Purchasing and Negotiation Training

Robert Menard
Certified Purchasing Professional,
Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant, Certified Green Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Manager

Transportation of goods is such an interesting and constantly changing market dynamic. I learned a good deal about transportation in the late 1990s when I was hired to research, write, and deliver a program on logistics for the Portland Cement Association.  A few years later, I was fortunate to write and deliver training programs for Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railways (BNSF)  , where I learned much about transportation in general, and rail transportation in particular.

For more than a century, trains hauled coal, the workhorse fuel of choice in the U.S., even as oil and gas grew more competitive through much of the 20^th Century. Coal was hauled on “unit trains”, meaning one cargo category for the entire 100 – 125 car shipment, as opposed to “manifest” trains, meaning mixed cargo categories distributed on cars of the shipment. Coal shipments are falling off as alternative fuels become preferred energy options so why are BNSF and competitors like Union Pacific Corp (UP) and CSX Corp investing so heavily in new infrastructure and capacity?

Railroad operators have seen a drip off in coal traffic of 20% in the past five years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Business.  On the other hand, failure to build the XL Pipeline has been a huge boost for rail firms. They are buying new tanker cars since rail transport is cheaper than truck transport of petroleum products. But that is not all. Rail companies are investing heavily in new track lines and facilities. Here is why.

BNSF is nearly finished with a second parallel rail line along the 2,200 mile Los Angeles, the busiest U.S. container port to Chicago, the biggest mid-continent rail hub. The second track will virtually eliminate sidetracking as oncoming trains approach each other. For decades, trains on the single track headed toward each other had to communicate so that the priority train (BNSF and UP refer to priority trains of Amtrak passenger or unit FedEx or UPS freight as Z trains) could proceed and the secondary train side tracked. Both trains had to slow down over long periods of time and lost hours in the process.

Without cumbersome sidetracking, longer trains will be able to travel at higher speeds, increasing load and decreasing time. An industry source, FTR Transportation Intelligence estimates that rail moves less than one-fifth of the 71 million trailer loads that travel 550 miles or more. The 550 mile cutoff is the accepted distance where rail becomes the preferred alternative. For comparison’s sake, one rail car carries as much freight as four truck trailers so a 100 car train hauls the equivalent of 400 trailer trucks.

Converting road cargo to rail cargo is the goal of the infrastructure investment. The lure for customers is substantial savings. Over the road, one ton of freight can be moved approximately 60 miles on one gallon of fuel. That same ton of freight can be moved 200 miles over the rails for the same gallon of fuel. Using $2.00/per gallon as a fuel price, it costs $0.033/ton-mile over the road and $0.010/ton-mile over the rails to move one ton of freight – less than one third of the cost! Multiply that difference by hundreds of thousands of tons and the savings become irresistible, or so goes the theory.

According to XPO Logistics , about one third of long-haul freight it sends by truck can be switched to train. Industry wide, XPO estimates that about $100 Billion in business could be switched to rail transportation.

It will take some effort to persuade shippers to shift from road to rail. Still, some freight categories less time sensitive like auto parts, furniture, and building materials are probably moved more efficiently and cheaply by rail. One of the biggest investors in rail is Warren Buffet, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. Betting against Warren may not be a good business decision.

Robert Menard
Certified Purchasing Professional,
Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant, Certified Green Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Manager

Over the past quarter century, I have logged more than two million flight miles For the past fifteen of those years, flights have ben almost exclusively on American Airlines although I know many fliers who have used the so-called “ultra-low cost” carriers. Almost all of these low cost customers are disillusioned from day one for a host of reasons. Recently, I read an Associated Press (AP) story that put some research and data behind the anecdotal complaints.

Ultra-low cost is a misnomer, as any purchasing pro knows. Any fool can get a low price but at what cost? The most well know carriers in this new genre include Spirit Airlines, Frontier Airlines, and Allegiant Air, although the latter is much smaller than the first two. All three boast of cheap fare tickets on their web sites.

The AP story suggests that cheap base fares attract customers in an industry where discomfort and inconvenience are expected. However, thee cheap seats airlines charge for soda, carryon bags, printing of boarding passes at the airport, seat selection, and no toll free number raise figurative and literal costs. As aggravating and expensive as these fees are, comfort has a higher toll.

