Sub-Prime Retail Credit - PDF Free Download

Table of Contents Topic Page # Overview of Findings... S-3 Top Ranked Providers... S-5 Index Model... S-7 Finance Provider Offering... S-8 Credit Personnel... S-11 Termination Policy/Service... S-15 Application/Approval Process... S-20 Sales Representative Relationship... S-27 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-2

Overview of Findings As the sub-prime financing market continues to be increasingly challenged, the relationship between dealers and finance providers has become even more important. The ability to reach the same credit buyer and the effectiveness of sales representative visits play a key role in maximizing dealer satisfaction with the financing experience. - Effectiveness of sales representative visits is the most important aspect contributing to overall satisfaction with the sales representative relationship. - Also, dealers who are able to work with the same credit buyer more than 75% of the time are significantly more satisfied with their provider s credit personnel. As the market has become increasingly complex, the expected role of the sales representative is also changing. - Not only do dealers expect sales representatives to visit more often (at least once a month), they also want them to take a more active role structuring and re-hashing the deal. For top-ranked provider BMW Financial Services (BMWFS), the relationship and servicing components of the sub-prime financing experience are the leading contributors to this finance provider s competitive advantage relative to other lenders. - BMWFS strongest scores are found in the Sales Representative Relationship factor where the finance provider has more than a 100 index point lead over the next nearest competitor, Ford Credit. - Similarly, BMWFS next strongest ratings are for Credit Personnel, another area where the finance providers have considerable touch points with dealers. - Despite general declines across all factors for most providers, BMWFS strong relationship with its dealers maintains their top-ranked position relative to other providers in the marketplace. 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-3

Index Ranking BMW Financial Services 909 Difference from 2008 (57) Wachovia Dealer Services Ford Credit 797 782 (1) (73) Chase Auto Finance Industry Average GMAC Credit Acceptance Corp. 727 717 712 705 (44) (76) (210) 24 Capital One Auto Finance CitiFinancial Auto Regional Acceptance Corp. Chrysler Financial AmeriCredit 658 657 651 626 625 (46) (87) (20) (219) (80) Drive Financial 552 (31) Mercedes-Benz Financial 925* (26) Toyota Financial Services Volkswagen Credit 881* 877* 12 (66) Bank of America US Bank 748* 739* (23) # American Credit Acceptance 608* # 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Figure S1 Notes: 1 and 2 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-4

Top-Ranked Providers BMW Financial Services (BMWFS) maintains its top-ranked position in. Despite general declines across all factors for most providers, BMWFS strong relationship with its dealers helps hold the top-ranked position. - BMWFS highest scores are found in the Sales Representative Relationship factor where the finance provider has more than a 100 index point lead over the next nearest competitor, Ford Credit. - Similarly, BMWFS also performs strong in the Credit Personnel factor, another area where finance providers have considerable touch points with dealers. Wachovia Dealer Services satisfaction scores remain consistent year-over-year, placing second in the category. Credit Personnel continues to be Wachovia Dealer Service s greatest competitive strength in the Sub- Prime Retail Credit index. Also performing consistently strong in the Application/Approval Process factor, Wachovia Dealer Services ranks just behind BMW Financial Services and has an 18 index point lead compared to the next nearest competitor, Ford Credit. Ford Credit moves up two rank positions compared to 2008, ranking third in. Ford Credit s year-over-year improvement is driven by strong performance in the Sales Representative Relationship factor where the lender follows best-in-class provider BMWFS. Ford Credit ranks second to BMWFS in Termination Policy/Service satisfaction, and also enjoys a 61 index point lead compared to next-nearest competitor Wachovia Dealer Services. Dealer satisfaction with GMAC declines from last year, resulting in a below average rank position for the provider in 2009. A large decrease in application/approval process satisfaction contributes considerably to GMAC s overall year-over-year decline. - GMAC experiences a 201 index point decline in the Application/Approval Process factor compared to 2008, moving from a 2 nd rank position to a 6 th place in 2009 likely a result of their direct communication to dealers that customers need a credit score of 700+ to qualify. Satisfaction with the Sales Representative Relationship and Termination Policy/Service remain relative strengths for the provider. - GMAC maintains above average satisfaction levels resulting in 4 th place rank positions in both factors. 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-5

Index Ranking by Factor Sub-Prime Retail Credit Index Finance Provider Offering Credit Personnel Application/ Approval Process Termination Policy/ Service Sales Representative Relationship BMW Financial Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wachovia Dealer Services 2 2 2 2 3 3 Ford Credit 3 4 3 3 2 2 Chase Auto Finance 4 3 4 4 5 6 GMAC 5 5 6 6 4 4 Credit Acceptance Corp. 6 7 5 4 6 5 Capital One Auto Finance 7 6 8 7 8 12 CitiFinancial Auto 8 8 9 9 9 9 Regional Acceptance Corp. 9 10 7 8 10 8 Chrysler Financial 10 9 12 12 7 7 AmeriCredit 11 11 10 10 11 10 Drive Financial 12 12 11 11 12 11 Figure S2 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-6

Index Model The Satisfaction Index identifies the key drivers of finance provider satisfaction, as well as their associated importance weights, which impact overall dealer satisfaction. Creation of the index included several stages of development which began with provider and industry expert discussions and lead to one-on-one dealer surveys later used for questionnaire development. Advanced statistical analysis was used to design the final index structure. The five factors that comprise the Satisfaction Index summarize the total satisfaction dealers have with their finance providers. Aggregating a provider s weighted score across all factors in the model derives a provider s index score. An above-average score does not necessarily mean that all dealer needs are being met. What it does mean is that, given the current marketplace, one provider is performing better (or worse) than another. A provider s factor score reflects the relative satisfaction of dealers across all finance providers and does not necessarily indicate that they are completely satisfied. 2009 Index Model Weights Provider Offering 31% 21% Credit Personnel Termination Policy/ Service 17% Sub-Prime Retail Satisfaction Index 16% Application/ Approval Process 15% Sales Representative Relationship Figure S3 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-7

Finance Provider Offering Attribute Weights Representing a relative importance weight of 31%, the Provider Offering factor has the greatest impact on dealer satisfaction in. As one might expect, Support of a full spread of risk carries the highest weight when evaluating overall satisfaction with Provider Offering. Given the recent instability of sub-prime lending, it is expected that mean satisfaction dropped considerably across all aspects of the Provider Offering factor. Index Model Composition - Provider Offering Attribute Weights - 31% Provider Offering 22% Support of a full spread of risk Satisfaction Ratings Difference from 2008 6.59 (1.03) Sub-Prime Retail Satisfaction Index 21% 17% Credit Personnel Termination Policy/Service 20% 17% Reasonableness of advance on additional items Rates and term - New vehicles 6.58 (1.16) 6.58 (0.93) 16% Application Approval Process 15% Sales Representative Relationship 15% 14% 12% Rates and term - Used vehicles Competitiveness of flat fee Appropriateness of financing reserves 6.42 (0.92) 6.22 (1.11) 6.51 (1.13) Figure S4 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-9

Finance Provider Offering Ranking () BMW Financial Services 850 Difference from 2008 (87) Wachovia Dealer Services 764 (13) Chase Auto Finance Ford Credit Industry Average GMAC Capital One Auto Finance Credit Acceptance Corp. CitiFinancial Auto 678 674 650 624 616 615 614 (72) (116) (104) (256) (68) (11) (97) Chrysler Financial Regional Acceptance Corp. AmeriCredit 561 558 557 (233) (19) (101) Drive Financial 431 (60) Mercedes-Benz Financial 883* (44) Toyota Financial Services Volkswagen Credit 810* 802* 9 (122) US Bank Bank of America 728* 712* # (64) American Credit Acceptance 548* # 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Figure S5 Notes: 1 and 2 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-10

Credit Personnel Attribute Weights Accounting for over two-fifths of relative dealer satisfaction with credit personnel, Flexibility of credit staff to help structure the deal is predictably the most important aspect in determining overall satisfaction with credit personnel. Although Flexibility of credit staff to help structure the deal is the largest single driver of dealer satisfaction with credit personnel, it is consistently rated lowest by dealers compared to other attributes within the factor. Courtesy of credit staff also has a relatively large weight with respect to dealer satisfaction, addressing the considerable impact service-related aspects of the financing experience have on dealers overall perceptions of doing business with each respective lender. Index Model Composition - Credit Personnel Attribute Weights - 31% Provider Offering Satisfaction Ratings Difference from 2008 21% Credit Personnel 40% Flexibility of credit staff to help structure the deal 7.43 (0.65) Sub-Prime Retail Satisfaction Index 17% Termination Policy/Service 35% Courtesy of staff 8.03 (0.48) 16% Application Approval Process 15% Sales Representative Relationship 25% Responsiveness to questions 7.96 (0.32) Figure S6 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-12

Credit Personnel Ranking () BMW Financial Services 938 Difference from 2008 (47) Wachovia Dealer Services Ford Credit 852 848 9 (41) Chase Auto Finance Credit Acceptance Corp. Industry Average GMAC Regional Acceptance Corp. Capital One Auto Finance CitiFinancial Auto AmeriCredit 784 781 777 760 754 733 730 707 (26) 80 (51) (184) 13 (13) (72) (58) Drive Financial Chrysler Financial 647 646 (1) (215) Mercedes-Benz Financial Toyota Financial Services Volkswagen Credit 917* 906* 946* (22) 20 (52) Bank of America US Bank 764* 751* (21) # American Credit Acceptance 677* # 600 700 800 900 1000 Figure S7 Notes: 1 and 2 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-13

Frequency of Working with the Same Credit Buyer Dealers are most satisfied when they are able to work with the same credit buyer more than 75% of the time. About half of all dealers indicate they are able to work with the same credit buyer more than 75% of the time. Dealers working with Credit Unions have a higher percentage of dealers that report a single point of contact with the credit buyer, which does not come as a huge surprise given the smaller scale of individual credit unions. According to dealers, they are able to work with the same credit buyer less often when financing though an Independent lender. KPI: Frequency of Working with the Same Credit Buyer Industry Captives Banks Independents Credit Unions Index Score 100% 1000 Percent of Dealers 80% 60% 40% 20% 48% 53% 786 47% 41% 68% Breakpoint 52% 47% 659 53% 59% 32% 800 600 400 Index Score 0% More than 75% of the time 75% of the time or less 200 Figure S8 Notes: 3 and 6 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-14

Termination Policy/Service Attribute Weights The Termination Policy/Service factors accounts for 17% of dealer satisfaction in the Index. Each attribute contributes to roughly one-third of total dealer satisfaction with the Termination Policy/Service factor. Dropping nearly 1 full mean point compared to last year, Ability to retain the consumer at end of loan term is the lowest rated attribute within the factor. Index Model Composition - Termination Policy/Service Attribute Weights - 31% Provider Offering Satisfaction Ratings Difference from 2008 21% Credit Personnel 35% Ease of obtaining pay-off information 7.77 (0.45) Sub-Prime Retail Satisfaction Index 17% Termination Policy/Service 34% Ability to retain the consumer at end of loan term 6.65 (0.87) 16% Application Approval Process 15% Sales Representative Relationship 31% Timeliness of releasing titles 7.20 (0.59) Figure S9 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-16

Termination Policy/Service Ranking () BMW Financial Services 914 Difference from 2008 (57) Ford Credit 811 (79) Wachovia Dealer Services GMAC Industry Average Chase Auto Finance Credit Acceptance Corp. Chrysler Financial Capital One Auto Finance CitiFinancial Auto Regional Acceptance Corp AmeriCredit 750 744 721 714 697 680 651 649 644 638 (16) (177) (64) (35) 8 (178) (35) (65) (38) (51) Drive Financial 563 (27) Mercedes-Benz Financial Toyota Financial Services Volkswagen Credit 876* 902* 936* (18) 6 (63) Bank of America US Bank 723* 747* 4 # American Credit Acceptance 585* # 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Figure S10 Notes: 1 and 2 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-17

Title Release Process Generally, dealers are most satisfied with finance provider experience when it takes 9 days or less to receive the title. Dealers working with credit unions receive titles fastest: almost half say they receive the title within 5 days. Independent providers take the longest to release the title, with over two-thirds of dealers reporting it takes over 2 weeks to receive a title once pay-off has been received from these lenders. KPI: Number of Days to Receive Title Once Payoff Received Industry Captives Banks Independents Credit Unions Index Score 100% 1000 Percent of Dealers 80% 60% 40% 20% 45% 56% 757 46% 33% 58% Breakpoint 55% 44% 688 54% 67% 42% 800 600 400 Index Score 0% 9 days or less More than 9 days 200 Figure S11 Notes: 3 and 6 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-18

Follow-up Required for Title Release About one-third of dealers report they have to follow-up after the initial request for title. Across all segments, banks and independents have the fewest dealers who report they have needed to follow-up for the title after the initial request. KPI: Follow-Up Required After Initial Request for Title Industry Captives Banks Independents Credit Unions Factor Score 100% 1000 Percent of Dealers 80% 60% 40% 20% 65% 64% 68% 711 66% Breakpoint 59% 680 35% 36% 32% 34% 41% 800 600 400 Index Score 0% No Yes 200 Figure S12 Notes: 3, 6, and 7 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-19

