We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
new lending crackdown means lower UK house prices
The-Joker
Posts: 718 Forumite
The property sections are outraged.
Banks have decided that they’re going to be more careful about writing interest-only loans (where you only pay the interest on your loan, then pay the capital in one go at the end of the period).
In the good old days before the bust, you could get an interest-only loan with only the vaguest notion of how you’d repay the capital. You’d mutter something along the lines of, “house prices never fall – the government won’t let them”, and the computer would cheerfully say ‘yes’.
Now the answer is a resounding ‘no.’ Santander for example, won’t lend interest-only on anything above a 50% loan-to-value. In other words, you need to own half the house already before the bank will even think about interest-only. Others have followed suit with similar restrictions.
Of course, unless you’re a mortgage broker, the only shocking thing about these rules is that they weren’t in place before the financial crash.
But the big question is: why the crackdown now?
The horses bolted ages ago – why shut the stable doors now?
New, tighter rules on interest-only mortgages are being blamed on the Mortgage Market Review (MMR). In short, this is the usual story of regulators tackling yesterday’s problem.
The rules on interest-only lending were clearly too lax before the crisis. Rather than change them when they needed to, and take the flak from the property lobbyists, regulators have left it until now, when all the damage has been done.
The review basically puts the onus on lenders to make sure their customers can repay their loans (you’d think that would be a basic function of sensible lending). Trade bodies argue that banks are now reining in interest-only lending for fear of being sued if people suffer a shortfall.
But I don’t think that’s the whole story. Banks are past masters at evading regulations they don’t like. I think the MMR is an excuse for the banks to tighten up. Here’s why.
Banks haven’t been snatching back brollies
Throughout the aftermath of this financial crisis, everyone has been amazed at the leniency of the banks.
Usually a banker is defined as someone who tries to force an umbrella on you when it’s sunny, then wants it back when it starts to rain. In the current crisis, that’s not been the case.
Banks have been slower to repossess houses, and to shut down struggling businesses. That’s helped the economy to wobble along, albeit with a depressing, lurching, zombie-like gait.
Have they learned some lessons from previous crises?
Not at all. It’s just that in previous crises, banks haven’t been as fragile as they were this time around.
In the lead up to 2008, Western banks overstretched themselves to the point where it would only have taken some very small losses to tip them into technical bankruptcy. In the event, we got huge losses that threatened to wipe out almost every major bank standing.
The central banks stepped in to keep the banks afloat and functioning. They dealt with the ‘liquidity’ problem. And in the case of the very worst banks, they tackled the solvency problem by nationalising them.
But banks in general were still left with a lot of those dodgy loans on their books. They couldn’t dump them all at once – their balance sheets couldn’t take the stress.
Instead, as regular contributor James Ferguson has noted many times in MoneyWeek magazine before, what tends to happen with a banking crisis is that banks ‘deleverage’ in fits and starts.
When the crisis first happens, banks are bankrupt. So they pretend not to be, by avoiding writing down any of their bad loans. Instead, they start calling in any good loans they can, in order to ‘de-risk’ their portfolios.
What happens to the bad loans? It’s called ‘extend and pretend’. Companies are given a longer time to repay loans – the debt is ‘rolled over’. People struggling with their home loans negotiate lower payments – or are moved from repayment loans to interest-only ones. That’s called ‘lender forbearance’.
As time wears on, the banks start to stabilise their balance sheets, aided and abetted by central banks making life easy for them. Meanwhile, regulators are pressing them to start behaving more responsibly (always after the event, of course).
So eventually, the banks get to the point where they feel they need to start addressing some of those dud loans. That’s when they decide they want their umbrellas back.
The end of forbearance
Last week, Paul Diggle at Capital Economics tried to put a figure on how important a role forbearance has played in propping up the UK housing market. “The most common forms of forbearance are a switch to interest-only or a reduction in the interest rate charged.”
Lenders have also taken arrears and added them to the outstanding balance of the mortgage. Interestingly, when this happens, “a borrower is no longer counted as being behind, removing them from the arrears statistics.”
The Bank of England estimates that 11.8% of borrowers have benefited from some form of forbearance. Of these, roughly a third thought they’d be in arrears if they hadn’t been given a break by their banks (and the other two-thirds were clearly chronic over-optimists).
In short, says Diggle, if banks had been less forgiving, then the proportion of mortgages currently in arrears of three months or more would probably be around 5-6%. That’s “in line with the peak reached in the 1990s.”
In other words, if the banks decide it’s “no more Mr Nice Guy”, then the UK property market could run into some serious turbulence in the months ahead. And this crackdown on interest-only might be the signal that forbearance is at an end.
After all, who are likely to be your riskiest mortgage customers? The ones on interest-only deals. If you can offload these people on to another lender while the going is good – or even repossess their home while the market is still defying gravity – then maybe that’s starting to look attractive to the banks.
