From New York Times:
Miss a Payment? Good Luck Moving That CarQuoteThe thermometer showed a 103.5-degree fever, and her 10-year-old's asthma was flaring up. Mary Bolender, who lives in Las Vegas, needed to get her daughter to an emergency room, but her 2005 Chrysler van would not start.
The cause was not a mechanical problem – it was her lender.
Ms. Bolender was three days behind on her monthly car payment. Her lender, C.A.G. Acceptance of Mesa, Ariz., remotely activated a device in her car's dashboard that prevented her car from starting. Before she could get back on the road, she had to pay more than $389, money she did not have that morning in March.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/10p)
Moral of the story, kids. It is
very expensive to be poor and sub-prime. Stay in school, get a good job, and make sure you keep your finances in order.
This article is disturbing to me. I meant to post it on Facebook when I first saw it but was too revolted at it to do so.
I understand that it is a service that a person agrees to as part of the loan, but I do not agree with the fact that they are still being charged astronomical interest rates while having the nanny service. Since the service ultimately eliminates all of the risk by making the car unrunnable after being late, then they should get the same interest rates as someone with average or slightly below average credit. If anything, the tracking system makes them more likely to get a payment in on time than average or slightly below average credit Joe.
Also, I'm not a fan of the Big Brother GPS tracking. Completely unnecessary. And, it's disturbing that they can just turn the car off at any time. It really needs to be something set like "if you are seven days late we will turn your car off at Midnight of day 7" so that they can avoid situations like the car being turned off at a gas station or on the freeway.
iPhone
So these people are actually expected to honor their end of a contract they agreed to? Gasp!
OK, I don't agree with shutting someone's car down while on the road, or even a store. But if the vehicle is at the house, or maybe their place of business, then sure, shut it down.
As far as the person featured in the article is concerned, at first it seems to be unreasonable to think they would shut the car off just a few days after the due date for the payment. When you read the story though, you learn that this isn't the first time she's been late. She was late at least 3 times already this year alone! It's not like she accidently missed a payment, or it got lost in the mail. She has a very frequent history of failing to pay on time.
There ought to be a law against this. This is nothing but sabotage by big banks.
Quote from: Laura on September 29, 2014, 08:30:52 AM
I understand that it is a service that a person agrees to as part of the loan, but I do not agree with the fact that they are still being charged astronomical interest rates while having the nanny service. Since the service ultimately eliminates all of the risk by making the car unrunnable after being late, then they should get the same interest rates as someone with average or slightly below average credit. If anything, the tracking system makes them more likely to get a payment in on time than average or slightly below average credit Joe.
No, it's still a high risk loan. There are risks of the car being totaled or damaged or being so far away it can't be retrieved. Even retrieval is an expense, requiring two people to drive to wherever it is, at considerable risk of being attacked for taking someone's car.
What hits me is what the hell someone in such circumstances is doing with a relatively expensive vehicle. It would have been a better plan to drive a Corolla until her finances improved. You could buy a reliable moderate-miles Corolla for 3 months of those payments.
Predatory lending at it's worst. I guarantee the terms of the lease are sufficiently obfuscated and the legalized thieves that make these loans gloss over how shitty a deal this really is for the consumer. Bastards.
Disabling the car on the road is dangerous and should be illegal. If I were a police officer and came across such a situation, I would levy a steep fine against the lender. If an accident happens because of it, the lender should be
fully liable for all damages, including criminal charges if someone dies or has to go to the hospital.
Regarding lending terms, IMO the system we have is ass-backwards with the people least able to pay being given terms that make their loans the most difficult to repay. It's basically a fee for having too little money in the eyes of the lender.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 29, 2014, 09:27:15 AM
So these people are actually expected to honor their end of a contract they agreed to? Gasp!
OK, I don't agree with shutting someone's car down while on the road, or even a store. But if the vehicle is at the house, or maybe their place of business, then sure, shut it down.
As far as the person featured in the article is concerned, at first it seems to be unreasonable to think they would shut the car off just a few days after the due date for the payment. When you read the story though, you learn that this isn't the first time she's been late. She was late at least 3 times already this year alone! It's not like she accidently missed a payment, or it got lost in the mail. She has a very frequent history of failing to pay on time.
