Banks have gotten into a corner; from four sides they are being beleaguered, stay like a mouse in a trap. Roaring home prices on one side juxtaposed against slump in the home market in the opposite direction; skyrocketing of bank bad debts pitted against higher demand for mortgage finance on the part of home owners. Encompassed in this state banks have done what you expect them to do: tighten the rules on mortgage lending. Has this policy worked?
It has not. Many banks are reporting decline in mortgage loans approvals; overall earnings dipped in many banks. Citigroup, the U S giant is expected to post revenues in 2011 highlighting 30 % drop from the previous year. To revive banks must re-examine their policy and procedure of mortgage lending. Banks always balance their portfolio of loan assets in corporate lending as against personal finance. When one goes down other must go up. Now is the time to shift the bar of personal finance much lower. To do that, banks need to relax mortgage rules.
Matching loan to value with affordability
Conservative dictum of loan to value ratio (LAV) hovers between 60 to 75%. It means that a borrower will get a loan amount equal to this percentage of the value of the home he pledges. But there is a caveat he must be able to afford this amount. In other words the borrower must have the capacity to repay the amount he borrows. Matching loan to value and affordability has brought enough headaches to the banks. In New Zealand, acting on their own, banks upped the pole on LAV to 80 to 90% to encourage demand in mortgage loans. Banks in Hong Kong, on the other hand, were spurred to by their monetary authority to relax rules and increase the LAV. But in Britain LAV went haywire. Recent pronouncement of the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) over mortgage rules brings out a telling example of banks violating the LAV prudence by granting loans at 125% of the LAV.
Equally important is to ensure banks assess affordability in a practical manner. The current practice of asking too much private details including listing of expenditure must be amended to a borrower-friendly regime of selective assessment. Household expenditure could be declared by the borrower in specific terms along with his take-home pay if he is an employed person. Self-certified income and expenditure can be allowed in certain cases. A thumb rule of 3 to 4 multiples of borrower annual revenue as loan quantum is in use globally. Still prudence must reign. FSA points out that in one instance a bank has gone up to seven times earnings of a borrower in granting a mortgage loan. In case there is revenue deficiency of servicing loan by a single borrower, banks should add his or her spouse as co-borrower and bring in the spouse’s income in calculating affordability. Some banks tend to act too conservative by insisting that the home to be mortgaged should also be in the joint name of borrowers. This entails legal cost and sometimes elicits disaffection from the original applicant. Another important issue is how to treat short term and long term debt declared by the applicant. Bundling together both short and long term outstanding by an applicant is morally wrong as mortgage lending is generally for a longer period. Therefore, banks need to look at the current long term debt of the applicant and decide on his affordability, leaving aside short term debt arising from credit card outstanding.
Re-mortgaging the future
After servicing personal finance, borrowers tend to ask for additional loans by doing a re-mortgage. In addition to the primary mortgage that exists, they require secondary and tertiary mortgages. If banks allow LAV of 80% on the primary mortgage the next tranche can go up to 90% and the next till it reaches 100% of LAV. Additional funding is generally tied to the future value of the property. There is no harm in extending additional mortgage, but this must not be done purely on expectation of future value. Piggy back riding on future home value has been the cause of property bust in Hong Kong. Learning lesson from real estate bust and boom cycle, banks should take up a defensive posture in assuming interest rate going up in future and in that context whether the borrower can service the additional finance cost conveniently. One way to mitigate the situation is to checkout borrower’s future income. At all cost re-mortgage by borrowers to maintain lush lifestyle must be axed.
Classifying borrowers and Credit Reports
Borrowers are classified according to credit reports and on need basis. Every bank gets a credit report of an applicant from a credit information bureau or agency. Un-paid outstanding of debt could bring credit score down. Let alone bad or miserable credit score, even poor score is frowned upon by banks. Recently approved U S “Home Affordable Refinance Programme (HARP)” advises banks to ignore slight blemish in credit report and urges that if an applicant is current in paying mortgage instalments during last six months, he be allowed to avail additional finance. On the basis of need, banks in New Zealand prefer first home buyers from others. Banks in Britain have predilection for right-to-buy tenants who apply for finance. Home movers and applicants for buying additional homes are rated low in terms of need and do not qualify for concessions.
Cosmics play a role….
For a bank as well as borrower cosmic balance is a must. When a borrower gulps up more than what he can chew he gets more worries; likewise over-exposure to a particular borrower also gives worries to a bank. Both bank and borrower must learn to have cosmic balance. Cosmics are aspects that are beyond facts & figures but still influence the conduct of personal finance between bank and borrower.
No comments:
Post a Comment