Of course, if the banks kick off another downward turn in the housing market, pushing prices lower, it’ll hurt them too. But that’s how a banking crisis plays out – in fits and starts. The next dip in the rollercoaster could be right ahead of us.
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/property/uk/what-the-new-lending-crackdown-means-for-uk-house-prices-20800
Banks have decided that they’re going to be more careful about writing interest-only loans (where you only pay the interest on your loan, then pay the capital in one go at the end of the period).
In the good old days before the bust, you could get an interest-only loan with only the vaguest notion of how you’d repay the capital. You’d mutter something along the lines of, “house prices never fall – the government won’t let them”, and the computer would cheerfully say ‘yes’.
Now the answer is a resounding ‘no.’ Santander for example, won’t lend interest-only on anything above a 50% loan-to-value. In other words, you need to own half the house already before the bank will even think about interest-only. Others have followed suit with similar restrictions.
Of course, unless you’re a mortgage broker, the only shocking thing about these rules is that they weren’t in place before the financial crash.
But the big question is: why the crackdown now?
The horses bolted ages ago – why shut the stable doors now?
New, tighter rules on interest-only mortgages are being blamed on the Mortgage Market Review (MMR). In short, this is the usual story of regulators tackling yesterday’s problem.
The rules on interest-only lending were clearly too lax before the crisis. Rather than change them when they needed to, and take the flak from the property lobbyists, regulators have left it until now, when all the damage has been done.
The review basically puts the onus on lenders to make sure their customers can repay their loans (you’d think that would be a basic function of sensible lending). Trade bodies argue that banks are now reining in interest-only lending for fear of being sued if people suffer a shortfall.
But I don’t think that’s the whole story. Banks are past masters at evading regulations they don’t like. I think the MMR is an excuse for the banks to tighten up. Here’s why.
Banks haven’t been snatching back brollies
Throughout the aftermath of this financial crisis, everyone has been amazed at the leniency of the banks.
Usually a banker is defined as someone who tries to force an umbrella on you when it’s sunny, then wants it back when it starts to rain. In the current crisis, that’s not been the case.
Banks have been slower to repossess houses, and to shut down struggling businesses. That’s helped the economy to wobble along, albeit with a depressing, lurching, zombie-like gait.
Have they learned some lessons from previous crises?
Not at all. It’s just that in previous crises, banks haven’t been as fragile as they were this time around.
In the lead up to 2008, Western banks overstretched themselves to the point where it would only have taken some very small losses to tip them into technical bankruptcy. In the event, we got huge losses that threatened to wipe out almost every major bank standing.
The central banks stepped in to keep the banks afloat and functioning. They dealt with the ‘liquidity’ problem. And in the case of the very worst banks, they tackled the solvency problem by nationalising them.
But banks in general were still left with a lot of those dodgy loans on their books. They couldn’t dump them all at once – their balance sheets couldn’t take the stress.
Instead, as regular contributor James Ferguson has noted many times in MoneyWeek magazine before, what tends to happen with a banking crisis is that banks ‘deleverage’ in fits and starts.
When the crisis first happens, banks are bankrupt. So they pretend not to be, by avoiding writing down any of their bad loans. Instead, they start calling in any good loans they can, in order to ‘de-risk’ their portfolios.
What happens to the bad loans? It’s called ‘extend and pretend’. Companies are given a longer time to repay loans – the debt is ‘rolled over’. People struggling with their home loans negotiate lower payments – or are moved from repayment loans to interest-only ones. That’s called ‘lender forbearance’.
As time wears on, the banks start to stabilise their balance sheets, aided and abetted by central banks making life easy for them. Meanwhile, regulators are pressing them to start behaving more responsibly (always after the event, of course).
So eventually, the banks get to the point where they feel they need to start addressing some of those dud loans. That’s when they decide they want their umbrellas back.
The end of forbearance
Last week, Paul Diggle at Capital Economics tried to put a figure on how important a role forbearance has played in propping up the UK housing market. “The most common forms of forbearance are a switch to interest-only or a reduction in the interest rate charged.”
Lenders have also taken arrears and added them to the outstanding balance of the mortgage. Interestingly, when this happens, “a borrower is no longer counted as being behind, removing them from the arrears statistics.”
The Bank of England estimates that 11.8% of borrowers have benefited from some form of forbearance. Of these, roughly a third thought they’d be in arrears if they hadn’t been given a break by their banks (and the other two-thirds were clearly chronic over-optimists).
In short, says Diggle, if banks had been less forgiving, then the proportion of mortgages currently in arrears of three months or more would probably be around 5-6%. That’s “in line with the peak reached in the 1990s.”
In other words, if the banks decide it’s “no more Mr Nice Guy”, then the UK property market could run into some serious turbulence in the months ahead. And this crackdown on interest-only might be the signal that forbearance is at an end.