Application/Approval Process Attribute Weights Satisfaction with the Application/Approval Process accounts for 16% of total dealer satisfaction with the Sub- Prime Retail Credit Index. Speed of cashing/funding the deal and Timeliness of approval are the most highly weighted aspects of the application/approval process, both having relative importance weights of 22%. Consistency of credit decisions and Fairness of stipulations required for credit approval follow closely, with each representing one-fifth of dealer satisfaction with the factor. Index Model Composition - Application/Approval Process Attribute Weights - 31% Provider Offering 21% Credit Personnel 22% Speed of cashing/funding the deal Satisfaction Ratings 7.29 Difference from 2008 (0.65) Sub-Prime Retail Satisfaction Index 17% Termination Policy/Service 22% 20% Timeliness of approval Consistency of credit decisions 7.50 (0.39) 7.27 (0.57) 16% Application Approval Process 20% Fairness of stipulations required for credit approval 7.22 (0.66) 15% Sales Representative Relationship 16% Ease of processing applications 7.87 (0.34) Figure S13 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-21

Application/Approval Process Ranking () BMW Financial Services 925 Difference from 2008 (49) Wachovia Dealer Services Ford Credit 803 821 26 (62) Industry Average Chase Auto Finance Credit Acceptance Corp. GMAC 741 740 740 738 (53) (29) 27 (201) Capital One Auto Finance 707 (11) Regional Acceptance Corp. CitiFinancial Auto AmeriCredit 652 667 681 4 (69) (40) Drive Financial Chrysler Financial 607 601 1 (226) Mercedes-Benz Financial 929* (16) Toyota Financial Services Volkswagen Credit 887* 909* 11 (30) Bank of America US Bank 782* 780* 11 # American Credit Acceptance 650* # 600 700 800 900 1000 Figure S14 Notes: 1 and 2 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-22

Length of Time from Application to Approval Compared to prime deals, the complexity of sub-prime deals often results in a longer application/approval process, contributing to comparatively lower levels of satisfaction with the overall process. Generally, dealers indicate it takes longer to get a sub-prime application approved compared to a prime deal, presumably a result of the complexity of the deal and additional stipulations required for approval. Dealers are most satisfied when a deal is approved in 30 minutes or less. - This is slightly longer than what dealers feel is acceptable when submitting prime deals for approval (20 minutes or less is optimal for Prime Retail Credit). Less than half of all sub-prime deals are approved within 30 minutes, revealing significant opportunity for improvement among the lender community. Deals sent to banks and credit unions take the longest to get approved. KPI: Length of Time from Application to Approval Industry Captives Banks Independents Credit Unions Index Score 100% 1000 Percent of Dealers 80% 60% 40% 20% 40% 44% 762 31% 43% 32% Breakpoint 60% 56% 69% 686 57% 68% 800 600 400 Index Score 0% Notes: 3 and 6 30 minutes or less More than 30 minutes 200 Figure S15 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-23

Reasons Deals Returned with Conditions On average, 27% of all sub-prime deals are returned to the dealer with conditions. The most common reasons dealers report receiving a conditional deal are advance and stipulations on sub-prime applications. Credit score follows closely with 60% of dealers indicating this as a reason a deal might not initially be fully approved. Over half of dealers also cite terms and down payment as reasons the lender might return the deal with conditions. Reasons Deal Returned with Conditions Advance 78% Stipulations 73% Credit Score 60% Terms 57% Down Payment 56% Rates 37% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure S16 Notes: 4 and 5 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-24

Length of Time to Fund Dealers who report receiving complete and accurate funding packages within 48 hours are substantially more satisfied than those who wait longer. The amount of time to fund dealers will tolerate before satisfaction is impacted is longer for sub-prime compared with prime deals (48 hours vs. 24 hours, respectively). Captive providers fund sub-prime deals fastest, with over two-thirds of all deals approved within 2 days of approval. It takes considerably longer to get deals funded when financing through an independent provider. KPI: Length of Time to Fund Industry Captives Banks Independents Credit Unions Index Score 100% 1000 Percent of Dealers 80% 60% 40% 20% 46% 69% 785 47% 25% 53% Breakpoint 54% 31% 663 53% 75% 47% 800 600 400 Index Score 0% Notes: 3 and 6 2 days or less More than 2 days 200 Figure S17 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-25

Sales Representative Relationship Attribute Weights The Sales Representative Relationship represents nearly one-sixth of total dealer satisfaction with their finance provider in. Effectiveness of sales representative visits is the single greatest contributor to dealer satisfaction in this factor; yet, it is also the lowest rated aspect of the experience and the attribute that experienced the largest decline in mean satisfaction compared to 2008. Index Model Composition - Sales Representative Relationship Attribute Weights - 31% Provider Offering Satisfaction Ratings Difference from 2008 21% Credit Personnel 32% Effectiveness of sales representative visits 6.87 (1.13) Sub-Prime Retail Satisfaction Index 17% Termination Policy/Service 28% Courtesy of sales representative 7.77 (0.75) 16% Application Approval Process 15% Sales Representative Relationship 25% 15% Timeliness of updates on programs Sales representative's responsiveness to questions 7.79 (0.55) 7.29 (0.97) Figure S18 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-27

