Full Block Accessibility Test

This is the first post in a three-part series. You’ve probably heard the adage “There is a little poison in every medication,” which typically is attributed to Paracelsus (1493–1541), the father of toxicology. The trick, of course, is to prescribe the correct balance of agents to improve the patient while doing the least harm. One might think of data governance in a similar manner. A well-disciplined and well-executed data governance regimen provides significant improvements to the organization. So too, an overly restrictive or poorly designed and/or ineffectively monitored data governance ecosystem can result in significant harm; less than optimal models/scorecards, inaccurate reporting, imprecise portfolio outcome forecasts and poor regulatory reports, subsequently resulting in significant investment and loss of reputation. In this blog series, we will address the issues and best practices associated with the broad mandate of data governance. In its simplest definition, data governance is the management of the availability, usability, integrity and security of the data employed in an enterprise. A sound data governance program includes a governing body or council, a defined set of procedures and a plan to execute those procedures. Well, upon quick reflection, effective data governance is not simple at all. After all, data is ubiquitous, is becoming more available, encompasses aspects of our digital lives not envisioned as little as 15 years ago and is constantly changing as people’s behavior changes. To add another level of complexity, regulatory oversight is becoming more pervasive as regulations passed since the Great Recession have become more intrusive, granular and demanding. When addressing issues of data governance lenders, service providers and insurers find themselves trying to incorporate a wide range of issues.  Some of these are time-tested best practices, while others previously were never considered. Here is a reasonable checklist of data governance concerns to consider: Who owns the data governance responsibility within the organization? Is the data governance group seen as an impediment to change or is it a ready part of the change management culture? Is the backup and retrieval discipline — redundancy and recovery — well-planned and periodically tested? How agile/flexible is the governance structure to new data sources? How does the governance structure document and reconcile similar data across multiple providers? Are there appropriate and documented approvals and consents from the data provider(s) for all disclosures? Are systemic access and modification controls and reporting fully deployed and monitored for periodic refinement? Does the monitoring of data integrity, persistence and entitled access enable a quick fix culture where issues are identified and resolved at the source of the problem and not settled by downstream processes? Are all data sources, including those that are proprietary, fully documented and subject to systemic accuracy/integrity reporting? Once obtained, how is the data stored and protected in both definition and accessibility? How do we alter data and leverage the modified outcome? Are there reasonable audits and tracking of downstream reporting? In the event of a data breach, does the organization have well-documented protocols and notification thresholds in place? How recently and to what extent have all data retrieval, manipulation, usage and protection policies and processes been audited? Are there scheduled and periodic reports made to the institution board on issues of data governance? Certainly, many institutions have most of these aspects covered. However, “most” is imprecise medicine, and ill effects are certain to follow. As Paracelsus stated, “The doctor can have a stronger impact on the patient than any drug.” As in medical services, for data governance initiatives those impacts can be beneficial or harmful. In our next blog, we’ll discuss observations of client data governance gaps and lessons learned in evaluating the existing data governance ecosystem. Make sure to read Compliance as a Differentiator perspective paper for deeper insight on regulations affecting financial institutions and how you can prepare your business. Discover how a proven partner with rich experience in data governance, such as Experian, can provide the support your company needs to ensure a rigorous data governance ecosystem. Do more than comply. Succeed with an effective data governance program.  