If someone doesn't have enough money to pay, how does preventing them from getting to work (and thereby make money) help? Some people live paycheck to paycheck, and it's not as if getting a higher paying job is easy in this economy, and there's only so much you can cut expenses before you're living in a tent by the side of the road.
Quote from: kkt on September 29, 2014, 01:13:03 PM
Quote from: Laura on September 29, 2014, 08:30:52 AM
I understand that it is a service that a person agrees to as part of the loan, but I do not agree with the fact that they are still being charged astronomical interest rates while having the nanny service. Since the service ultimately eliminates all of the risk by making the car unrunnable after being late, then they should get the same interest rates as someone with average or slightly below average credit. If anything, the tracking system makes them more likely to get a payment in on time than average or slightly below average credit Joe.
No, it's still a high risk loan. There are risks of the car being totaled or damaged or being so far away it can't be retrieved. Even retrieval is an expense, requiring two people to drive to wherever it is, at considerable risk of being attacked for taking someone's car.
What hits me is what the hell someone in such circumstances is doing with a relatively expensive vehicle. It would have been a better plan to drive a Corolla until her finances improved. You could buy a reliable moderate-miles Corolla for 3 months of those payments.
In this economy, the idea that one can find huge savings by buying used is a myth. The demand is higher due to the economy, and the supply is down due to cash for clunkers. Really, the only way to save a lot on purchase price is to buy a high-mileage beater that's going to have big-ticket repairs come due frequently with no warning... exactly the
worst type of car for someone who's living paycheck-to-paycheck.
If you research everything properly, buying a low-mileage used car as opposed to a new one can be a good deal. Remember that a good part of the depreciation happens the moment you drive the car off the lot.
Unfortunately, most people are not terribly savvy when it comes to buying cars or financing the transaction.
The used car market is really tight right now, especially for cars under 3-4 years old and 50K miles. The sub $5k market is looser, but there's also barely such a thing as an under-$500 car since they can be scrapped for almost that. So it can be hard to find a car the way you want it used these days.
Things might loosen up eventually if the economy continues to "stabilize".
The system won't activate until the car is off, i've been to dealers that had this, and walked away. They are buy here pay here where the dealership is the bank. It is a short term loan, 2 years is normal, and is weekly payments, 389 bucks would be several weeks for example.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 29, 2014, 06:47:23 PM
The system won't activate until the car is off, i've been to dealers that had this, and walked away. They are buy here pay here where the dealership is the bank. It is a short term loan, 2 years is normal, and is weekly payments, 389 bucks would be several weeks for example.
Sounds like the classic "No credit? Bad credit? We finance anyone!" type of operations I'm increasingly seeing ads on TV for. Most of these places, at least in my area, advertise payments of $99 a week. So, allowing for late fees (which I assume would accrue weekly), $389 could easily be only three weeks of payments.
And people complained when Detroit turned off the water on customers who were delinquent. Called it a human rights violation.
If I go into Best Buy and steal a TV, they call the cops on me. If I go in with a gun and hold up the register, they call the cops on me. But if I go to Best Buy and purchase that same TV on a credit card and make no payments, I have all the legal protections in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Show a little responsibility, people.
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 02:25:29 PM
If someone doesn't have enough money to pay, how does preventing them from getting to work (and thereby make money) help? Some people live paycheck to paycheck, and it's not as if getting a higher paying job is easy in this economy, and there's only so much you can cut expenses before you're living in a tent by the side of the road.
It doesn't help the individual, but it isn't designed to. It helps the lender, and that's all it needs to do. Sometimes people in a tight spot need to make decisions on which bills to pay this month. Putting this sort of lockout on the car ensures that the person does not decide this is the month to not pay the car bill. This might mean the person is unable to pay other bills instead, but that is irrelevant to the car lender so long as they get
their money.
Realistically it turns the car into a service until it is paid off. If you don't pay your internet bill, they turn your internet off. If you don't pay your electric bill, they turn your power off. If you don't pay your car bill, they turn your car off. Same idea.
