Repo's up and some startling numbers

Graham_Devon

Home repossessions have risen for the first time in more than a year, jumping 17% in the first three months of 2011, according to official figures.

The data, issued by the Financial Services Authority, shows that after falling in each quarter since late 2009, the number of new home repossessions increased by 17% in the first three months of this year to 9,613. The equivalent figure in the last quarter of 2010 was 8,246 – though in mid-2009 it was above 13,000.

The FSA said: "An increase was also seen in the first quarters of 2008 and 2009." The stock of repossessed homes remaining unsold rose for the first time in two years to 16,025.

Meanwhile, the proportion of new lending at a high loan-to-value (LTV) – more than 90% – has averaged at about 2% over the past year, but fell back in the first three months of 2011 to 1.7%. Within that, loans of more than 95% of a property's value accounted for just 0.47% of all lending. At the start of 2007, mortgages for more than 90% LTV made up 14.1% of total lending.

The share of new lending done at a combination of high LTV and high income multiples (more than 3.5 times single or 2.75 times joint income) has reduced in the last two quarters, and is now back to below 1%, as it was at the start of last year, the FSA said.

Just 1.7% of mortgages given at more than 90% LTV....

Just 0.5% at more than 95%.

And just 1% of lending given when high LTV and high income multiples are combined.

Whats pertanent in my view is that the FSA calls high multipliers anything over 3.5x single or 2.75x combined.

And all this talk of 95% mortgages coming to the table is pointless, when you look at the mortgages actually given at these LTVs. They might be there and avaliable in the mortgage tables, but it looks like thats where it pretty much ends for most.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mortgage famine ongoing, FTB-s continue to be discriminated against.

Nothing new there Graham, just the same old points we've been mentioning for some time.

There is an entire generation being forced to enrich their landlords because the banks won't lend more than a token amount of mortgages at reasonable (5% or 10%) deposit levels, particularly to young people.

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Mortgage famine ongoing, FTB-s continue to be discriminated against.

Nothing new there Graham, just the same old points we've been mentioning for some time.

There is an entire generation being forced to enrich their landlords because the banks won't lend more than a token amount of mortgages at reasonable (5% or 10%) deposit levels, particularly to young people.

No Hamish, it's called sensible lending practices.

Cleaver

It is quite startling that so little mortgages are given at 90% or higher LTV. Didn't think it would be quite so small numbers.

Home repossessions have risen for the first time in more than a year, jumping 17% in the first three months of 2011, according to official figures.

The data, issued by the Financial Services Authority, shows that after falling in each quarter since late 2009, the number of new home repossessions increased by 17% in the first three months of this year to 9,613. The equivalent figure in the last quarter of 2010 was 8,246 – though in mid-2009 it was above 13,000.

I was curious about this, so here's the repo numbers for Q1 2008 until now:



I guess you need the next three reports to see if this month becomes a trend. At the moment it's just a blip.

And here's the precentage of houses repossessed each quarter out of all owner-occupied properties:

Q1 2008 0.051%
Q2 2008 0.061%
Q3 2008 0.075%
Q4 2008 0.072%
Q1 2009 0.071%
Q2 2009 0.066%
Q3 2009 0.065%
Q4 2009 0.066%
Q1 2010 0.058%
Q2 2010 0.052%
Q3 2010 0.051%
Q4 2010 0.046%
Q1 2011 0.053%

It's weird really, as obviously if you look at simple numbers it can look startling. For example, repos were down 30% between Q4 2009 and Q4 2010, which sounds really significant. But when you look at it as a percentage of total numbers you wonder whether the difference between 0.066% and 0.046% of all owner-occupied houses being repossessed each quarter is really worth worrying about.

Cleaver

shortchanged wrote: »

No Hamish, it's called sensible lending practices.

Why is it sensible not to have 90% mortgages? Historically speaking we've always seen them as pretty 'sensible'.

shortchanged_2

Cleaver wrote: »

Why is it sensible not to have 90% mortgages? Historically speaking we've always seen them as pretty 'sensible'.

I'm not actually referring to 90% mortgages, it's anything above that I am a little uncomfortable with.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cleaver wrote: »

Why is it sensible not to have 90% mortgages? Historically speaking we've always seen them as pretty 'sensible'.

Absolutely.

I was offered a 95% mortgage in 1990, my parents were offered a 95% mortgage in 1967.... And 100% mortgages were available at least as far back as the early 1980's.

Perhaps Shortchanged should pop on back to the 1960's and warn them their mortgage lending was "irresponsible".

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

I'm not actually referring to 90% mortgages, it's anything above that I am a little uncomfortable with.

So then it's obviously absurd that only 1.7% of mortgages issued were at 90% LTV....

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So then it's obviously absurd that only 1.7% of mortgages issued were at 90% LTV....

Yes and I don't want to see a return of the bad old days of the last decade.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So then it's obviously absurd that only 1.7% of mortgages issued were at 90% LTV....

No, it's MORE than 90% in which 1.7% of mortgages were issued.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes and I don't want to see a return of the bad old days of the last decade.

Nor do most people. 125% mortgages and the like are absurd.

But historically normal and responsible lending includes 90% and 95% mortgages.