No announcement yet.

Nags 2016 fall pricing catalog

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nags 2016 fall pricing catalog

    The IGA has received numerous complaints from automotive glass replacement shops with regards to the pricing in the NAGS Fall Pricing Catalog that went into effect September 12, 2016. It was initially reported that the top 500 parts saw a 5.13% pricing decrease.

    Based on the work of several shops, their analysis shows decreases that are 3 to 4 times greater than that of the initially reported. This shop reported decrease is based on the part numbers they reviewed from their own invoices and may or may not be in the "top 500 parts". Since the "top 500" parts are not published, it is impossible to know if what is being reported is part of this group or not.

    For example, a shop in South Carolina ran a report from their point of sale system to show all windshield parts (FW/DW) sold prior to the update in the last two periods. This report showed the NAGS part number along with the NAGS list price. The shop then looked up the NAGS part number in their point of sale system using the current NAGS Fall Pricing Catalog and subtracted that number from the prior invoice for the same part. This decrease was then multiplied by the number of unit sold during the period, thus showing the total possible loss going forward should that shop continue to invoice for those parts.

    Here is an example from their data:

    Previous NAGS List Price $721.05
    Current NAGS List Price $355.30
    Pricing Difference $365.75 (51%)

    Quantity sold in prior period = 33 x Price Difference of $365.75 = $12,069.75

    Here is what this specific shop reported from their actual invoice data:

    "Part Increases
    $19283.50 on FW Parts
    $4792.40 on DW Parts

    Part Decreases
    -$113,037.50 on FW Parts
    -$7,092.60 on DW Parts

    That is a net decrease of $96,054.20 for my company

    To figure out what your per invoice loss potential would be, take the number of total invoices billed divided by your net loss from your spreadsheet for that period. From those shops sharing their data, this is averaging out to a potential loss of $20.00 per invoice even with the NAGS part price increases factored in!

    This is just one example of many provided to the IGA; however, the trend was about the same across all reported data and for these parts invoiced going forward. The work of these shops and their analysis has generated a spreadsheet that you can us to see what your gross loss would be. Simply download the spreadsheet in the following link, enter the quantity of the parts you sold in the yellow highlighted column for the first 9 months of this year and you will be able to see you total loss at the bottom.

    ***LINK IS FIXED NOW*** %20sheet.xlsx

    Please share your results with the IGA and/or here on this forum.
    Last edited by Gary Hart; 10-07-2016, 01:43 PM.
    Best Regards,

  • #2
    Mitchell explains what went wrong. Mitchell says September NAGS glass price changes an error; new SOP in place

    By John Huetter on November 16, 2016

    Gerber Collision & Glass’ parent company warned investors last week that the company’s glass business could take a fourth-quarter hit partly from changes to the NAGS pricing, but Mitchell on Friday called the roughly 5 percent September drop the result of a data error now remedied with new internal controls.
    Mitchell Vice President of Industry Relations Jack Rozint said Friday he received many questions at SEMA about the mid-September change in pricing to the National Auto Glass Specifications his company publishes.
    The National Auto Glass Specifications is the Bible of the auto glass industry — according to Boyd Group CEO Brock Bulbuck, it “virtually covers all glass replacement parts” — and sets prices insurers and consumers pay for the panes.
    “It was disruptive, what happened to the glass installers,” Rozint said.
    He called it a “regrettable situation” caused by errors in the feeds Mitchell receives from glass manufacturers and sends through a proprietary algorithm to produce the NAGS prices. At the time, the process was automatic, leading to a GIGO issue.
    “There was some erroneous data in there,” Rozint said. “… It basically caused a drop in the list price that shouldn’t have happened.”

    Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the cause of a September change in National Auto Glass Specifications. Mitchell has explained that a May error, not a September …
    Best Regards,