Cheap carriers pack more passengers onto their planes because seats do not recline, making it easier to cram more seats into the same space. Consider these leg room facts and figures. Frontier’s new Airbus A321 jets will have 230 seats. Spirit packs the same plane with 218 seats, while conventional competitor American has 180 seats on its A321 Airbus planes. What price do you put on comfort?

Woody Allen is credited with the quote, “Eighty percent of success is showing up.” The low cost carriers would be wise to heed this advice, at least as far as on time ratios are concerned. Frequent flight delays cause the three ultra-low carriers to have 20 times the complaints of much larger conventional competitors like Alaska Airlines or Southwest Airlines. Spirit has the worst on time record of the 14 largest U.S. based carriers with more than a third of its flights being at least 15 minutes late. Frontier is next to last. In June 2015, Spirit’s on time record was below 50%, a fact Sprit blamed on bad weather. It would seem that every airline experienced the same weather.

A more likely explanation is that the three cheap carriers lack the equipment, personnel, and capacity to deal with less than ideal situation. It is hard to book a passenger on a later flight if you do not have one. Disparate fee structures make the conventional carriers unwilling to accommodate stranded passengers from the cheap seats. This can contribute to very long delays, even overnight accommodations and meals, which drive up the cost in out of pocket and productivity costs, neither of which is defrayed by the low cost carriers.

All of these facts and figures seem to be creating a mutually beneficial environment between the traditional and cheap airlines and their customers. The story states that traffic is jumping by double digits for the cheap seats. The diversion of customers from the traditional to the cheap keeps pressure on the traditional airlines to compete on price, to some extent, or at least to moderate any increases.

So who are these cheap seat fans? The story cites only one interview, a college student who lives in Denver but attends school in Dallas. I know infrequent leisure who have little basis of comparison who chose the ultra-lows, at least until they either accept the inconvenience or decide the price is not worth the cost.

If you are a business traveler, even if not a purchasing pro, the choice of carrier is easy to make.

Robert Menard
Certified Purchasing Professional,
Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant, Certified Green Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Manager

Extended warranties are usually associated with automobile purchases but they also extend to home appliances and major equipment buys, both at the Business to Consumer (B2C)  and Business to Business (B2B)  spheres of commerce. The word “extended” refers to a term or time period beyond the basic warranty. The extended warranty is basically an insurance policy intended to protect against losses, or at least defray the cost. Especially when the dollar amounts are “large”, there is an economic inducement to insure against loss with the purchase of an extended warranty.

Are Extended Warranties Worth the Cost?

This question crosses the mind of almost every buyer. Let us consult the wisdom of a recognized authority in the field, Dave Ramsey . Of all the vaunted “financial advisors”, Dave is in the top tier.

In a recent column, Ramsey said that he does not buy warranties of any kind. He claims that “between 12 and 18 percent of the cost of the warranty apply to the probability of repair.”  Dave goes on to say that “The rest is eaten up in profit, overhead, and marketing costs.” Put into slightly different words, Dave suggests self-insurance, and he states that, “…if something goes wrong, you couldn’t afford to buy that item in the first place.” 

I agree and offer another reason. Assume a large ticket buy like an automobile or appliance. By design, I buy items known for high quality, reliability, longevity, and similar qualities. Does this cost more? Heck no, the price tag is higher but the Total Cost of Ownership  is lower. For example, the Toyota brand has been a family favorite for more than two decades. We routinely buy a Toyota every 5-7 years and never pay for an extended warranty of any kind because the car is built so well that the chance of high cost quality defects are low; low enough that we are willing to self-insure for the possibility. During the 25 past years, we have bought eight vehicles (including a Subaru and a Jeep). The cost of the top of the line extended warranty ranged between $2-$3 thousand for each vehicle. Not purchasing the warranty saved us almost $20,000 over this time, an amount that would buy an upscale used vehicle in today’s market.

