Author Topic: Paying off my 1.9% car loan more important than my 6.8% student loan debt?  (Read 5621 times)

SyZ

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Hear me out

When you pay off your car, doesn't your insurance drop due to flat out owning the vehicle now, as opposed to financing it? I owe 3.8k on the student loan, and 4k on the car, and quick napkin math shows that's about $21-$23 in interest a month on the 6.8%er. If my insurance drops at least that much due to a new rating, I'm making more money by doing that AND I have the security of owning the car flat out.

Has anybody noticed a drop in their rating due to recently paying off a car? Am I the only one on this forum stupid enough to own one and not bike?

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1556
Do insurance companies really care who owns the car? I've never heard of this.

MrsDinero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
Do insurance companies really care who owns the car? I've never heard of this.

I think in some states you have to carry a certain amount of insurance if you have an auto loan, so if the car is owned outright then the coverage can be changed to save money. 

OP probably the best way to get an answer is from your insurance company.

Personally I would try and get rid of the higher interest rate first.

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Do insurance companies really care who owns the car? I've never heard of this.

The insurance company doesn't, but the bank does. They typically will make you carry comprehensive and collision with low deductibles.

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Hear me out

When you pay off your car, doesn't your insurance drop due to flat out owning the vehicle now, as opposed to financing it? I owe 3.8k on the student loan, and 4k on the car, and quick napkin math shows that's about $21-$23 in interest a month on the 6.8%er. If my insurance drops at least that much due to a new rating, I'm making more money by doing that AND I have the security of owning the car flat out.

Has anybody noticed a drop in their rating due to recently paying off a car? Am I the only one on this forum stupid enough to own one and not bike?

Doubtful that the insurance company gives a crap (just ask them) but you can likely up your deductibles which will save quite a bit of money (but not likely $23/month).

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1556
Makes sense. That said, I assume that since the car is still on payments, then it's not old enough to be considered the kind of car one would immediately drop coverage on once it's paid off. Is that correct, OP?

Cactus Pants

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 33
I guess it depends on the relative balances too.  If you have $5,000 in car debt that you can knock out quickly, whereas your student loan debt is in the six-figure range, I don't see any harm in knocking out the car loan first.  The interest you incur over those couple months won't be a big deal and getting rid of the car loan will be motivational.

Rezdent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
  • Location: Central Texas
Never had a car payment, but I do know that the lender will require you to carry full coverage.  Another great reason to avoid car payments.

Once paid for, you could drop the full coverage and get just liability plus uninsured motorist for a significant drop in the bill.  Warning:  this shifts more risk to you.  If the car is damaged or totalled for any reason where another driver is NOT officially at fault, you get nothing from the insurance company.
You need to weigh this risk carefully - can you afford to replace this car or go without?  Is the reduction worth enough to justify?
If not, better to pay the SL, and build up reserves for car replacement before reducing coverage.

Cactus Pants

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Never had a car payment, but I do know that the lender will require you to carry full coverage.  Another great reason to avoid car payments.

Once paid for, you could drop the full coverage and get just liability plus uninsured motorist for a significant drop in the bill.  Warning:  this shifts more risk to you.  If the car is damaged or totalled for any reason where another driver is NOT officially at fault, you get nothing from the insurance company.
You need to weigh this risk carefully - can you afford to replace this car or go without?  Is the reduction worth enough to justify?
If not, better to pay the SL, and build up reserves for car replacement before reducing coverage.
Unless your driving record is lousy or your car is worth a very small amount, I don't see why anyone wouldn't want full coverage.  I pay about $90 per month for full coverage plus an absurd amount of liability coverage, and the peace of mind alone is worth it. 

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Other posters are hinting at this. But to be explicit, the insurance company doesn't change your insurance rates based on whether you have a car loan or not. The vehicle finance company usually requires you to have comp/coll on the vehicle. So if you paid off the loan you could choose to drop those coverages and save some money on premiums. However, you are actually receiving something in return for those premiums--a certain likelihood of getting a big check because of being in an accident. So it's not a total savings of that premium money necessarily, because you are now taking on additional risk by self insuring.

Just pay off your student loan. The interest rate differential is huge. For a 1.9% car loan, I probably wouldn't even pay that off early.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Just pay off your student loan. The interest rate differential is huge. For a 1.9% car loan, I probably wouldn't even pay that off early.

^^ this!

merula

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1616
I'm an insurance underwriter, and I have a 0.9% car loan. What forummm said is exactly right.

Other posters are hinting at this. But to be explicit, the insurance company doesn't change your insurance rates based on whether you have a car loan or not. The vehicle finance company usually requires you to have comp/coll on the vehicle. So if you paid off the loan you could choose to drop those coverages and save some money on premiums. However, you are actually receiving something in return for those premiums--a certain likelihood of getting a big check because of being in an accident. So it's not a total savings of that premium money necessarily, because you are now taking on additional risk by self insuring.

Just pay off your student loan. The interest rate differential is huge. For a 1.9% car loan, I probably wouldn't even pay that off early.

