SF Credit Union Continues to Make Taxi Medallion Loans

I've personally never met a group of people more prone to gossip than cab drivers. Furthermore, few of their rumors turn out to be true. So, when some taxi drivers at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) hearing yesterday claimed that the San Francisco Federal Credit Union (SFFCU) was no longer loaning money to drivers to purchase medallions, I was doubtful.

Carl McMacmurdo, the President of the Medallion Holders Association, who was also at the CPUC meeting, shared my skepticism. We decided to walk a couple of blocks over to the credit union and talk about the subject to Senior Vice President & Chief Lending Officer Rebecca Lytle.

Miss Lytle was on vacation but her Executive Assistant of Lending, Hanh K Ha was gracious enough to speak with us.

She wishes to issue this statement.

“San Francisco Federal Credit Union is making taxi medallion loans. Since the program started 5 years ago, we have never stopped taking applications or making loans to drivers who want to purchase a taxi medallion. “

Living the Farce 1

There is good news. The SFMTA Board changed the percentage for a transfer of a medallion (they are no longer to be sold) from 30% to 20% of $300,000 and raised the cut for a "surrender" of a medallion by both Pre-K and Post-K holders to $200,000 instead of $150,000.

Director Malcolm Heinicke came up to me before the meeting, told me that he read my blog and said that he had no hard feeling over what I'd written about him. We shook hands like pals in a debating society. He added that he did pay attention to my ideas.

I imagine that this was his way of telling me that my writing had influenced the changes that he'd made in the above figures. Flattering - but I doubt that I really had much to do with it.

I think it was more like the old scare-the-be-Jesus-out-of-them-and-they'll-be-happy-with-what-we-give-them gambit. There are a few reasons for my thoughts:

1. Contrary to Heinicke, the financiers clearly did not "bless" the 30% loan. Rebecca Lytle of the San Francisco Federal Credit Union, who loves her work and has enthusiastically answered every question I've asked her in the past, politely declined to comment on the 30% figure; and her boss Stephen Ho spoke with relief about the drop to 20%.
2. Nobody else on the SFMTA Board discussed, debated or questioned the amendments that Heinicke introduced, giving the impression that the subject had been vetted and agreed upon behind closed doors.
3. Driver Tariq Mehmood claimed during public comment that he knew about the changes the Saturday before the meeting.
4. If true, this would be a clear violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. But, the existence of a rule has rarely stopped people in power from abusing it.
5. In any case, it shows that something other than the force of my prose motivated the amendments.

There was another theory going down on "The Street." Depending upon who you talked to, either John Lazar of Luxor and Jim Gillespie of Yellow or Lazar, Gillespie, Chris Sweis of Royal and Dan Hinds of National had either threatened to sue the MTA or had worked out a back door deal with them.

I asked Jim Gillespie about the rumors. He told me that he was "a Christian" and "wouldn't lie" to me. He assured me that no such events had taken place.

Gillespie reminds me of Ronald Reagan. He has the same ability to believe everything he says while he's saying it. I always believe him when I'm listening to him. Later in the meeting, Gillespie told God and the MTA Board that there was no enforced tipping at Yellow Cab. I'll leave it to the drivers at Jim's company to judge the relationship between his religious beliefs and his conception of truth.

But, do the amendments make the Heinicke plan a good deal?

My mother might have said that the changes were better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. $50,000 is $50,000 and 10% is 10%.

But, Heinicke is once again being misleading when he says that his amendments are "in line" with the Pilot Plan:

1. In the Pilot Plan - there were no separate categories of medallions. Whether Pre-K, Post-K or re-sold, they all gave the same 15% to the MTA and 5% to the Drivers Fund.
2. Under the Pilot Plan - any increase would apply to all medallions being sold. Therefore, capping the profit at $200,000 for a "surrender" has nothing to do with the plan that was worked out with the consensus of most people in the industry in 2010. If the price went up to $300,000 under the Pilot Plan, the medallion holder would get $240,000; at $400,00 the holder would get $320,000.
3. This makes the cut to the MTA either 33% or 50% for a transfer. The national average is 5%.
4. Under the Pilot Plan - an increase in sale price was to be based the Consumer Price Index (CPI), not Director Heinicke's thoughts.
5. The CPI that I just ran calculates that $250,000 in 2010 is worth $262,666.47 today.
6. As driver Tariq Mehmood and others pointed out at the board meeting, the combination of a slack tourist season and run-a-muck competition from illegal taxis and limos has greatly reduced the money coming into the taxi industry. 
7. This challenges the very idea of raising the price of the medallions.

In addition, "surrendering" the medallions instead of selling them would also apparently take the 5% away from the Driver's Fund.

There is neither a policy reason for the increase in the sale price nor for the creation of "surrendered" medallions except to give the SFMTA more money from the labor of the drivers who have worked to earn it. The MTA would gain $18 million over time from the Driver's Fund and $72 million from $300,000 sales.

Is it worthwhile to get a medallion "transferred" to you for $300,000 with 20% to the MTA?

Depends.