You might say that our example is isolated and anecdotal. Perhaps, so let’s take a larger sample. Consumer Reports, in an April 2014 story entitled, “Extended car warranties: An expensive gamble The majority of buyers never use the coverage”  that “55 percent of owners who purchased an extended warranty hadn’t used it for repairs during the lifetime of the policy, even though the median price paid for the coverage was just over $1,200. And, on average, those who did use it spent hundreds more for the coverage than they saved in repair costs.” It is an illuminating story and I commend it to the readers of this blog.

Is the warranty ever worth the expense?

Yes, I believe it is advisable in rare circumstances. We bought insurance on our daughter’s smart phone because she loses and breaks them so often. A few years back when we renovated our kitchen, we bought a new “counter depth” refrigerator. Even though LG was the manufacturer, we thought it wise to buy the insurance since the product was so new and untested. We have indeed used the warranty but so far, the covered repairs have cost more than the damage.

Moral of the story: save your money and do not buy the warranty.

Robert Menard
Certified Purchasing Professional,
Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant, Certified Green Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Manager

A recent Dallas Morning News story by consumer/retail staff writer Maria Halkias grabbed my attention because it featured a company known to me for at least 25 years. The topic paragraph wrote of safer shipments of boxes holding electronics and other breakables.

The featured company was Shockwatch,  a Dallas-based firm with a manufacturing facility in the small town of Graham, TX.  ShockWatch has been producing products to detect impacts, tilt, and temperature violations of the shipper’s specifications. For instance, if your fragile package is equipped with ShockWatch detectors (on the inner or outer container) and it suffers impact, the detector will record the impact and alert the receiver to inspect and perhaps reject the delivery. Watch this video for a demonstration. Other products include TiltWatch and Temperature Watch.

When I did public seminars in the 1990 for supply chain personnel around the U.S., we would speak of ShockWatch products when we covered delivery and inspection issues. There was always many, often most in the group who had never heard of these products. It was with the same surprise that I read the newspaper story. It referred to viral videos of dropped Christmas packages.

What is the new market?

According to the story, “   one in every 10 packages in the U.S, is damaged when it reaches its destination.” Speaking of Christmas packages, the story goes on to note that “Several hundred million packages are shipped between Black Friday and Christmas Eve.” Even in only a quarter of 400 million packages are affected, at the one in 10 ratios, that means 40 million packages could suffer damage and much damage goes undetected, often until it is too late to make a claim.  Effectively, Shockwatch is spreading from the Business to Business (B2) to the Business to Consumer (B2C) market.

The B2C online market is growing and all products bought on line are shipped. Deloitte is calling for an 8.5 to 9 percent increase in online sales. This 40 year old company has sales of about $21 Million. Increased shipping demand from online purchases could be a boost to revenue.

Robert Menard
Certified Purchasing Professional,
Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant, Certified Green Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Manager

One of Texas’s largest coal power utilities is jumping into the solar market. This should not be a surprise. Dallas based Luminant has announced a deal with SunEdison to buy solar energy from a 116 MW facility to be built south of Midland in the Permian Basin renowned for its oil shale formation and oil production capacity.

An 800 acre solar farm will be constructed in a desolate desert area south of Midland, TX. Luminant’s decision is not based upon sustainability mandates. Rather, it admits the economic realities of the marketplace, much as CEO Mac MacFarland claims was done on wind energy a decade ago.

A major economic impetus has been the drastic fall of solar energy costs worldwide, due in great part to Chinese factory output and technology. Solar power may have been initially regarded as an expensive alternative to fossils fuels but with less carbon emissions.

Still a fraction of power generated 

The Solar Energy Industries Association reports that solar capacity in the USA hit 18,300 MW in 2014. That amount is less than one third of 1% BUT double what it was in 2012. Such growth was repeated over the previous three years, a feat not nearly matched by any other fuel source, fossil or renewable. Moreover, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)  estimates that by 2029, the state of TX could have 10,000 MW of electric power, 25 times its current production. Solar farms would be located in ideal locations of west Texas with its hot dry climate and sunny skies.

Political realities 

The Obama plan to cut carbon emissions by 30% by 2030 is taking its toll. Luminant generated 72% of its capacity from coal in 2014. If the Obama regulations take root and force half the coal plants to close, Luminant, a unit of Energy Future Holdings, currently in bankruptcy, is preparing for the future.