By: Ori Eisen This article originally appeared on WIRED. When I started 41st Parameter more than a decade ago, I had a sense of what fraud was all about. I’d spent several years dealing with fraud while at VeriSign and American Express. As I considered the problem, I realized that fraud was something that could never be fully prevented. It’s a dispiriting thing to accept that committed criminals will always find some way to get through even the toughest defenses. Dispiriting, but not defeating. The reason I chose to dedicate my life to stopping online fraud is because I saw where the money was going. Once you follow the money and you see how it is used, you can’t “un-know.” The money ends up supporting criminal activities around the globe – not used to buy grandma a gift. Over the past 10 years the nature of fraud has become more sophisticated and systematized. Gone are the days of the lone wolf hacker seeing what they could get away with. Today, those days seem almost simple. Not that I should be saying it, but fraud and the people who perpetrated it had a cavalier air about them, a bravado. It was as if they were saying, in the words of my good friend Frank Abagnale, “catch me if you can.” They learned to mimic the behaviors and clone the devices of legitimate users. This allowed them to have a field day, attacking all sorts of businesses and syphoning away their ill-gotten gains. We learned too. We learned to look hard and close at the devices that attempted to access an account. We looked at things that no one knew could be seen. We learned to recognize all of the little parameters that together represented a device. We learned to notice when even one of them was off. The days of those early fraudsters has faded. New forces are at work to perpetrate fraud on an industrial scale. Criminal enterprises have arisen. Specializations have emerged. Brute force attacks, social engineering, sophisticated malware – all these tools, and so many more – are being applied every day to cracking various security systems. The criminal underworld is awash in credentials, which are being used to create accounts, take over accounts and commit fraudulent transactions. The impact is massive. Every year, billions of dollars are lost due to cyber crime. Aside from the direct monetary losses, customer lose faith in brand and businesses, resources need to be allocated to reviewing suspect transactions and creativity and energy are squandered trying to chase down new risks and threats. To make life just a little simpler, I operate from the assumption that every account, every user name and every password has been compromised. As I said at the start, fraud isn’t something that can be prevented. By hook or by crook (and mainly by crook), fraudsters are finding cracks they can slip through; it’s bound to happen. By watching carefully, we can see when they slip up and stop them from getting away with their intended crimes. If the earliest days of fraud saw impacts on individuals, and fraud today is impacting enterprises, the future of fraud is far more sinister. We’re already seeing hints of fraud’s dark future. Stories are swirling around the recent Wall Street hack. The President and his security team were watching warily, wondering if this was the result of a state-sponsored activity. Rather than just hurting businesses or their customers, we’re on the brink (if we haven’t crossed it already) of fraud being used to destabilize economies. If that doesn’t keep you up at night I don’t know what will. Think about it: in less than a decade we have gone from fraud being an isolated irritant (not that it wasn’t a problem) to being viewed as a potential, if clandestine, weapon. The stakes are no longer the funds in an account or even the well being of a business. Today – and certainly tomorrow – the stakes will be higher. Fraudsters, terrorists really, will look for ways to nudge economies toward the abyss. Sadly, the ability of fraudsters to infiltrate legitimate accounts and networks will never be fully stifled. The options available to them are just too broad for every hole to be plugged. What we can do is recognize when they’ve made it through our defenses and prevent them from taking action. It’s the same approach we’ve always had: they may get in while we do everything possible to prevent them from doing harm. In an ideal world bad guys would never get through in the first place; but we don’t live in an ideal world. In the real world they’re going to get in. Knowing this isn’t easy. It isn’t comforting or comfortable. But in the real world there are real actions we can take to protect the things that matter – your money, your data and your sense of security. We learned how to fight fraud in the past, we are fighting it with new technologies today and we will continue to apply insights and new approaches to protect our future. Download our Perspective Paper to learn about a number of factors that are contributing to the evolving fraud landscape.

