[Oeva-list] SHOULD we let Tesla off the hook?

Eric Cha ericc at xenopi.com
Mon Jul 1 13:41:32 PDT 2013


Totally agree with what you write below.

A little sidenote:

IMHO, price competition between dealers of the same vehicle (say, two 
nissan dealerships) is somewhat of a misleading idea to me. Neither 
dealership can ever lower the price of the car below what the 
manufacturer charges them.  They can only lower the markup. IMO, for 
there to be real price competition (in the true sense of a Free Market), 
the vehicles must be from two different manufacturers (for example: 
Nissan vs. GM).   That's when a real competitive lowering of prices can 
occur (as opposed to two dealerships just trying to cut their markup 
down to the minimum).

Eric

On 7/1/2013 1:34 PM, Steve's Account wrote:
> So long as there is some "in state" representative that is involved in
> the transaction, I guess I don't have an objection to it.. but that's not
> how I read what was on the web page discussing the issue.
>
> The one I read seemed to be saying "allow interstate sales by the
> manufacturer, without requiring a presence of "somebody" in each
> state.
>
> I guess I don't care if that "somebody" is Tesla or Lithia.. in
> either case they would be large companies with multi state
> presences.. just one also happens to make cars, in addition to
> selling them.
>
> This is little different than what happens now between say
> "General Motors" the car company, and "General Motors Credit" the
> finance company.
>
> I wouldn't seen anything wrong with having "Tesla Motors" the car
> manufactuer, and "Tesla Motors (Oregon)", the sales agent for
> Tesla cars in Oregon. Provided that other dealers could get the
> same "deals" from Tesla Motors (the car company) should they want
> to compete with Tesla Motors (Oregon) on a fair basis.
>
> If, because they were interlocking companies, they had an unfair
> advantage.. .then there would be no chance at price competition
> amount the dealers.
>
> As it is now, "Dealer Invoice" pricing on ICE's is a joke.. the dealer
> doesn't pay that price for the car, it's just a tool to make the
> customer think they are getting a good price. That situation would
> be even worse in the event of interlocking companies.
>
> I suspect that it's "existing dealers" that would have the biggest
> problem with direct competition by the manufacturer.
>
> Steve




More information about the Oeva-list mailing list