After all, who are likely to be your riskiest mortgage customers? The ones on interest-only deals. If you can offload these people on to another lender while the going is good – or even repossess their home while the market is still defying gravity – then maybe that’s starting to look attractive to the banks.
Of course, if the banks kick off another downward turn in the housing market, pushing prices lower, it’ll hurt them too. But that’s how a banking crisis plays out – in fits and starts. The next dip in the rollercoaster could be right ahead of us.
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/property/uk/what-the-new-lending-crackdown-means-for-uk-house-prices-20800
The thing about chaos is, it's fair.
0
Comments
-
hopefully i would be able to buy a house outright for 12k or underI owe £3233 @ 0%0
-
hopefully i would be able to buy a house outright for 12k or under
Did you mean £120K? Yes in many parts of the country.
I can see the average house price staying around £150-£160 for the next 10yrs or so. This would constitue a big house price crash in real terms.The thing about chaos is, it's fair.0 -
Joker by name joker by nature
House prices are the engine of the economy0 -
moneyinmypocket wrote: »Joker by name joker by nature
House prices are the engine of the economy
That is what is so worrying about the property bear market.
Dont shoot the messenger just read the article.The thing about chaos is, it's fair.0 -
Not my words, but Dom Frizby says
"In other words, if the banks decide it’s “no more Mr Nice Guy”, then the UK property market could run into some serious turbulence in the months ahead. And this crackdown on interest-only might be the signal that forbearance is at an end.
After all, who are likely to be your riskiest mortgage customers? The ones on interest-only deals. If you can offload these people on to another lender while the going is good – or even repossess their home while the market is still defying gravity – then maybe that’s starting to look attractive to the banks."
-
There is no doubt the banks are now saying no more Mr nice Guy.The thing about chaos is, it's fair.0 -
Not my words, but Dom Frizby says
Is that the same Dom Frizby who is considering buying a house?
The same Dom Frizby who has given all that wonderful investment advice involving gold and silver, but is too skint to afford anything more than renting a small flat in South London?
:rotfl:0 -
Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »Is that the same Dom Frizby who is considering buying a house?
The same Dom Frizby who has given all that wonderful investment advice involving gold and sliver, but is too skint to afford anything more than renting a small flat in South London?
:rotfl:
Yes the same Dom Frizby who said buy gold and silver when they were much much lower prices thn they are today. Yes he still says buy gold and silver the prices are going much much higher. Only time will tell if he continues to be right as he has been so far.
He just wanted to stir things up and get people talking by saying he was considering selling some gold and silver and buying a house. He certainly did get people talking.
But he is very clear that he thinks property will go much lower yet, and gold and silver will go a lot higher yet.
He says here that property priced in gold has crashed around 80% and still has further to crash.
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/property/uk/uk-house-prices-valued-in-gold-20700
"In gold terms, UK housing has fallen by just over 78% from its high of 725 ounces in 2005 to 156 ounces in January. It is below its lows of the early 1990s, but has not yet reached its lows of the early 1980s or 1930s (50-100 ounces for the average UK house) - where, by the way, I am convinced it will be in a few years’ time."
-
He has been right up to now, will he continue to be? Will average house be worth the same as 50 oz og Gold and 500 oz of silver? I say yes, what do you say Sibley? (Sorry mrpicklepants)
What do you think the ratio will go down to? Do you think 100oz of gold to buy an average house? Or do you think the same as Hamish keeps saying that the ratio will not go any lower and it has bottomed?
Hamish keeps being wrong, as gold keeps going higher, so can Hamish and the other Property bulls continue being so wrong and Dom Frizby and the other property bears and PM buls keep being so right?The thing about chaos is, it's fair.0 -
House prices are only going ONE WAY - UP!Bringing Happiness where there is Gloom!0
-
He has been right up to now, will he continue to be? Will average house be worth the same as 50 oz og Gold and 500 oz of silver? I say yes, what do you say Sibley? (Sorry mrpicklepants)
Well smilver, (sorry hardassets)(sorry The_Joker)
I haven't been following the gold price to be honest.
I get paid in fiat currency, buy my spuds in fiat currency and bought my house in fiat currency. And if I sell it on, I will want fiat currency for it also.
I just thought Dom Frisby, the gold guru who always gets it spot on, would be a bit wealthier. That's all.0 -
House prices are only going ONE WAY - UP!
Well that is a sound well reasoned argument. Such logic and well thought out facts
Not.
The funny thing is I agree with you. Property 'prices' may go up a little more over the next several yrs, but not as much as real inflation.
What do you think Mr Ree, average property valued in gold, will the ratio go lower or do you think this is the bottom?
When 100 oz gold are worth the same as an average house I will be happy to revive this thread. If Hamish doesnt get it deleated because it shows up how wrong he is.The thing about chaos is, it's fair.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards