Will throwing money at the Banks really solve the problem?
With the credit crunch wreaking havoc on the global economy certain governments throughout the world have stepped in with bail out plans involving the injection of money into their individual banking systems. The reason behind this is to stave off the bad or `toxic? debt which they see as crippling to their countries' economies due to unstable institutions and negligible public borrowing.
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.
However house prices are not rising by 10% per annum in fact they are falling by at least 10% and some people think that these falls will be worse. So with that in mind if you now lend to someone 85,000 on a 100,000 house in three years your loan could be as high as 118% LTV. This as I am sure you will agree unacceptable lending in this climate. This therefore clearly explains why lenders are unwilling to lend over 90% LTV and in some cases 85%.
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.
Another thing to consider is the high amount of self certification mortgages that have been arranged over the last 5 years. These types of mortgages will definitely be a rarity because they are seen as to high a risk and the institutions don?t want to know. And even if they are available the LTV will be far lower so what are the consequences in that scenario?
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.
However house prices are not rising by 10% per annum in fact they are falling by at least 10% and some people think that these falls will be worse. So with that in mind if you now lend to someone 85,000 on a 100,000 house in three years your loan could be as high as 118% LTV. This as I am sure you will agree unacceptable lending in this climate. This therefore clearly explains why lenders are unwilling to lend over 90% LTV and in some cases 85%.
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.
Another thing to consider is the high amount of self certification mortgages that have been arranged over the last 5 years. These types of mortgages will definitely be a rarity because they are seen as to high a risk and the institutions don?t want to know. And even if they are available the LTV will be far lower so what are the consequences in that scenario?
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:
Advice on mortgages from qualified Independent Mortgage Advisors guidance information and free to use mortgage calculators please visit Mortgage Route
posted by Debt Consolidation Loan at
11:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home