The mortgage market needs somehting but is it just money?
Over the last four weeks you may be aware that many governments have been pumping money into their failing banking systems in an attempt to salvage the mortgage markets. The reason for this is that all the bad debt, known as toxic debt, is having a detrimental effect on the financial institutions and is making us all worse off.
The burning question now is whether or not this cash injection will have the desired effect so that we are able to borrow money confidently again. At present I am only able to comment on the effect these changes will have on the general public in the United Kingdom, as I am unaware of how other global markets work within their countries, and therefore am unqualified to comment. There may be similarities in how the markets work, but it is best to take my comments here as a rough guide only if outside the UK.
The general public is under the impression that the credit crunch is due to the banks not having enough money to lend. Logic would then dictate that by giving the banks more money the problem is resolved. Unfortunately this is rather far from the truth. The lack of money to lend is only the tip of the iceberg. Banks have been burned by the bad debt accrued over the last few years and are therefore now much more cautious about lending again. Their careless actions in the past will prove much more difficult to rectify in times to come.
The main result and contributory factor to the current financial predicament is that of house prices, and house prices are not only falling but are set to continue to fall for the foreseeable future. Consequently lenders are finding that they have to tighten all their criteria not least in the area of loan to value LTV, that is the amount of money that is lent based on the value of the property. Most lenders during 2007 lent up to 95% LTV some lent 100% LTV and in some cases they went as high as 125%LTV.
Now in a healthy market there is nothing wrong with this type of lending. For example, if you give a 125% loan on a house valued at 100,000 then the resulting loan would work out at 125,000. With a buoyant market the house prices may increase at an average of 10% per annum over the next three years. The resulting LTV would equate to 93%. So mathematically we can see that there would be nothing wrong with the initial 125% loan in that there would be negligible risk involved.
But the problem that we face is that house prices are going in the opposite direction. The decline is at least 10% and analysts figure that it could get worse. So, if 100,000 was lent on an 85,000 property then in the same three year time span the loan could have actually increased to 118% LTV. Now I am sure you would agree that in this present climate that this sort of loaning is both irresponsible and detrimental to all involved.
So with regards to the money bailouts, what does this mean for our financial future? In my professional opinion I believe that there will be little overall effect, although with any luck time will prove me wrong. Although lenders are now obliged to lend in 2009 at the rates of 2007, as you will see from the first part of this article they won't be able to lend at the high LTV rates of 2007. The people who are now desperate to borrow are those coming out of rates already arranged in the past 5 years, and these borrowers are going to push the LTV to its limit because of the drop in house prices.
In addition you will also have to factor in the situation that a lot of people over the last five years have obtained self certification mortgages. Most of these mortgages are now not available due to the fact that they represent too much of a risk for the lenders, and if they are available they will be at much reduced LTVs, so what are these people going to do?
In conclusion, although the cash injections can only be welcomed as a step in the right direction, I fear that there will be little knock on effect whilst housing prices continue to plummet and lenders fail to meet the level of lending that was rife before 2008. It seems more likely that the money will be stored up for the future. This will unfortunately create a catch-22 situation where the prices continue to fall because of the low LTVs and the tight lending criteria, in turn making the lenders more nervous about lending. It seems to me that the only way out will be for someone to bite the bullet and take the risks again at lending, even taking into account the possible risks involved.
The burning question now is whether or not this cash injection will have the desired effect so that we are able to borrow money confidently again. At present I am only able to comment on the effect these changes will have on the general public in the United Kingdom, as I am unaware of how other global markets work within their countries, and therefore am unqualified to comment. There may be similarities in how the markets work, but it is best to take my comments here as a rough guide only if outside the UK.
The general public is under the impression that the credit crunch is due to the banks not having enough money to lend. Logic would then dictate that by giving the banks more money the problem is resolved. Unfortunately this is rather far from the truth. The lack of money to lend is only the tip of the iceberg. Banks have been burned by the bad debt accrued over the last few years and are therefore now much more cautious about lending again. Their careless actions in the past will prove much more difficult to rectify in times to come.
The main result and contributory factor to the current financial predicament is that of house prices, and house prices are not only falling but are set to continue to fall for the foreseeable future. Consequently lenders are finding that they have to tighten all their criteria not least in the area of loan to value LTV, that is the amount of money that is lent based on the value of the property. Most lenders during 2007 lent up to 95% LTV some lent 100% LTV and in some cases they went as high as 125%LTV.
Now in a healthy market there is nothing wrong with this type of lending. For example, if you give a 125% loan on a house valued at 100,000 then the resulting loan would work out at 125,000. With a buoyant market the house prices may increase at an average of 10% per annum over the next three years. The resulting LTV would equate to 93%. So mathematically we can see that there would be nothing wrong with the initial 125% loan in that there would be negligible risk involved.
But the problem that we face is that house prices are going in the opposite direction. The decline is at least 10% and analysts figure that it could get worse. So, if 100,000 was lent on an 85,000 property then in the same three year time span the loan could have actually increased to 118% LTV. Now I am sure you would agree that in this present climate that this sort of loaning is both irresponsible and detrimental to all involved.
So with regards to the money bailouts, what does this mean for our financial future? In my professional opinion I believe that there will be little overall effect, although with any luck time will prove me wrong. Although lenders are now obliged to lend in 2009 at the rates of 2007, as you will see from the first part of this article they won't be able to lend at the high LTV rates of 2007. The people who are now desperate to borrow are those coming out of rates already arranged in the past 5 years, and these borrowers are going to push the LTV to its limit because of the drop in house prices.
In addition you will also have to factor in the situation that a lot of people over the last five years have obtained self certification mortgages. Most of these mortgages are now not available due to the fact that they represent too much of a risk for the lenders, and if they are available they will be at much reduced LTVs, so what are these people going to do?
In conclusion, although the cash injections can only be welcomed as a step in the right direction, I fear that there will be little knock on effect whilst housing prices continue to plummet and lenders fail to meet the level of lending that was rife before 2008. It seems more likely that the money will be stored up for the future. This will unfortunately create a catch-22 situation where the prices continue to fall because of the low LTVs and the tight lending criteria, in turn making the lenders more nervous about lending. It seems to me that the only way out will be for someone to bite the bullet and take the risks again at lending, even taking into account the possible risks involved.
About the Author:
Mortgage Route gives assistance help and mortgage advice from qualified mortgage brokers along with no obligation mortgage calculators and sourcing tools.
posted by Credit Counseling at
10:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home