Through all the rather “invented conflict” of MCX vs Apple Pay by the tech media these last few weeks – very little diligence was done on why merchants have come to reject NFC (near field communication) as the standard of choice. Maybe I can provide some color here – both as to why traditionally merchants have viewed this channel with suspicion leading up to CurrenC choosing QR, and why I believe its time for merchants to give up hating on a radio. Why do merchants hate NFC? Traditionally, any contactless usage in stores stems from international travelers, fragmented mobile NFC rollouts and a cornucopia of failed products using a variety of form factors – all of which effectively was a contactless chip card with some plastic around it. Any merchant supported tended to be in the QSR space – biggest of which was McDonalds – and they saw little to no volume to justify the upgrade costs. Magstripe, on the other hand, was a form factor that was more accessible. It was cheap to manufacture, provisioning was a snap, distribution depended primarily on USPS. Retailers used the form factor themselves for Gift cards, Pre-paid and Private Label. In contrast – complexity varies in contactless for all three – production, provisioning and distribution. If it’s a contactless card – all three can still follow pretty much the norm – as they require no customization or changes post-production. Mobile NFC was an entirely different beast. Depending on the litany of stakeholders in the value chain – from Hardware – OEM and Chipset support – NFC Controller to the Secure Element, the OS Support for the NFC stack, the Services – Trusted Service Managers of each flavor (SE vs SP), the Carriers (in case of OTA provisioning) and the list goes on. The NFC Ecosystem truly deters new entrants by its complexity and costs. Next – there was much ambiguity to what NFC/contactless could come to represent at the point of sale. Merchants delineated an open standard that could ferry over any type of credential – both credit and debit. Even though merchants prefer debit, the true price of a debit transaction varies depending on which set of rails carry the transaction – PIN Debit vs Signature Debit. And the lack of any PIN Debit networks around the contactless paradigm made the merchants fears real – that all debit transactions through NFC will be carried over the more costly signature debit route (favoring V/MA) and that a shift from magstripe to contactless would mean the end to another cost advantage the merchants had to steer transactions towards cheaper rails. The 13 or so PIN debit networks are missing from Apple Pay – and it’s an absence that weighed heavily in the merchants decision to be suspicious of it. Maybe even more important for the merchant – since it has little to do with payment – loyalty was a component that was inadequately addressed via NFC. NFC was effective as a secure communications channel – but was wholly inadequate when it came to transferring loyalty credentials, coupons and other things that justify why merchants would invest in a new technology in the first place. The contactless standards to move non-payment information, centered around ISO 18092 – and had fragmented acceptance in the retail space, and still struggled from a rather constricted pipe. NFC was simply useful as a payments standard and when it came to loyalty – the “invented a decade ago” standard is wholly inadequate to do anything meaningful at the point of sale. If the merchant must wrestle with new ways to do loyalty – then should they go back in time to enable payments, or should they jerry rig payments to be wrapped in to loyalty? What looks better to a merchant? Sending a loyalty token along with the payment credential (via ISO 18092) OR Encapsulating a payment token (as a QR Code) inside the Starbucks Loyalty App? I would guess – the latter. Even more so because in the scenario of accepting a loyalty token alongside an NFC payment – you are trusting the payment enabler (Apple, Google, Networks, Banks) with your loyalty token. Why would you? The reverse makes sense for a merchant. Finally – traditional NFC payments – (before Host Card Emulation in Android) – apart from being needlessly complex – mandated that all communication between the NFC capable device and the point-of-sale terminal be limited to the Secure Element that hosts the credential and the payment applets. Which means if you did not pay your way in to the Secure Element (mostly only due to if you are an issuer) then you have no play. What’s a merchant to do? So if you are a merchant – you are starting off with a disadvantage – as those terminologies and relationships are alien to you. Merchants did not own the credential – unless it was prepaid or private label – and even then, the economics wouldn’t make sense to put those in a Secure Element. Further, Merchants had no control in the issuer’s choice of credential in the Secure Element – which tended to be mostly credit. It was then no surprise that merchants largely avoided this channel – and then gradually started to look at it with suspicion around the same time banks and networks began to pre-ordain NFC as the next stage in payment acceptance evolution. Retailers who by then had been legally embroiled in a number of skirmishes on the interchange front – saw this move as the next land grab. If merchants could not cost effectively compete in this new channel – then credit was most likely to become the most prevalent payment option within. This suspicion was further reinforced with the launch of GoogleWallet, ISIS and now Apple Pay. Each of these wrapped existing rails, maintained status quo and allowed issuers and networks to bridge the gap from plastic to a new modality (smartphones) while changing little else. This is no mere paranoia. The merchants fear that issuers and networks will ultimately use the security and convenience proffered through this channel as an excuse to raise rates again. Or squeeze out the cheaper alternatives – as they did with defaulting to Signature Debit over PIN debit for contactless. As consumers learn a new behavior (tap and pay) they fear that magstripe will eclipse and a high cost alternative will then take root. How is it fair that to access their customer’s funds – our money – one has to go through toll gates that are incentivized to charge higher prices? The fact that there are little to no alternatives between using Cash or using a bank issued instrument to pay for things – should worry us as consumers. As long as merchants are complacent about the costs in place for them to access our money – there won’t be much of an incentive for banks to find quicker and cheaper ways to move money – in and out of the system as a whole. I digress. So the costs and complexities that I pointed to before, that existed in the NFC payments ecosystem – served to not only keep retailers out, but also impacted issuers ability to scale NFC payments. These costs materialized in to higher interchange cards for the issuer when these initiatives took flight – partly because the issuer was losing money already, and had then little interest to enable debit as a payments choice. GoogleWallet itself had to resort to a bit of “negative margin strategy” to allow debit cards to be used within. ISIS had little to no clout, nor any interest to push issuers to pick debit. All of which must have been quite vexing for an observant merchant. Furthermore, just as digital and mobile offers newer ways to interact with consumers – they also portend a new reality – that new ecosystems are taking shape across that landscape. And these ecosystems are hardly open – Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple – and they have their own toll gates as well. Finally – A retail payment friend told me recently that merchants view the plethora of software, systems and services that encapsulate cross-channel commerce as a form of “Retailer OS”. And if Payment acceptance devices are end-points in to that closed ecosystem of systems and software – they are rightfully hesitant in handing over those keys to the networks and banks. The last thing they want to do is let someone else control those toll-gates. And it makes sense and ironically – it has parallel in the iOS ecosystem. Apple’s MFi program is an example of an ecosystem owner choosing to secure those end-points – especially when those are manufactured by a third party. This is why Apple exacts a toll and mandates that third party iOS accessory manufacturers must include an Apple IC to securely connect and communicate with an iOS device. If Apple can mandate that, then why is it that a retailer should have no say over the end-points through which payments occur in it’s own retail ecosystem? Too late to write about how the retailer view of NFC must evolve – in the face of an open standard, aided by Host Card Emulation – but that’s gotta be another post. Another time. See you all in Vegas. Make sure to join the Experian #MobilePayChat on Twitter this Tuesday at 12:15 p.m. PT during Money2020 conference: http://ex.pn/Money2020. If you are attending the event please stop by our booth #218. This post originally appeared here. 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus at nisl nunc. Sed et nunc a erat vestibulum faucibus. Sed fermentum placerat mi aliquet vulputate. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Maecenas ante dolor, venenatis vitae neque pulvinar, gravida gravida quam. Phasellus tempor rhoncus ante, ac viverra justo scelerisque at. Sed sollicitudin elit vitae est lobortis luctus. Mauris vel ex at metus cursus vestibulum lobortis cursus quam. Donec egestas cursus ex quis molestie. Mauris vel porttitor sapien. Curabitur tempor velit nulla, in tempor enim lacinia vitae. Sed cursus nunc nec auctor aliquam. Morbi fermentum, nisl nec pulvinar dapibus, lectus justo commodo lectus, eu interdum dolor metus et risus. Vivamus bibendum dolor tellus, ut efficitur nibh porttitor nec. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Maecenas facilisis pellentesque urna, et porta risus ornare id. Morbi augue sem, finibus quis turpis vitae, lobortis malesuada erat. Nullam vehicula rutrum urna et rutrum. Mauris convallis ac quam eget ornare. Nunc pellentesque risus dapibus nibh auctor tempor. Nulla neque tortor, feugiat in aliquet eget, tempus eget justo. Praesent vehicula aliquet tellus, ac bibendum tortor ullamcorper sit amet. Pellentesque tempus lacus eget aliquet euismod. Nam quis sapien metus. Nam eu interdum orci. Sed consequat, lectus quis interdum placerat, purus leo venenatis mi, ut ullamcorper dui lorem sit amet nunc. Donec semper suscipit quam eu blandit. Sed quis maximus metus. Nullam efficitur efficitur viverra. Curabitur egestas eu arcu in cursus. H1 asdf asdf H2 H3 H4 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum dapibus ullamcorper ex, sed congue massa. Duis at fringilla nisi. Aenean eu nibh vitae quam auctor ultrices. Donec consequat mattis viverra. Morbi sed egestas ante. Vivamus ornare nulla sapien. Integer mollis semper egestas. Cras vehicula erat eu ligula commodo vestibulum. Fusce at pulvinar urna, ut iaculis eros. Pellentesque volutpat leo non dui aliquet, sagittis auctor tellus accumsan. Curabitur nibh mauris, placerat sed pulvinar in, ullamcorper non nunc. Praesent id imperdiet lorem. H5 Curabitur id purus est. Fusce porttitor tortor ut ante volutpat egestas. Quisque imperdiet lobortis justo, ac vulputate eros imperdiet ut. Phasellus erat urna, pulvinar id turpis sit amet, aliquet dictum metus. Fusce et dapibus ipsum, at lacinia purus. Vestibulum euismod lectus quis ex porta, eget elementum elit fermentum. Sed semper convallis urna, at ultrices nibh euismod eu. Cras ultrices sem quis arcu fermentum viverra. Nullam hendrerit venenatis orci, id dictum leo elementum et. Sed mattis facilisis lectus ac laoreet. Nam a turpis mattis, egestas augue eu, faucibus ex. Integer pulvinar ut risus id auctor. Sed in mauris convallis, interdum mi non, sodales lorem. Praesent dignissim libero ligula, eu mattis nibh convallis a. Nunc pulvinar venenatis leo, ac rhoncus eros euismod sed. Quisque vulputate faucibus elit, vitae varius arcu congue et. Ut maximus felis quis diam accumsan suscipit. Etiam tellus erat, ultrices vitae molestie ut, bibendum id ipsum. Aenean eu dolor posuere, tincidunt libero vel, mattis mauris. Aliquam erat volutpat. Sed sit amet placerat nulla. Mauris diam leo, iaculis eget turpis a, condimentum laoreet ligula. Nunc in odio imperdiet, tincidunt velit in, lacinia urna. Aenean ultricies urna tempor, condimentum sem eget, aliquet sapien. Ut convallis cursus dictum. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Ut eleifend eget erat vitae tempor. Nam tempus pulvinar dui, ac auctor augue pharetra nec. Sed magna augue, interdum a gravida ac, lacinia quis erat. Pellentesque fermentum in enim at tempor. Proin suscipit, odio ut lobortis semper, est dolor maximus elit, ac fringilla lorem ex eu mauris. Phasellus vitae elit et dui fermentum ornare. Vestibulum non odio nec nulla accumsan feugiat nec eu nibh. Cras tincidunt sem sed lacinia mollis. Vivamus augue justo, placerat vel euismod vitae, feugiat at sapien. Maecenas sed blandit dolor. Maecenas vel mauris arcu. Morbi id ligula congue, feugiat nisl nec, vulputate purus. Nunc nec aliquet tortor. Maecenas interdum lectus a hendrerit tristique. Ut sit amet feugiat velit. Test Yes asedtsdfd asdf asdf adsf Related Posts

With the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) Show set to kickoff later this week, it seemed fitting to explore how the shifting dynamics of the used vehicle market might impact dealers and buyers over the coming year. Shedding light on some of the registration and finance trends, as well as purchasing behaviors, can help dealers and manufacturers stay ahead of the curve. And just like that, the Special Report: Automotive Consumer Trends Report was born. As I was sifting through the data, one of the trends that stood out to me was the neck-and-neck race between Millennials and Gen X for supremacy in the used vehicle market. Five years ago, in 2019, Millennials were responsible for 33.3% of used retail registrations, followed by Gen X (29.5%) and Baby Boomers (26.8%). Since then, Baby Boomers have gradually fallen off, and Gen X continues to close the already minuscule gap. Through October 2024, Millennials accounted for 31.6%, while Gen X accounted for 30.4%. But trends can turn on a dime if the last year offers any indication. Over the last rolling 12 months (October 2023-October 2024), Gen X (31.4%) accounted for the majority of used vehicle registrations compared to Millennials (30.9%). Of course, the data is still close, and what 2025 holds is anyone’s guess, but understanding even the smallest changes in market share and consumer purchasing behaviors can help dealers and manufacturers adapt and navigate the road ahead. Although there are similarities between Millennials and Gen X, there are drastic differences, including motivations and preferences. Dealers and manufacturers should engage them on a generational level. What are they buying? Some of the data might not come as a surprise but it’s a good reminder that consumers are in different phases of life, meaning priorities change. Over the last rolling 12 months, Millennials over-indexed on used vans, accounting for more than one-third of registrations. Meanwhile, Gen X over-indexed on used trucks, making up nearly one-third of registrations, and Gen Z over-indexed on cars (accounting for 17.1% of used car registrations compared to 14.6% of overall used vehicle registrations). This isn’t surprising. Many Millennials have young families and may need extra space and functionality, while Gen Xers might prefer the versatility of the pickup truck—the ability to use it for work and personal use. On the other hand, Gen Zers are still early in their careers and gravitate towards the affordability and efficiency of smaller cars. Interestingly, although used electric vehicles only make up a small portion of used retail registrations (less than 1%), Millennials made up nearly 40% over the last rolling 12 months, followed by Gen X (32.2%) and Baby Boomers (15.8%). The market at a bird’s eye view Pulling back a bit on the used vehicle landscape, over the last rolling 12 months, CUVs/SUVs (38.9%) and cars (36.6%) accounted for the majority of used retail registrations. And nearly nine-in-ten used registrations were non-luxury vehicles. What’s more, ICE vehicles made up 88.5% of used retail registrations over the same period, while alternative-fuel vehicles (not including BEVs) made up 10.7% and electric vehicles made up 0.8%. At the finance level, we’re seeing the market shift ever so slightly. Since the beginning of the pandemic, one of the constant narratives in the industry has been the rising cost of owning a vehicle, both new and used. And while the average loan amount for a used non-luxury vehicle has gone up over the past five years, we’re seeing a gradual decline since 2022. In 2019, the average loan amount was $22,636 and spiked $29,983 in 2022. In 2024, the average loan amount reached $28,895. Much of the decline in average loan amounts can be attributed to the resurgence of new vehicle inventory, which has resulted in lower used values. With new leasing climbing over the past several quarters, we may see more late-model used inventory hit the market in the next few years, which will most certainly impact used financing. The used market moving forward Relying on historical data and trends can help dealers and manufacturers prepare and navigate the road ahead. Used vehicles will always fit the need for shoppers looking for their next vehicle; understanding some market trends will help ensure dealers and manufacturers can be at the forefront of helping those shoppers. For more information on the Special Report: Automotive Consumer Trends Report, visit Experian booth #627 at the NADA Show in New Orleans, January 23-26.

The automotive industry is constantly changing. Shifting consumer demands and preferences, as well as dynamic economic factors, make the need for data-driven insights more important than ever. As we head into the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) Show this week, we wanted to explore some of the trends in the used vehicle market in our Special Report: State of the Automotive Finance Market Report. Packed with valuable insights and the latest trends, we’ll take a deep dive into the multi-faceted used vehicle market and better understand how consumers are financing used vehicles. 9+ model years grow Although late-model vehicles tend to represent much of the used vehicle finance market, we were surprised by the gradual growth of 9+ model year (MY) vehicles. In 2019, 9+MY vehicles accounted for 26.6% of the used vehicle sales. Since then, we’ve seen year-over-year growth, culminating with 9+MY vehicles making up a little more than 30% of used vehicle sales in 2024. Perhaps more interesting though, is who is financing these vehicles. Five years ago, prime and super prime borrowers represented 42.5% of 9+MY vehicles, however, in 2024, those consumers accounted for nearly 54% of 9+MY originations. Among the more popular 9+MY segments, CUVs and SUVs comprised 36.9% of sales in 2024, up from 35.2% in 2023, while cars went from 44.3% to 42.9% year-over-year and pickup trucks decreased from 15.9% to 15.6%. 2024 highlights by used vehicle age group To get a better sense of the overall used market, the segments were broken down into three age groups—9+MY, 4-8MY, and current +3MY—and to no surprise, the finance attributes vary widely. While we’ve seen the return of new vehicle inventory drive used vehicle values lower, it could be a sign that consumers are continuing to seek out affordable options that fit their lifestyle. In fact, the average loan amount for a 9+MY vehicle was $19,376 in 2024, compared to $24,198 for a vehicle between 4-8 years old and $32,381 for +3MY vehicle. Plus, more than 55% of 9+MY vehicles have monthly payments under $400. That’s not an insignificant number for people shopping with the monthly payment in mind. In 2024, the average monthly payment for a used vehicle that falls under current+3MY was $608. Meanwhile, 4-8MY vehicles came in at an average monthly payment of $498, and 9+MY vehicles had a $431 monthly payment. Taking a deeper dive into average loan amounts based on specific vehicle types—as of 2024, current +3MY cars came in at $28,721, followed by CUVs/SUVs ($31,589) and pickup trucks ($40,618). As for 4-8MY vehicles, cars came in with a loan amount of $22,013, CUVs/SUVs were at $23,133, and pickup trucks at $31,114. Used 9+MY cars had a loan amount of $19,506, CUVs/SUVs came in at $17,350, and pickup trucks at $22,369. With interest rates remaining top of mind for most consumers as we’ve seen them increase in recent years, understanding the growth from 2019-2024 can give a holistic picture of how the market has shifted over time. For instance, the average interest rate for a used current+3MY vehicle was 8.0% in 2019 and grew to 10.2% in 2024, the average rate for a 4-8MY vehicle went from 10.3% to 12.9%, and the average rate for a 9+MY vehicle increased from 11.4% to 13.8% in the same time frame. Looking ahead to the used vehicle market It’s important for automotive professionals to understand and leverage the data of the used market as it can provide valuable insights into trending consumer behavior and pricing patterns. While we don’t exactly know where the market will stand in a few years—adapting strategies based on historical data and anticipating shifts can help professionals better prepare for both challenges and opportunities in the future. As used vehicles remain a staple piece of the automotive industry, making informed decisions and optimizing inventory management will ensure agility as the market continues to shift. For more information, visit us at the Experian booth (#627) during the NADA Show in New Orleans from January 23-26.