The concept is rather big brotherish for sure, but honestly I think the bigger problem is that these people are getting loans to buy cars like this. It's another subprime bubble just like what happened with housing, where predatory lending leads to people buying things they can't afford and drives up prices.
And yes, there is also the overarching problem that a lot of people are needlessly in a financial pickle because their minimum wage jobs don't pay them enough.
Quote from: GaryV on September 29, 2014, 07:25:55 PM
And people complained when Detroit turned off the water on customers who were delinquent. Called it a human rights violation.
If I go into Best Buy and steal a TV, they call the cops on me. If I go in with a gun and hold up the register, they call the cops on me. But if I go to Best Buy and purchase that same TV on a credit card and make no payments, I have all the legal protections in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Show a little responsibility, people.
Agree about personal responsibility. However, the difference here is that water, electricity, gas, and basic phone service are generally considered to be public services (even though they are now generally run by private companies) essential for people to function in society. As such, there are laws in place in most states to give the person who has fallen in arrears every reasonable opportunity to satisfy the debt before shutoff. Additionally, a number of states also require a minimum number of notifications before shutoff, and also place certain restrictions on when and how the utility can shut off service. For example, in Massachusetts, gas and electric utilities cannot shut off a person between November and March for non-payment (and no, I do NOT have personal experience with this).
All that having been said, if the narrative in the story is true (only seven days late, previous minor late payments with no indication of not having paid for multiple months in a row), this appears to be a really predatory practice that should be severely restricted, or stopped entirely.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 29, 2014, 06:47:23 PM
The system won't activate until the car is off, i've been to dealers that had this, and walked away. They are buy here pay here where the dealership is the bank. It is a short term loan, 2 years is normal, and is weekly payments, 389 bucks would be several weeks for example.
That's the theory. In practice, some dealers are connecting the devices to the ignition cable rather than the starter cable.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 29, 2014, 08:18:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 02:25:29 PM
If someone doesn't have enough money to pay, how does preventing them from getting to work (and thereby make money) help? Some people live paycheck to paycheck, and it's not as if getting a higher paying job is easy in this economy, and there's only so much you can cut expenses before you're living in a tent by the side of the road.
It doesn't help the individual, but it isn't designed to. It helps the lender, and that's all it needs to do. Sometimes people in a tight spot need to make decisions on which bills to pay this month. Putting this sort of lockout on the car ensures that the person does not decide this is the month to not pay the car bill. This might mean the person is unable to pay other bills instead, but that is irrelevant to the car lender so long as they get their money.
Realistically it turns the car into a service until it is paid off. If you don't pay your internet bill, they turn your internet off. If you don't pay your electric bill, they turn your power off. If you don't pay your car bill, they turn your car off. Same idea.
The concept is rather big brotherish for sure, but honestly I think the bigger problem is that these people are getting loans to buy cars like this. It's another subprime bubble just like what happened with housing, where predatory lending leads to people buying things they can't afford and drives up prices.
And yes, there is also the overarching problem that a lot of people are needlessly in a financial pickle because their minimum wage jobs don't pay them enough.
They are really similar - the essentially replaced the word "home" with the word "car". They're even chopping the loans up and putting them into AAA rated securities again. It's as if the financial sector never learns!
Quote from: roadman on September 29, 2014, 08:32:37 PM
Quote from: GaryV on September 29, 2014, 07:25:55 PM
And people complained when Detroit turned off the water on customers who were delinquent. Called it a human rights violation.
If I go into Best Buy and steal a TV, they call the cops on me. If I go in with a gun and hold up the register, they call the cops on me. But if I go to Best Buy and purchase that same TV on a credit card and make no payments, I have all the legal protections in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Show a little responsibility, people.
Agree about personal responsibility. However, the difference here is that water, electricity, gas, and basic phone service are generally considered to be public services (even though they are now generally run by private companies) essential for people to function in society. As such, there are laws in place in most states to give the person who has fallen in arrears every reasonable opportunity to satisfy the debt before shutoff. Additionally, a number of states also require a minimum number of notifications before shutoff, and also place certain restrictions on when and how the utility can shut off service. For example, in Massachusetts, gas and electric utilities cannot shut off a person between November and March for non-payment (and no, I do NOT have personal experience with this).
