Less than two weeks after the National Automobile Dealers Association released its fair credit guidance to member franchised stores, top executives at two of the largest publicly traded dealer groups are still assessing the recommendations and determining what to do next.

AutoNation chairman and chief executive officer Mike Jackson said the company would be implementing NADA's guidance at certain stores during the next few months, "to see exactly how it works, how difficult it is to roll out, how disruptive it this and what kind of issues we would have to roll it out on the broader basis. That's the way we do everything.

"There's no way I'm subjecting the entire company to a roll out of something from one day to the next when we haven't figured out exactly how it would work and what the results would be," Jackson continued during AutoNation's conference call with investment analysts last Thursday.

"And because I don't know, you don't know for sure whether it really takes you down to the road of achieving the objectives and how disruptive it is so I think it's very prudent," Jackson went on to say. "I applaud NADA for putting it together. I think it's a step in the right direction. We're going to take it into stores and see how it works. We've seen the test results so I think we have time to do this in a prudent manner."

The crux of NADA's fair credit guidance is that stores would have set standards for any dealer participation that would be altered only because of certain circumstances such as matching a competitor's interest rate or as part of an incentive issued by an automaker or finance company.

If any changes are not consistent with the store standards, NADA suggested dealers document reasons for any changes to allow for reviews by regulators such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Asbury Automotive Group president and chief executive officer Craig Monaghan was asked about the NADA guidance that can be found at www.NADA.org/faircredit on Tuesday during that company's quarterly conference call.

"We very much support the direction that they're going in trying to nail down something that's more concrete for all of us," Monaghan said. "I would also add that many of the elements they're proposing we already have in place. We're just going to continue to watch how this plays out.

"I think bottom line for us we feel very confident that no matter what comes we'll be able to manage through it," he continued.

All of the developments are coming in reaction to the CFPB first issuing its own guidance on indirect auto lending last March as well as the significant enforcement action the agency handed out against Ally Financial just before Christmas. Ally agreed to a consent decree that included a $98 million penalty among other demands.

During the American Financial Services Association's Vehicle Finance Conference that preceded NADA's annual gathering, the CFPB reiterated its apprehension about dealer participation because of what regulators believe to be the opportunity for discrimination. The CFPB maintained that dealers should be compensated for being a part of the origination process. The regulatory kept pointing to its guidance from last year, but Monaghan still is foggy about how indirect auto lending can be completed based on those compliance recommendations.

"I would say from the big picture, we'd love clarity. We don't feel like the CFPB has given us the clarity that we would very much like to have," Monaghan said.

Despite the perceived regulatory drive to element dealer participation and move to a flat-fee structure, Jackson remains confident the process for indirect auto financing unfolds will continue.

"I think the business model absolutely is a winner for all parties. All parties acknowledge that, and that includes CFPB, so I don't expect a structural change in the business model," Jackson said.

"Everybody's trying to find common ground where the amount of discretion at the store level can be restricted to the point that the CFPB feels much more comfortable that the possibility of discrimination has been restricted," he continued. "Whether that leads to more caps, I don't see flats or a solution like NADA proposed, which we're going to try at a few stores. I call it the Pacifico model where it's a markdown model where management has to sign off on it.

"I think there's a lot of discussions," Jackson went on to say. "I think at the end of the day, though, the business model serves the marketplace the lenders and us extremely well. It's very effective, very efficient for everyone. There is a reason that 80 percent of auto loans are originated through the dealers. It's because we're very good at it with a lot of added value. It saves the customers a lot of money, and do very effectively for the bank. So I don't know the end of the story yet. I think it will be on ongoing story, but there'll be common ground, and I do not expect the fundamental business model to change."

To reinforce his position, Jackson pointed to his observations of few industry-wide changes after the CFPB made its enforcement actions against Ally.

"If you look at the Ally agreement, there are no operational changes in that agreement whatsoever so you would think that something significant was coming," Jackson said. "Since the government has a lot of leverage with Ally, it would have happened then but it didn't.

"Our discussions with the lenders is that they're so satisfied with the current business model and how it works that they feel there will be some other solution to find common ground with CFPB," he continued. "So it's interesting, that nothing's changed yet. You have the first enforcement action, and from an operating point of view, nothing has changed."