Robert Menard
Certified Purchasing Professional,
Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant, Certified Green Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Manager

Do you remember this line spoken from Polonius to his son Laertes in Shakespeare’s Hamlet? The full quote is:

Neither a borrower nor a lender be,

For loan oft loses both itself and friend,

And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

I ask this because of a 2013 book by Stanford Economics and Finance professor named Anat Admati.  Prof. Admati advocated for financial reform of a certain type in her 2013 book, The Banker’s New Clothes: What’s Wrong With Banking And What To Do About It. 

Banking in specific, and matters of fiscal and monetary policy in general, are relatively foreign to me so I was interested in the CliffsNotes version.  Admati argues that banks should rely in greater part on shareholder money and less up-on borrowed funds. She claims that using your own money is less risky and better for national economic stability than using “other people’s money”

The Professor no doubt sides with Polonius

Add my vote to this Prof’s and Polonius’s position. Admati contends that bankers at very large institutions take great risks because they are not fully responsible for the consequences and risks. The banking failures and fiascos among related financial institutions of the past decade provide ample evidence of damage caused by risky loans.

Here is a comparison easy for non-financial types to absorb. Admati equates a bank’s equity to down payment on a house. If the homeowner falls into trouble, he or she can walk away because it is other peoples’ problem. Bingo!

The Prof points out that “capital requirements” for banks boil down to a few percentage points of a bank’s total assets. Without getting lost in the tall weeds of finance, Admati suggests a 20% to 30% equity requirement for banks.

I may have found a new financial guru.

Robert Menard
Certified Purchasing Professional,
Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant, Certified Green Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Manager

When you think of Alaska, what energy source comes to mind?  Oil!  This is not a trick question.

Although I have been fortunate to have visited this wonderful state several times while doing public seminars in the 1990s, it was not until 2012 on an extended vacation that I had the opportunity to see a modern Wonder of the World that I had studied in engineering school, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.  This 800 mile miracle heads south from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and salvaged lives and the economy in the mid 1970s during the vicious OPEC oil embargo.

So it was with curiosity and fascination that I learned of news of the pending $5.6-B Susitna-Watana hydropower project in Alaska.  Doubtless, the crash of oil prices forced a reexamination of alternatives.  Since completion of the pipeline, petroleum revenues had averaged over 85% of Alaskan state revenues, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA).

An Executive Order issued by Governor Bill Walker (D) limited state government spending in response to the steep drop off in petroleum prices, which in turn, brought far less revenue to the state of Alaska.  The resumption of planning for this megaproject, principally a huge dam and power generating turbines, does not mean that construction is certain.  Rather, the Governor’s press secretary referred to “…leave it (Susitna-Watana dam) at a point until the state’s financial position changes.”

So what does this mean for the Alaskan economy?

Leaving aside the gargantuan engineering feats and monstrous construction challenges involved, which are intriguing to those of us who are still awestruck by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline built 40 years ago, the decision marks a watershed.  After almost a half century of oil dependence, the state has concluded that hedging its energy bets is the wave of the future.

Revisiting hydropower is a natural and logical consequence of free markets.  With petroleum prices in a continued trough, Alaska must find alternative ways fund its treasury.  Alaska my indeed decide that hydropower is the way to meet the electricity needs for 80% of the state’s population that lives in the Railbelt,  a geographic corridor running from Fairbanks south though Anchorage, with more than half of the state’s residents, and on to Homer.

What about the sustainability dimensions of the decision?

Although Alaska produces huge quantities oil, it consumes only a fraction of that harvest so sustainability concerns in Alaska are not substantially impacted by a shift toward renewable fuels.  Nevertheless, if Alaska can replace its fossil fuel consumption with hydro power, its sustainability profile with respect to hydrocarbon power will be improved.  The 459 MW generated by the three planned turbines (with a fourth turbine that could be added in the future) would be enough to power more than 80,000 homes.  That cannot be a bad thing.

Robert Menard
Certified Purchasing Professional,
Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant, Certified Green Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Manager

In 2012, I wrote the online course, “How to Buy a New or Used Car and Save Thousands”,  . In researching the course, I was surprised to learn about the average age of cars on the road in the US.