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Makes sense. That said, I assume that since the car is still on payments, then it's not old enough to be considered the kind of car one would immediately drop coverage on once it's paid off. Is that correct, OP?

The only place you could save some money is on deductible. My bank made me carry a $500 deductible on C&C, even though the insurer offered a $2,000 deductible. That change saved me about $140 a year in premium.

That amount of extra risk ($1,500) is well worth it, IMO, because it takes only 8 or 9 years (with compounding and a modest return) to save up for that extra deductible in the event you have an incident. Given than I've been driving for >20 years without using insurance, I'm well ahead of the "game". If you get in a major accident at least once a decade, you probably should not be driving.

It also dissuades a guy from getting costly repairs for small cosmetic damage. IMHO insurance should only be used to recover a vehicle loss, as any other use of insurance is just recouped by the insurer anyway in the form of increased premiums, etc.

Some idiot with a land yacht and lacking the skill to drive it backed into my fender on my car in a parking lot when it was 5 years old (and didn't have the integrity to stick around and take responsibility). Would have cost north of a $1,000 to get it repaired. Wasn't worth it, because I had no intention of selling the car. Still driving that car, mangled fender and all, 10 years later. And (back of the eyeball calculation) several thousand richer because of it.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2016, 11:06:31 PM by MilesTeg »

Gremlin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
I'm an insurance underwriter, and I have a 0.9% car loan. What forummm said is exactly right.

Other posters are hinting at this. But to be explicit, the insurance company doesn't change your insurance rates based on whether you have a car loan or not. The vehicle finance company usually requires you to have comp/coll on the vehicle. So if you paid off the loan you could choose to drop those coverages and save some money on premiums. However, you are actually receiving something in return for those premiums--a certain likelihood of getting a big check because of being in an accident. So it's not a total savings of that premium money necessarily, because you are now taking on additional risk by self insuring.

Just pay off your student loan. The interest rate differential is huge. For a 1.9% car loan, I probably wouldn't even pay that off early.

Not always true.  In a previous role I worked in motor insurance pricing.  I can definitively say that some insurers differentiate prices based on whether the vehicle is financed or not.  YMMV.

sokoloff

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Unless your driving record is lousy or your car is worth a very small amount, I don't see why anyone wouldn't want full coverage.  I pay about $90 per month for full coverage plus an absurd amount of liability coverage, and the peace of mind alone is worth it.
I could stroke a check for any of the cars we own without having to think hard about it beyond "as long as no one was hurt...", and the insurance company makes money on selling collision and comprehensive insurance, so I don't buy it except on the LEAF (where Nissan finance offers 0% 5-year financing, so I took that). In that case, I view the additional insurance premium as my "finance charge" on the car and it's reasonably low, certainly lower than my next best marginal investment of that money.

If having the insurance gives you peace of mind in excess of the cost, by all means buy it. For me, it gives almost no peace of mind.

merula

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1616
Not always true.  In a previous role I worked in motor insurance pricing.  I can definitively say that some insurers differentiate prices based on whether the vehicle is financed or not.  YMMV.

Your use of  "motor insurance" implies that you are outside the US. In my experience within the US, financing isn't typically allowed by the states as a pricing determination because insurance companies haven't been able to show that there's a relationship between financing and the risk of loss.

SyZ

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
I'm not an actuary ... yet ... but newer drivers / newer policyholders are significantly worse than renewal policyholders. Newer policyholders can come for a variety of reasons, with a large one being - you guessed it - a brand new car that would cost too much to insure elsewhere. How is a brand new car paid for in America? Financing

I doubt it's a huge stretch for a company to show that a financed car typically carries probably twice the risk of a bought car

JCfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
Never had a car payment, but I do know that the lender will require you to carry full coverage.  Another great reason to avoid car payments.

Once paid for, you could drop the full coverage and get just liability plus uninsured motorist for a significant drop in the bill.  Warning:  this shifts more risk to you.  If the car is damaged or totalled for any reason where another driver is NOT officially at fault, you get nothing from the insurance company.
You need to weigh this risk carefully - can you afford to replace this car or go without?  Is the reduction worth enough to justify?
If not, better to pay the SL, and build up reserves for car replacement before reducing coverage.
Unless your driving record is lousy or your car is worth a very small amount, I don't see why anyone wouldn't want full coverage.  I pay about $90 per month for full coverage plus an absurd amount of liability coverage, and the peace of mind alone is worth it.

I pay a much lower amount after having removed collision and comprehensive on my car.  Sleep fine.  Lifetime cashflow breakeven will be if my wife and I each total our car between 1.5 and 2.0 times over the rest of our lives, as a result of something that we declined coverage on (either I cause a wreck or a tree falls on it or something).  Its nice to dabble in the insurance business, I think my odds of making a profit are quite good, and I consider this use of my stache as insurance capital a nice return-enhancer.

merula

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1616
I'm not an actuary ... yet ... but newer drivers / newer policyholders are significantly worse than renewal policyholders. Newer policyholders can come for a variety of reasons, with a large one being - you guessed it - a brand new car that would cost too much to insure elsewhere. How is a brand new car paid for in America? Financing

I doubt it's a huge stretch for a company to show that a financed car typically carries probably twice the risk of a bought car

You're missing the sales aspect of insurance. A big reason people change insurance (not just auto, not just personal) is because they found another deal. But when they're an existing customer, the business is "stickier". Rate of retention on renewals is always higher than rate of success on new business, across carriers and lines.