The $250,000 figure was chosen because it was doable without too much pressure on the new medallion holder. The down payment on $300,000 would be $10,000 more or $60,000 and payments would increase about $400 per month. Balance that against making an additional $40,000.

More important might be the difference between a "sale" and a "transfer." The 300 or so drivers who bought medallions under the Pilot Plan actually own or owned them. In a transfer, the city owns the medallions as an "asset." And, as we've repeatedly been told, the city can do anything it wants with one of its assets ... for the public good as is, of course, understood.

Another way to put the question might be to ask, "Would you buy a used car from Director Heinicke?"

More tomorrow.

A Conversation with Rebecca Lytle

I spoke last week with Rebecca Reynolds Lytle, Vice President of Lending at San Francisco Federal Credit Union (SFFCU).

Among other things we discussed the differences between a Gate and Gas and an Owner/Operator arrangement from her standpoint of making a loan to a new buyer. Other subjects came up during the conversation including, of course, her decision to require the full 20% down payment from those who choose the Owner/Operator lease and not accept down payment assistance except on a gate and gas arrangement.


Let Last Be First

It turns out that Ms. Lytle and SFFCU had already decided to require the full down payment from Owner/Operators before TAC voted to do so. The reasons for this were that an Owner/Operator loan:

• Costs more to underwrite and maintain.
• Has little or no way for the credit union to verify that various financial arrangement are, in fact, what the new buyers claim they are.
• Carries a higher risk because of this.

SFFCU wants to reduce their risk by getting the full $50,000 down payment from Owner/Operators.

In order to understand the reasoning behind this, it's necessary to see how these loans are structured.

Gate and Gas Arrangements

Lytle described these are "turnkey" arrangements because the company:

• Buys the car.
• Provides the insurance.
• Does the maintenance on the car.
• Hires the drivers and makes certain that they have good driving records and A-Cards.
• Etc.

The taxi companies are set up to do this and they have a vested interest in making certain that everything is done properly.  Therefore the credit union doesn't have to sweat the details.

Owner/Operators Arrangements

The Owner/Operator has to do all the above himself or herself.

In order to assure the safety of the loan, SFFCU and Ms. Lytle need to make certain that:

• The Owner/Operator owns the car and does have insurance.
• The drivers have A-cards.
• The Owner/Operator is complying with City regulations by not charging more than $104 per shift for a hybrid or $96.50 for a regular vehicle.
• Lytle is also considering getting copies of DMV printouts as supporting documentation that the medallion holder is complying with the Transportation Code.
• Etc.

All this involves considerably more work and thus more cost in terms of labor hours than a GG Loan. And, even after the additional issues, the loan company still has no way to guarantee that the information is accurate or kept up to date - although the credit union does require the Owner/Operator to provide updates on all the above annually, or sooner, if requested.

Because of the uncertainly, Ms. Lytle and SFFCU want to see a greater amount of financial responsibility on the part of an Owner/Operator. Lytle added that it doesn't make any sense to continue allowing  Down Payment Assistance on a loan with this type of lease arrangement when the MTA intends to stop this practice in the next 30 days or so anyway.

Forced into being Owner/Operators?

Prior to 10/14/2010, when SFFCU began requiring the 20% down, Ms. Lytle said that 63% of the loans were to Owner/Operators. She takes issue, however, with people who claim that new buyers have been "forced" by financial necessity into this type of arrangement.

Ms. Lytle pointed out that the $250,000 fixed price was chosen by the MTA requirement that loan payments not exceed the monthly amount that medallion holders are paid by taxi companies. The $250,000 number was arrived at by calculating the size of loan payments and comparing them to Gate and Gas monthly payments. Lytle also indicated that, in order to further validate the worth of the medallion, the MTA's fixed price was compared to medallion markets in Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia - cities similar to San Francisco.

SFFCU so far has made three types of loans;

1. 12 years with a fixed rate for $2,300 a month.
2. 15 years with a 3 year balloon payment for $1,798 a month.
3. 25 years with a 3 year balloon payment for  $1,440 a month.

The monthly payment is slightly higher if the borrower did not have the full 20% down payment and needed the down payment assistance loan. You can view examples of loan payments for all the different types of loans on the credit union’s website at http://www.sanfranciscofcu.com/loans/taximedallion_loan.htm

These numbers are consistent with the amounts that various companies pay their medallion holders.

To the charge that the interest rates will probably rise when the balloon payments become due, it could be said that there will probably be a meter increase before then, meaning that medallion holders will be paid more money.

Satisfaction

Ms. Lytle said that these taxi medallion loans have given her more satisfaction than almost any other loan that she's ever underwritten. They've allowed her to "help these people realize their dreams." The medallion holders or their relatives are "overjoyed" to be able to sell the medallions after thinking that they never would be able to do so. And the new buyers are "so excited" to finally get their medallions.

Ms. Lytle said that she would be more than happy to answer any questions about the loan programs. She can be reached at:

Tel. 415.359.2926   Fax. 415.447.2240
Rebecca_Lytle@SanFranciscoFCU.com