In the midst of one of, arguably the greatest economic downturn the our country’s history, USA Today reported in March 2010, that “The average age of cars and trucks in the U.S. is now at its highest level since at least 1995 (the first year for which records were kept) and more cars were scrapped last year than were registered.” This last datum is a bit misleading because 2009 was the “Cash for Clunkers” failed economic experiment that hand the unintended d(but predictable) consequence of driving up used car prices by making them more scarce. 

R L Polk reported that in July 2011, “the average age of the cars and trucks on U.S. roads hit a record 10.8 years as worries about job security the economy kept many people from making big-ticket purchases”. The relationship between new car purchase and used car sale (mostly in the form of trade-in) is nearly one to one so with fewer new car buyers came fewer trade-ins. The scarcity of the used cars and the 30-year low for new car sales in 2009 created market dynamics which raised used car prices to a premium.

The Associated Press reported this week that the average age for automobiles on the road in the US is now a record of 11.5 years old, according to IHS Automotive.  Factors cited were increased reliability of today’s vehicles and the sharp drop of new vehicles sales during the prolonged recession of the Obama years.

While older vehicles lack technological features that “effectively turn cars into cell phones on wheels”, hackers cannot disable the older cars via cassette or CD players! The story goes on to state that the average length of ownership for new vehicles is now nearly 6.5 years and 5 years for used vehicles.

How long should you keep your car?

There is no one correct answer that fits everyone. The technological upgrades and higher quality of manufacturing make for a longer lasting vehicle, up to 200,000 miles according to Doug Love, spokesman for Consumer Reports.

One important consideration for financed vehicle purchases is the length of the loan. Four years should be the maximum term. If you cannot afford the payments on a four year car loan, you are buying too much car! Nevertheless, it is no coincidence that the average length of ownership for new vehicles of 6.5 years is about equal to the length of many car loans.

Here are some questions to answer in order to determine how long you should keep your car.

• How important is a new vehicle to you?
• Do you enjoy cars or trucks in the way some folks prize high technology gadgets? If so, treat yourself to this guilty pleasure.
• Is driving the newest models an imperative or is a car merely a mode of transportation that gets you from point A to point B in (presumably) a reliable fashion?
• Is vehicle expense a major or minor line item in your budget?
• Can you afford indulgence in an automobile and still manage all your other expenses?

As to the last question, the ability to afford a new car every few years should never be a consideration. Just because you can afford it is not a good enough reason. If you can afford it, but value savings and opportunity cash, then manage the vehicle purchase as a necessary expense to be minimized.

Robert Menard
Certified Purchasing Professional,
Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant, Certified Green Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Manager

Editor’s Note: this is the second of a two part series on a new way to buy used cars. Part 1 explains the business model and Part 2 proves how the essential business practices still apply. For a step by step guide on “How to Buy a New or Used Car and Save Thousands”, click on this link.

Last week, we cited the appeal to some of buying used cars online through E-tailers like Carvana,  DriveTime,  and Vroom.com. A perceived major advantage to the dealership-o-phobic crowd who detest the traditional car buy/sell torture-tango is that one needs never to set foot in a dealership or talk to a salesperson – AND, the transaction is all haggle free!

This sigh of relief at short circuiting the process may come with a hidden cost if you also obtain financing with the E-tailer. Resist the urge to surrender to the tacit promise of haggle free financing for reasons we discussed in previous posts such as this one.

Auto loans 

Most car buyers do not pay cash and therefore must finance their purchase with a loan. The auto dealers who offer loans do not finance vehicles from their own operating cash. Instead, they refer that service to financial institutions such as commercial banks, credit unions, and financial subsidiaries of the auto maker like Ford Motor Credit Company (FoMoCo) and General Motors Acceptance Company (GMAC). Every major auto manufacturer has a finance unit, many of which earn greater profits from financing than from selling cars!

In return, the lenders pay a commission or fee to the dealership for successful referrals. That fee is usually a percentage added onto the loan interest rate. The Finance and Insurance (F&I) specialist at the dealership is in fact another commission salesman. You are much better served to obtain your own bank financing, especially if you have good credit.

