the low profits of auto dealers disprove his earlier statements about the dealers retaining the lower charges. 3. Mr. Meier on page B-9 says that new car dealers usually sell at least three times as many used cars as new cars. His statistics are not accurate. The ratio of used to new car sales by new car dealers actually averages approximately 1.5. 4. On page B-9 he refers to the usual American Finance 5. Mr. Meier on page B-18 states that "the amount of 6. Mr. Meier attempts to keep alive the fiction that GMAC American Finance Conference Exhibit A new This exhibit (beginning on page B-22) apparently is a reply to Mr. Stradella's testimony on the proportion of auto financing done by GMAC. idea has been introduced in an attempt to maximize GMAC's proportion of the market. The idea is to restrict the field only to time sales of GM dealers; carried to its logical conclusion, of course, GMAC handles 100% of the retail financing handled by GMAC. In our testimony we showed clearly that the market is not segmented as the American Finance Conference representatives would like to have the Subcommittee believe. Testimony of George W. Omacht Mr. Omacht's statement covers at great length the history of the litigation against the automobile manufacturers. His thorough rehashing of |