**It could work if a lender explicitly agreed to cheap storage, but it would be very unlikely at an ordinary U.S. bank.** The joke assumes that offering a car as collateral entitles the borrower to park it at the bank.

There are two practical obstacles:

1. **Car collateral usually stays with the borrower.** The lender records a *lien* against the vehicle, giving it rights to repossess the car if the borrower defaults. Bank of America’s auto-loan documentation describes this lien arrangement. Even short-term vehicle-title lenders generally let borrowers keep using their cars. Neither arrangement provides parking. ([Bank of America](https://www.bankofamerica.com/auto-loans/auto-loan-faq/), [CFPB explanation](https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201605_cfpb_single-payment-vehicle-title-lending.pdf))

2. **A lender that takes possession can charge for keeping the car.** For the joke’s New York setting, UCC § 9-207 requires reasonable care of collateral in the lender’s possession and makes reasonable custody and preservation expenses chargeable to the borrower. So the eventual bill could include storage and insurance expenses alongside interest. ([New York statute](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/UCC/9-207))

The bank would also have to agree to this particular loan and to holding the vehicle. An expensive car provides ample security, but accepting responsibility for it creates costs that a small loan’s interest may not cover.

The interest arithmetic is plausible: **at a hypothetical 12% annual rate, a $1,000 loan costs about $10 in interest for one month**, before fees. The missing ingredient is a lender willing to store the car for that price.

Thus, the events are possible under a specially agreed arrangement. The borrower’s savings would come from the lender’s unusually generous storage terms; pledging the car itself creates no entitlement to cheap parking.