All that having been said, if the narrative in the story is true (only seven days late, previous minor late payments with no indication of not having paid for multiple months in a row), this appears to be a really predatory practice that should be severely restricted, or stopped entirely.
Technically a lender isn't supposed to repossess a car until the loan is in default... they aren't upholding that with these devices though, while the primary effect (the car is unusable as a means of transportation) is the same.
Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2014, 01:15:18 PM
They are really similar - the essentially replaced the word "home" with the word "car". They're even chopping the loans up and putting them into AAA rated securities again. It's as if the financial sector never learns!
They did learn! They learned that when things blow up, Uncle Sugar will bail them out and none of the financial professionals responsible will suffer personally for it.
Quote from: kkt on September 30, 2014, 03:25:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2014, 01:15:18 PM
They are really similar - the essentially replaced the word "home" with the word "car". They're even chopping the loans up and putting them into AAA rated securities again. It's as if the financial sector never learns!
They did learn! They learned that when things blow up, Uncle Sugar will bail them out and none of the financial professionals responsible will suffer personally for it.
:clap: :nod:
Quote from: kkt on September 30, 2014, 03:25:13 PM
They did learn! They learned that when things blow up, Uncle Sugar will bail them out and none of the financial professionals responsible will suffer personally for it.
And they can successfully lobby against any changes to the law that would prevent them from being able to fuck things up that bad again. All while adding no actual value to the economy.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 01, 2014, 02:36:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 30, 2014, 03:25:13 PM
They did learn! They learned that when things blow up, Uncle Sugar will bail them out and none of the financial professionals responsible will suffer personally for it.
And they can successfully lobby against any changes to the law that would prevent them from being able to fuck things up that bad again. All while adding no actual value to the economy.
If I could rank this comment, I'd give it a +1000
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 02:25:29 PM
Regarding lending terms, IMO the system we have is ass-backwards with the people least able to pay being given terms that make their loans the most difficult to repay. It's basically a fee for having too little money in the eyes of the lender.
Yep, but that would be considered "socialism".
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 02:25:29 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 29, 2014, 09:27:15 AM
So these people are actually expected to honor their end of a contract they agreed to? Gasp!
OK, I don't agree with shutting someone's car down while on the road, or even a store. But if the vehicle is at the house, or maybe their place of business, then sure, shut it down.
As far as the person featured in the article is concerned, at first it seems to be unreasonable to think they would shut the car off just a few days after the due date for the payment. When you read the story though, you learn that this isn't the first time she's been late. She was late at least 3 times already this year alone! It's not like she accidently missed a payment, or it got lost in the mail. She has a very frequent history of failing to pay on time.
If someone doesn't have enough money to pay, how does preventing them from getting to work (and thereby make money) help? Some people live paycheck to paycheck, and it's not as if getting a higher paying job is easy in this economy, and there's only so much you can cut expenses before you're living in a tent by the side of the road.
Exactly why I believe they should all be deactivated at the same time (say, midnight) instead of randomly throughout the day. Plenty of people require a working vehicle throughout their shift, like deliverers and salespeople.
Quote from: roadman on September 29, 2014, 03:00:16 PM
If you research everything properly, buying a low-mileage used car as opposed to a new one can be a good deal. Remember that a good part of the depreciation happens the moment you drive the car off the lot.
Unfortunately, most people are not terribly savvy when it comes to buying cars or financing the transaction.
The ideal situation is to buy a used car from someone that you know so that you know the vehicle's history (and know that they took care of it well). This happens all of the time in my family - a person upgrades and then sells their older car to a sibling, cousin, kid, grandkid, etc. (and they expect the money upfront unless it's from a parent to kid).
Second best option financially is to buy the highest mile and oldest car that you are comfortable driving (which will be different for each person depending on the miles traveled).
That said, one of the people interviewed owned a 2005 van and another, a 2001 truck. I would not called those brand new cars.