Sales Representative Relationship Ranking () BMW Financial Services Ford Credit 853 968 Difference from 2008 (19) (39) Wachovia Dealer Services 816 0 GMAC Credit Acceptance Corp. Chase Auto Finance Industry Average 759 751 745 741 (201) 25 (41) (86) Chrysler Financial Regional Acceptance Corp. 672 696 (232) (72) CitiFinancial Auto AmeriCredit Drive Financial Capital One Auto Finance 640 625 597 593 (131) (119) (48) (99) Mercedes-Benz Financial Volkswagen Credit Toyota Financial Services 964* 956* 944* (12) (13) 14 Bank of America 762* (10) US Bank 718* # American Credit Acceptance 612* # 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Figure S19 Notes: 1 and 2 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-28

Frequency of Sales Representative Dealership Visits Dealers that receive monthly visits from their sales representative are substantially more satisfied than those that receive visits less frequently. Over two-thirds of dealers indicate they receive sales visits from captive providers at least monthly. Sales representatives from non-captive lenders tend to visit dealers less often. A higher percentage of dealers report sales representatives from Independent providers do not visit compared to other provider segments. KPI: Frequency of Sales Representative Dealership Visits Industry Captives Banks Independents Credit Unions Index Score 100% 1000 Percent of Dealers 80% 60% 40% 20% 831 19% 13% 12% 12% 5% 38% 50% 798 32% 31% 30% Breakpoint 688 687 24% 20% 24% 18% 12% 13% 13% 8% 4% 34% 637 626 13% 15% 11% 8% 9% 5% 7% 5% 6% 7% 800 600 400 Index Score 0% Once a week Once a month Once every other month Once a quarter Once a year Representative does not visit 200 Figure S20 Notes: 3, 6, and 7 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-29

Method of Update on Provider Program Changes Consistent with 2008 results, the most common method for updating dealers on provider program changes is by fax. This is the dominant communication mechanism used by Banks, Independents, and Credit Unions. Captive providers are more likely to communicate program changes to dealers using the Web or email, and use fax and on-site visits as additional channels of communication. Method of Update on Provider Program Changes 100% Industry Captives Banks Independents Credit Unions Percent of Dealers 80% 60% 40% 20% 66% 60% 59% 61% 54% 56% 46% 40% 40% 35% 37% 33% 35% 30% 32% 29% 26% 26% 26% 22% 24% 25% 25% 20% 22% 24% 16% 18% 20% 13% 16% 10% 11% 11% 9% 6% 6% 8% 5% 5% 0% Fax Email Web Phone On-site visits Mail Through the credit desk Credit Aggregation System Figure S21 Notes : 5 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-30

Most Preferred Method of Update on Provider Program Changes Dealers continue to report email as the most preferred method of update on provider program changes. Captives are considerably more likely to provide updates via e-mail compared to non-captive providers. Web and fax rated similarly as preferred means of receiving updates. While costs associated with faxing are relatively inexpensive given dealers prefer paperless communication this presents another opportunity for lenders to reduce costs. Most Preferred Method of Update Email 44% Web Fax Credit aggregation system (RouteOne, DealerTrack) 11% 17% 16% On-site visits from sales reps Phone 5% 5% Mail Through the credit desk/credit personnel 1% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% Figure S22 Notes : 4 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-31

Function/Role of Sales Representative According to dealers, program announcements and the ability to re-hash the deal are the most important functions of the sales representative. While the majority (78%) of dealers report sales representatives are currently providing program announcements, less than half (41%) indicate sales representatives are involved in re-hashing the deal. Function/Role of Sales Representative Most Important Function/Role Function/Role Provided Program announcements Re-hash the deal Help structure the deal Portfolio analysis Promotional items Other Deal jacket analysis 8% 3% 2% 9% 1% 7% 16% 37% 34% 41% 32% 44% 33% 78% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure S24 Notes : 5 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-32

End Notes Chart Footnote End Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 *Caution: Small Sample Size (n=30-49) 2 #Insufficient Sample Size (n<30) 3 Key Performance Indicator 4 "Other" is not shown. 5 Multiple response question. 6 Factor score is based upon industry average. 7 Re-based to exclude "Don't know". 8 9 8 9 Significantly better than 2008 at a 90% confidence interval. Significantly worse than 2008 at a 90% confidence interval. 2009 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. S-33