For buyers with poor credit histories and low FICO scores, that percentage is added to the loan rate. For buyers of excellent credit scores, the dealership will often quote the same lowest percentage interest rate as the bank or credit union. When that happens, ask the bank or credit union for a further discount to eliminate the “referral fee” they pay to the dealership. If you have a high enough credit score, the rate will be reduced.

Personal credit

The value of your personal credit score cannot be under stated. This recent story from the Dallas Morning News shows how a poor credit score can cost consumers twice as much for auto and home insurance rates as those with high credit scores. Poor credit scores also affect the rate lenders will offer. The importance of your credit score cannot be overstated.

For an independent look at how much it can cost to borrow money for a car purchase, visit this Loan Calculator site.  For a $20,000 loan at 5% for five years, the total interest paid is $2,645.58. The same principal at 10% for five years equates to $5,496.47.

You can read more about car buying credit here.

Negotiation

A “no haggle” experience does not mean a “negotiation free” experience. The dealers may not deviate from the published price but it is up to the buyer to research the price. Good sources for this are sites such as Edmunds, Kelly Blue Book ,  and National Automobile Dealers Association , which are strongly recommended for all vehicle acquisition purposes.

You may negotiate for other terms such as warranty, upgrades, and special equipment and/or services. For help with negotiation skills, try this online course on the Science and Art of Negotiation.

Robert Menard,
Certified Purchasing Professional,
Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant, Certified Green Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Manager

Editor’s Note: this is the first of a two part series on a new way to buy used cars. Part 1 explains the business model and Part 2 proves how the essential business practices still apply.

Have you heard of Carvana?  Neither had I until a recent story about a three year old startup company from Arizona that maintains a facility in Blue Mound, TX, a small town of the periphery of the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex caught my eye. Carvana sells only used cars (all states require that new cars be sold through dealership networks although Tesla is challenging these laws). Carvana is partially owned by DriveTime, a company also engaged in selling used cars online.

Carvana’s business model is a twist on internet marketing and sales. They acquire used cars, usually at auctions, but also via trade-ins. This piqued my interest so I dug further to find Vroom.com , a competitor in which legendary NFL Quarterback John Elway is an investor. Both businesses proclaim a “haggle free” experience, a prospect that appeals to many used car buyers. In Carvana’s debut year of 2013, sales totaled $15 million. In 2014, sales jumped to $45 million. They are expecting a doubling of revenues in 2015.

How does the process work? 

For most customers, buying used cars is an unpleasant experience. It is safe to say that used car dealerships in general and used car salesmen in particular suffer from an image and trust problem. Carvana and Vroom business models aim squarely at easing these discomforts and therefore appeals to the disenchanted dealership buyers. Carvana delivers vehicles to customers, often picking up their cars in trade. Further, a 7-Day “Test Own” guaranty allows buyers to return the car if they are not satisfied.

Carvana concentrates on late model used vehicles, 2006 at the oldest, with most stock being 2010 vintage or newer. Prospective customers search online, similar to other online auto sellers. It claims a 150 point process in preparing its used cars, not much different from almost all other existing used car dealer programs. They will also finance your purchase – more on that in Part 2.

What is different?

Carvana claims that all known flaws are disclosed, and that no vehicles involved in accidents are bought or sold by them. One distinguishing difference is the multiple photographs of the reconditioned vehicle which allows prospects to click on the car parts to open doors, for instance.

The seven day money-back guarantee feature is also a distinction. Carvana also delivers the vehicle to the buyer and calls on the sixth day to ensure customer satisfaction.

Carvana says that its online presence saves “15-20 hours of labor at a dealership… or about $1,200 to $1,700 in labor and another $250 to $650 in building associated costs.”   Who has no doubts as to the integrity of these cost claims? However, it is indisputable that today’s car buyers research the internet before visiting the dealership for the test drive.

What is not different? 

A few years back, I wrote an online course about “How to Buy a New or Used Car and Save Thousands”. Three underlying principles still apply: auto loans, personal credit, and negotiation skill.

More on these essentials next week.