Quote from: GCrites80s on September 29, 2014, 04:32:09 PM
The used car market is really tight right now, especially for cars under 3-4 years old and 50K miles. The sub $5k market is looser, but there's also barely such a thing as an under-$500 car since they can be scrapped for almost that. So it can be hard to find a car the way you want it used these days.
Things might loosen up eventually if the economy continues to "stabilize".
Yep. There is no large depreciation for driving off the lot anymore. I've seen used cars on craiglist that are from '10-'13 that are comparable to the price of a new '14 because of the features.
Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2014, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 29, 2014, 08:32:37 PM
Quote from: GaryV on September 29, 2014, 07:25:55 PM
And people complained when Detroit turned off the water on customers who were delinquent. Called it a human rights violation.
If I go into Best Buy and steal a TV, they call the cops on me. If I go in with a gun and hold up the register, they call the cops on me. But if I go to Best Buy and purchase that same TV on a credit card and make no payments, I have all the legal protections in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Show a little responsibility, people.
Agree about personal responsibility. However, the difference here is that water, electricity, gas, and basic phone service are generally considered to be public services (even though they are now generally run by private companies) essential for people to function in society. As such, there are laws in place in most states to give the person who has fallen in arrears every reasonable opportunity to satisfy the debt before shutoff. Additionally, a number of states also require a minimum number of notifications before shutoff, and also place certain restrictions on when and how the utility can shut off service. For example, in Massachusetts, gas and electric utilities cannot shut off a person between November and March for non-payment (and no, I do NOT have personal experience with this).
All that having been said, if the narrative in the story is true (only seven days late, previous minor late payments with no indication of not having paid for multiple months in a row), this appears to be a really predatory practice that should be severely restricted, or stopped entirely.
Technically a lender isn't supposed to repossess a car until the loan is in default... they aren't upholding that with these devices though, while the primary effect (the car is unusable as a means of transportation) is the same.
Which is exactly why the rates shouldn't be higher for these people. All of the risk has been removed.
"Gone are the days when Mr. Vead, a debt collector for nearly 20 years, had to hire someone to scour neighborhoods for cars belonging to delinquent borrowers. Sometimes locating one could take years. Now, within minutes of a car's ignition being disabled, Mr. Vead said, the borrower calls him offering to pay."
"A leading device maker, PassTime of Littleton, Colo., says its technology has reduced late payments to roughly 7 percent from nearly 29 percent. Spireon, which offers a GPS device called the Talon, has a tool on its website where lenders can calculate their return on capital."
The funny thing is if it was the government pulling this shit, people would be off their rockers angry and have the backing of every right-wing noise machine in the country. If, for example, the feds could instantly disable your property for underpaying your taxes; whoo boy, would that be news! But because it's private companies, it's a-okay; those cheapskates are getting what they deserve! You signed an agreement... (for something you can barely live without thanks to generations of poor planning.)
The issue is that, unless you live in an area that has a well-developed transit system (e.g. New York City, Chicago, London), you need a car to get to work. Bosses aren't very tolerant on tardiness. The funny part is that those well-developed transit areas are also very expensive to live at.
As I stated on my first post...
Quote from: ZLoth on September 28, 2014, 11:32:38 PM
It is very expensive to be poor and sub-prime.
or, to quote Star Wars, "It's a TRAP!" Many of these people are stuck because their options are very limited. The "buy here, pay here" places aren't interested in a cash sale, they are interested in financing at high rates because the risk factor is higher, and if you default, they can simply resell the car again and again. The cost of the GPS unit is on top of the price of the vehicle, and if you don't like it, well, they don't have to sell you the car.
Too bad they don't teach fiscal planning back in high school.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 02, 2014, 01:44:05 AM
The funny thing is if it was the government pulling this shit, people would be off their rockers angry and have the backing of every right-wing noise machine in the country. If, for example, the feds could instantly disable your property for underpaying your taxes; whoo boy, would that be news! But because it's private companies, it's a-okay; those cheapskates are getting what they deserve! You signed an agreement... (for something you can barely live without thanks to generations of poor planning.)
+1,000,000 (except the IRS takes out 28% for taxes)
Quote from: ZLoth on October 02, 2014, 02:22:37 AM
The issue is that, unless you live in an area that has a well-developed transit system (e.g. New York City, Chicago, London), you need a car to get to work. Bosses aren't very tolerant on tardiness. The funny part is that those well-developed transit areas are also very expensive to live at.