So carriers try to find ways to write new business cheaply to get customers to choose them, while charging more for renewals as a significant chunk of those aren't going to shop their insurance every year. Writing new business for less when the risk is the same leads to the higher loss ratio you're talking about.

There are more things in insurance and underwriting than are dreamt of in actuarial science.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838

What??   You have got to be a TERRIBLE driver for full coverage to make sense.  Nobody else is getting in to serious at fault accidents often enough for this to be a good long run financial decision.

Never had a car payment, but I do know that the lender will require you to carry full coverage.  Another great reason to avoid car payments.

Once paid for, you could drop the full coverage and get just liability plus uninsured motorist for a significant drop in the bill.  Warning:  this shifts more risk to you.  If the car is damaged or totalled for any reason where another driver is NOT officially at fault, you get nothing from the insurance company.
You need to weigh this risk carefully - can you afford to replace this car or go without?  Is the reduction worth enough to justify?
If not, better to pay the SL, and build up reserves for car replacement before reducing coverage.
Unless your driving record is lousy or your car is worth a very small amount, I don't see why anyone wouldn't want full coverage.  I pay about $90 per month for full coverage plus an absurd amount of liability coverage, and the peace of mind alone is worth it.

jorjor

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
I'm not an actuary ... yet ... but newer drivers / newer policyholders are significantly worse than renewal policyholders. Newer policyholders can come for a variety of reasons, with a large one being - you guessed it - a brand new car that would cost too much to insure elsewhere. How is a brand new car paid for in America? Financing

I doubt it's a huge stretch for a company to show that a financed car typically carries probably twice the risk of a bought car

Cool. You just named a bunch things I can find out without knowing whether or not the car is financed. Newer drivers, newer cars, and expensive cars are certainly more expensive to cover. So why don't I just look at those things? For any given mix of new/old driver, new/old car, expensive/cheap car, is the financed insured a greater insured risk than the non-financed insured?

Some carriers might rate for it. Some might not. Our insurance did not change when we went from financed to paid off.

Tjat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
I'm not an actuary ... yet ... but newer drivers / newer policyholders are significantly worse than renewal policyholders. Newer policyholders can come for a variety of reasons, with a large one being - you guessed it - a brand new car that would cost too much to insure elsewhere. How is a brand new car paid for in America? Financing

I doubt it's a huge stretch for a company to show that a financed car typically carries probably twice the risk of a bought car

Cool. You just named a bunch things I can find out without knowing whether or not the car is financed. Newer drivers, newer cars, and expensive cars are certainly more expensive to cover. So why don't I just look at those things? For any given mix of new/old driver, new/old car, expensive/cheap car, is the financed insured a greater insured risk than the non-financed insured?

Some carriers might rate for it. Some might not. Our insurance did not change when we went from financed to paid off.


Presumably a carrier would also rate on driving experience, vehicle age, and cost, but statistical modeling techniques allow you to rate on any number of similar and even interacted variables without double counting. If a carrier rates on financing vs owned, their models probably have proven that those variables are uniquely predictive of future loss costs (and therefore the answer would be yes to your question).

jorjor

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
I'm not an actuary ... yet ... but newer drivers / newer policyholders are significantly worse than renewal policyholders. Newer policyholders can come for a variety of reasons, with a large one being - you guessed it - a brand new car that would cost too much to insure elsewhere. How is a brand new car paid for in America? Financing

I doubt it's a huge stretch for a company to show that a financed car typically carries probably twice the risk of a bought car

Cool. You just named a bunch things I can find out without knowing whether or not the car is financed. Newer drivers, newer cars, and expensive cars are certainly more expensive to cover. So why don't I just look at those things? For any given mix of new/old driver, new/old car, expensive/cheap car, is the financed insured a greater insured risk than the non-financed insured?

Some carriers might rate for it. Some might not. Our insurance did not change when we went from financed to paid off.


Presumably a carrier would also rate on driving experience, vehicle age, and cost, but statistical modeling techniques allow you to rate on any number of similar and even interacted variables without double counting. If a carrier rates on financing vs owned, their models probably have proven that those variables are uniquely predictive of future loss costs (and therefore the answer would be yes to your question).

Sure, that's exactly what I'm saying. SyZ has not done that analysis and drawing conclusions seemingly without considering over-fitting.

If it's a unique and worthwhile indicator and they can legally rate for it, they'll be inclined rate for it. If not, they won't. There may be other considerations, as mentioned by another poster, why a carrier would not rate for a useful rating variable. I never suggested otherwise.  As stated previously, my (quite large) carrier did not lower rates when the car was paid off. In their opinion, the answer would be no to my question.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2016, 11:44:01 AM by jorjor »