Buying Advice Kubota or Kioti or Mahindra or LS or McCormick????

[terryknight]

i would guess the life of the loan, but it;s the same buying a house. your are required to get insurance. normally it is lumped in with your payment to the mortgage company/bank

 

[TSO]

Dang ... $2000 for a 5yr policy is really expensive. I'd buy one for that price IF it was a 10 year or more policy, but $400/yr seems really high. Is there a deductible for that price?

 

[murphy1244]

Dang ... $2000 for a 5yr policy is really expensive. It's buy one for that price IF it was a 10 year or more policy, but $400/yr seems really high. Is there a deductible for that price?

I'm sure there is.

 

[GManBart]

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. If I was loaning someone money and the loan was secured by collateral that could be stolen, flooded, burned, etc., I'd want insurance covering that collateral. (And I suspect you would too.) Otherwise, the value of your collateral can disappear and all you have to rely on for repayment is the creditworthiness of the borrower.

Also, if Kubota made these loans on an unsecured basis (i.e., without taking the tractor as collateral), the interest rate would be a heckuva lot higher than 0%. So $200 - $300 per year for insurance is the price you pay for an interest free loan. Seems like a fair deal to me.

I think Kubota may be alone in making this type of insurance mandatory....that tells me something. At the very least, I know that not all the other financing companies/brands require it. If the machine is stolen, damaged, flooded, etc, it's the owners problem....they still owe the debt. If they default, Kubota can engage a collection agency, and/or file in civil court to recover the costs AND put a huge black mark on the debtor's credit report. In short, they have plenty of recourse available to them, which is probably why not all the other brands require similar insurance.

 

[Gittyup]

$400 per year for tractor insurance is outrageous. I understand the reasoning for requiring it, but that's just a bit too much. I think they are really just using it to recoup their cost of money in the "free" financing.

 

[Poopdeck Pappy]

I priced insurance through Kubota's insurance company (KTAC). It was $288 per year for $30,000 of coverage with a $250 deductible.

I wound up going with insurance through New Holland's insurance company for my Kioti because my dealer is a NH dealer, and it was a bit cheaper than KTAC (but not much) and offered coverage just as good.

 

[Poopdeck Pappy]

I think Kubota may be alone in making this type of insurance mandatory....that tells me something. At the very least, I know that not all the other financing companies/brands require it. If the machine is stolen, damaged, flooded, etc, it's the owners problem....they still owe the debt. If they default, Kubota can engage a collection agency, and/or file in civil court to recover the costs AND put a huge black mark on the debtor's credit report. In short, they have plenty of recourse available to them, which is probably why not all the other brands require similar insurance.

Have you ever financed a car? Have you ever found ANYONE that would finance the car and not require you to have full comprehensive coverage? Once you pay it off, you can just carry liability if you want to take the risk. But EVERY auto finance company from GMAC to FMC to the lowliest finance company requires full comprehensive coverage so long as the loan is in place. Why? Because they've learned a little something about peoples' willingness or ability to pay off a car loan on a car that was stolen, burned up or crumpled in a collision.

Why is a finance company financing a tractor being unreasonable for requiring the same thing an auto finance company requires? I agree with you that, apparently, some tractor finance companies don't require it. But that doesn't mean that Kubota is unreasonable for requiring it.

Your argument about collection agencies and lawsuits could be applied to auto finance companies too. If you had ever chased a judgment-proof deadbeat debtor around trying to collect an unsecured debt, you'd probably appreciate Kubota's position a little better.

 

[TomSeller]

. If you had ever chased a judgment-proof deadbeat debtor around trying to collect an unsecured debt, you'd probably appreciate Kubota's position a little better.

I have had the displeasure of banging on doors trying to collect and seeing deadbeats take off out the back door. Some people do not pay bills and think filing bankruptcy is okay. Kubota is doing the smart thing.

 

[GManBart]

Have you ever financed a car? Have you ever found ANYONE that would finance the car and not require you to have full comprehensive coverage? Once you pay it off, you can just carry liability if you want to take the risk. But EVERY auto finance company from GMAC to FMC to the lowliest finance company requires full comprehensive coverage so long as the loan is in place. Why? Because they've learned a little something about peoples' willingness or ability to pay off a car loan on a car that was stolen, burned up or crumpled in a collision.

Why is a finance company financing a tractor being unreasonable for requiring the same thing an auto finance company requires? I agree with you that, apparently, some tractor finance companies don't require it. But that doesn't mean that Kubota is unreasonable for requiring it.

Your argument about collection agencies and lawsuits could be applied to auto finance companies too. If you had ever chased a judgment-proof deadbeat debtor around trying to collect an unsecured debt, you'd probably appreciate Kubota's position a little better.

We're not talking about cars, we're talking about tractors. While mobile, tractors rarely leave the owner's property by any significant amount, and are much easier to locate. Most cars travel farther in one day than most tractors will see in a lifetime.

If deadbeats, or the other problems mentioned, were common, every tractor company/finance company woud require similar insurance.

 

[Poopdeck Pappy]

We're not talking about cars, we're talking about tractors. While mobile, tractors rarely leave the owner's property by any significant amount, and are much easier to locate. Most cars travel farther in one day than most tractors will see in a lifetime.

If deadbeats, or the other problems mentioned, were common, every tractor company/finance company woud require similar insurance.

Houses don't travel very far either (unless you buy one on wheels), and every mortgage lender requires insurance to cover casualties.

We aren't talking about cars, but we are talking about a lender who wants to make sure their loan gets paid off if their collateral (whether a tractor, car or whatever) disappears or is destroyed. I still don't see what's unreasonable about that.

And if someone doesn't want to buy insurance, they don't have to finance their tractor through Kubota. You CAN buy a Kubota and finance it elsewhere. It's great to have choices.