It's one of those catch 22's. Transit systems are supposed to help people get around without a car, but they only work if there's a lot of people in a general area, going to the same general areas. Many people want to live in areas where there aren't a lot of people. Transit systems can't design an efficient system on the basis of someone *may* want to use the bus on occasion. And the whole getting from the suburbs to the city is 1950's thinking. Here in my area of South Jersey, a large portion of the morning/evening commuting is suburb to suburb commuting. Even with the push for more mass transit (which after an early hard push to expand our PATCO line, has quietly been in the 'study' phase for way longer than it was supposed to be), the line will still primarily run from suburbs to the city...and even at that, won't be a one-seat ride.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 02, 2014, 01:44:05 AM
The funny thing is if it was the government pulling this shit, people would be off their rockers angry and have the backing of every right-wing noise machine in the country. If, for example, the feds could instantly disable your property for underpaying your taxes; whoo boy, would that be news! But because it's private companies, it's a-okay; those cheapskates are getting what they deserve! You signed an agreement... (for something you can barely live without thanks to generations of poor planning.)
Yep. I don't understand why it's OK for a corporation to do something we wouldn't let the government do. At least we can vote out the government (theoretically).
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2014, 12:51:23 PM
Yep. I don't understand why it's OK for a corporation to do something we wouldn't let the government do. At least we can vote out the government (theoretically).
We can also stop doing business with misbehaving companies. Not always practical, but much less theoretical than changing out the government, whose revenue streams are also usually much less vulnerable to customer dissatisfaction.
How often have you heard that your taxes never go down? How often do people say that about products they buy in the supermarket? Except for a few things such as Milk which can vary on occasion, nearly every product's pricing only goes up.
Quote from: ZLoth on September 28, 2014, 11:32:38 PM
From New York Times:
Miss a Payment? Good Luck Moving That CarQuoteThe thermometer showed a 103.5-degree fever, and her 10-year-old’s asthma was flaring up. Mary Bolender, who lives in Las Vegas, needed to get her daughter to an emergency room, but her 2005 Chrysler van would not start.
The cause was not a mechanical problem — it was her lender.
Ms. Bolender was three days behind on her monthly car payment. Her lender, C.A.G. Acceptance of Mesa, Ariz., remotely activated a device in her car’s dashboard that prevented her car from starting. Before she could get back on the road, she had to pay more than $389, money she did not have that morning in March.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/10p)
Moral of the story, kids. It is very expensive to be poor and sub-prime. Stay in school, get a good job, and make sure you keep your finances in order.
To anyone who's ever seen
Bait Car it's obvious that it was only a matter of time before the same tactics were used elsewhere. I'm surprised government (other than police) didn't come up with it first.
Quote from: oscar on October 02, 2014, 01:22:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2014, 12:51:23 PM
Yep. I don't understand why it's OK for a corporation to do something we wouldn't let the government do. At least we can vote out the government (theoretically).
We can also stop doing business with misbehaving companies. Not always practical, but much less theoretical than changing out the government, whose revenue streams are also usually much less vulnerable to customer dissatisfaction.
Unfortunately many businesses are so big these days even an organized boycott won't make a dent in the revenue. Plus, as an idealist, I can't afford to be
too picky because my values and the way business works in a capitalist system don't align.
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2014, 02:30:16 PM
Quote from: oscar on October 02, 2014, 01:22:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2014, 12:51:23 PM
Yep. I don't understand why it's OK for a corporation to do something we wouldn't let the government do. At least we can vote out the government (theoretically).
We can also stop doing business with misbehaving companies. Not always practical, but much less theoretical than changing out the government, whose revenue streams are also usually much less vulnerable to customer dissatisfaction.
Unfortunately many businesses are so big these days even an organized boycott won't make a dent in the revenue. Plus, as an idealist, I can't afford to be too picky because my values and the way business works in a capitalist system don't align.
Don't be too sure. Bad publicity travels like wildfire these days. Ray Rice, anyone?